I thought I was getting the hang of the rangefinder but ...

[Herman Zhang]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, strangeboy said:

Well, full disclosure: When I got my first rangefinder (Leica M-E), I spent about an hour on the lakefront, making photographs... with the lens cap still on 😬. You're gonna be fine!

How? you have the lightmeter to remind you about the underexposure caused by the cap.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[FlickM]

12 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

Can you show us a picture of your lens, so that we can see just how “old” it is, from the 1930’s to the 1960’s. Your pictures look fine to me, but an old Elmar will not have the same look as a modern multicoated lens. Focussing might have something to do with the  smoothness of the focussing or the distance you have to turn the focussing relative to the focussing range.

I think it's a more recent one. Pic below. I'd be interested to know its age. BTW, I chose this lens, having looked at lots of sample images online, because it doesn't have that modern digitally sharp look. I think @dpitt has solved it for me. The head of the lens was not totally tight. I might have loosened it myself when working out which ring  did what. All is now fine - but do please tell me if you know the rough age of the lens. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pippy]

According to the serial number, Flick, it dates to circa 1954;

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Leitz_lens_serial_numbers

Happy shooting!

Philip.

 

[FlickM]

11 hours ago, dpitt said:

Indeed, these are fine, maybe because of good PP. You should maybe have shown us the bad ones

Yes, i applied a little texture and clarity and a bit more sharpening than usual

In fact, moving your head can be easier to critically focus at close distance than turning the focus ring.

Absolutely this, i discovered that a couple of weeks ago when i first got the camera.
 

Maybe you have some form of astigmatism, like me, and a diopter correction can not fully fix that. I do not bother with that,  I just use glasses that are sharp at 2m distance for me. That is an unusual distance to tweak glasses for, so your optician might frown if you ask for that... But when I found the correct glasses to use, my focusing was better than ever again

Yes I do. I've never been able to tolerate the correction. The optician was brilliant when i recently had my eyes tested: she took it to the edge of where I could see clearly but began to feel nauseous and disorientated and worked out a compromise for the contacts, and we'll see if I can cope. I cannot wear glasses for photography BTW: I can be out hours and take a lot of photos, I can't walk with reading glasses on and I can't be taking them on and off. I'm fine with the diopter adjustment on my Fujifilm X-T5, just the one I've got on the M262 isn't quite strong enough, but I manage in good light. Hopefully the progressive contacts will be the answer.  
 

 Make sure it is screwed in tight, because the Elmars have heads that can be detached for use with the visoflex. I suppose your technique is good enough to hold the lens with your focusing hand when shooting.

You are a genius! It was that! I've made sure it's tight, and now it's fine. I couldn't work out why I could see pretty well to focus with the Voigtlander but not with the Elmar. I probably loosened it myself without realising when i first tried to focus the lens; it resisted to begin with. It's absolutely fine now, I can see to focus as well as I can with the other lens. Thank you so much!!!!

 

[FlickM]

8 minutes ago, pippy said:

According to the serial number, Flick, it dates to circa 1954;

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Leitz_lens_serial_numbers

Happy shooting!

Philip.

 

Ah, fantastic, thanks Philip 😊

[FlickM]

@Herr Barnack @strangeboy @rogxwhit @earleygallery @IkarusJohn @Pyrogallol @pippy (did I forget anyone?) thank you all so much for your kind responses. @dpitt had the solution: the head of the lens was not quite tight enough. I couldn't understand why I could focus my Voigtlander 40mm F2.8 Heliar but not the Elmar. I did know from internet research that the head of the lens can be removed, but i never thought to check it when I got the lens. You live and learn. You've all been very helpful, and I've learned a lot along the way. Now i can relax, get to know the lens and enjoy its qualities -

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Elmar 90 is one of the Leica classics. Leica Elmar 90 LTM version I Early versions date back to around 1930. LTM lenses can also be used with a simple adapter, and some produce stunning results.
BTW:
Take care when cleaning the front element of this lens, the coatings at that time were quite soft. Blower only if possible. Best to always have a UV filter on once you have a clean one without to many cleaning marks.

Have a look at the Summar 50, it is kind of a 'Summilux avant la lettre' in my opnion. Dreamy results wide open and very advanced at the time. Our wiki is a treasure of info about Leica gear, with links to relevant forum threads, serial numbers, specs...
Enjoy!

Edited February 15, 2024 by dpitt

[FlickM]

16 minutes ago, dpitt said:

The Elmar 90 is one of the Leica classics. Leica Elmar 90 LTM version I Early versions date back to around 1930. LTM lenses can also be used with a simple adapter, and some produce stunning results.
BTW:
Take care when cleaning the front element of this lens, the coatings at that time were quite soft. Blower only if possible. Best to always have a UV filter on once you have a clean one without to many cleaning marks.

Have a look at the Summar 50, it is kind of a 'Summilux avant la lettre' in my opnion. Dreamy results wide open and very advanced at the time. Our wiki is a treasure of info about Leica gear, with links to relevant forum threads, serial numbers, specs...
Enjoy!

Thank you. @pippy says this one is 1954. It's bayonet fitting, not screw. I need to chase up a lens hood for it; it came without caps or hood. I've bought a lens cap. The front element doesn't have any cleaning marks or wear that i can see, and it looks quite well coated (obviously not to modern standards). I dare not look at the Summar 50 just yet 🙈I've spent way too much money already ...

[dpitt]

1 hour ago, FlickM said:

Thank you. @pippy says this one is 1954. It's bayonet fitting, not screw. I need to chase up a lens hood for it; it came without caps or hood. I've bought a lens cap. The front element doesn't have any cleaning marks or wear that i can see, and it looks quite well coated (obviously not to modern standards). I dare not look at the Summar 50 just yet 🙈I've spent way too much money already ...

Yes, indeed your version was in production from 1954 - 1965 in screw as well as bajonet mount (M3 was introduced in 1953), with a few mechanical design variants. The Elmar 90s original design dated from 1930 and continued up to 1965 in various optical tweaks like coatings and glass changes, and of course a lot of outer design differences over that period, including a collapsible version.

[FlickM]

10 minutes ago, dpitt said:

Yes, indeed your version was in production from 1954 - 1965 in screw as well as bajonet mount (M3 was introduced in 1953), with a few mechanical design variants. The Elmar 90s original design dated from 1930 and continued up to 1965 in various optical tweaks like coatings and glass changes, and of course a lot of outer design differences over that period, including a collapsible version.

So interesting - and addictive!

[dpitt]

1 hour ago, FlickM said:

So interesting - and addictive!

Don't mention it. I have quite a few versions of the Elmar 90mm already 😎
But if feel like a beginner compared to some others on this forum.

Edited February 15, 2024 by dpitt

[IkarusJohn]

9 hours ago, FlickM said:

@Herr Barnack @strangeboy @rogxwhit @earleygallery @IkarusJohn @Pyrogallol @pippy (did I forget anyone?) thank you all so much for your kind responses. @dpitt had the solution: the head of the lens was not quite tight enough. I couldn't understand why I could focus my Voigtlander 40mm F2.8 Heliar but not the Elmar. I did know from internet research that the head of the lens can be removed, but i never thought to check it when I got the lens. You live and learn. You've all been very helpful, and I've learned a lot along the way. Now i can relax, get to know the lens and enjoy its qualities -

Not sure I really helped!

There is something special about the legacy lenses.  I have a 135 Elmar, sadly dead (Leica wouldn’t service it).  I do have a Summitar 50/2 from 1948, and it’s nice to use and has swirly bokeh when shot wide open, and a rather nice filmic character.  These lenses are cheap (by Leica standards), and there are lots of them about.  This one is from 1951, and at the top end of the price range.  The lens was made from 1939 to 1953(?) and only in LTM - the Voigthlander adapter is tiny and unobtrusive.

If you look for this lens, there are different versions - the later ones are coated (which is worth getting), and some model years had more aperture blades, giving a round aperture stopped down.  Worth looking out for.

Reasonably priced Leica/Leitz lenses can be a rare item.  Have fun, and keep posting!

Edited February 15, 2024 by IkarusJohn

[FlickM]

23 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Not sure I really helped!

There is something special about the legacy lenses.  I have a 135 Elmar, sadly dead (Leica wouldn’t service it).  I do have a Summitar 50/2 from 1948, and it’s nice to use and has swirly bokeh when shot wide open, and a rather nice filmic character.  These lenses are cheap (by Leica standards), and there are lots of them about.  This one is from 1951, and at the top end of the price range.  The lens was made from 1939 to 1953(?) and only in LTM - the Voigthlander adapter is tiny and unobtrusive.

If you look for this lens, there are different versions - the later ones are coated (which is worth getting), and some model years had more aperture blades, giving a round aperture stopped down.  Worth looking out for.

Reasonably priced Leica/Leitz lenses can be a rare item.  Have fun, and keep posting!

Thanks for this. The lens looks beautiful. My Elmar 90mm was £99 and seems in very good condition, but has no end cap, lens cap or hood. I've picked up a cap and am looking for a hood. TBH, these old lenses are the only way I'm going to be able to afford Leica glass. 

[adan]

A couple of additional tips for RF focusing:

1) regularly check the front flush-mounted RF windows, and the eyepiece, for any finger-prints or nose-prints** or other grunge.

Even the slightest contamination on those windows can degrade the contrast of textures, lines and details you are trying to align using coincident (superimposed) images.

Indeed there are "contrast filters" for the older Leica screw-mount cameras, that make it easier to distinguish and align an "orange image" from one window from/with a "normal colors" image from the other window.

https://plasticphoto.hk/en/products/leica-leitz-orange-rangefinder-contrast-filter-okaro-for-eyepiece-on-l39-cameras

I keep a microfiber lens cloth in my bag mostly to wipe off the M windows whenever the things being aligned start to look faded and vague.

(**I use an external viewfinder in the accessory shoe for a 21mm lens - and Leica's design genius means that when using that viewfinder with my right eye, the tip of my nose goes exactly and precisely into the "normal" eyepiece, leaving nose-grease. 😁)

2) Remember that the Leica M RF patch can actually be used in two ways.

Aligning textures/details "within" the patch (Coincident focusing)

""xx**,,%%

- and aligning 90° lines "across" the crisp edges of the patch (Split-image focusing)

   |               
   | |             
   | |             
   |

The brain can distinguish split lines more precisely than overlapping textures, expecially if the textures are low-contrast (see (1)) or details/textures are too fine to see sharply. Or just generally "noisy" with distracting or repeated details. Although not quite as fast as simply snapping everything in the patch together.

Edited February 15, 2024 by adan

[FlickM]

6 minutes ago, adan said:

A couple of additional tips for RF focusing:

1) regularly check the front flush-mounted RF windows, and the eyepiece, for any finger-prints or nose-prints** or other grunge.

Even the slightest contamination on those windows can degrade the contrast of textures, lines and details you are trying to align using coincident (superimposed) images.

Indeed there are "contrast filters" for the older Leica screw-mount cameras, that make it easier to distinguish and align an "orange image" from one window from/with a "normal colors" image from the other window.

https://plasticphoto.hk/en/products/leica-leitz-orange-rangefinder-contrast-filter-okaro-for-eyepiece-on-l39-cameras

I keep a microfiber lens cloth in my bag mostly to wipe off the M windows whenever the things being aligned start to look faded and vague.

(**I use an external viewfinder in the accessory shoe for a 21mm lens - and Leica's design genius means that when using that viewfinder with my right eye, the tip of my nose goes exactly and precisely into the "normal" eyepiece, leaving nose-grease. 😁)

2) Remember that the Leica M RF patch can actually be used in two ways.

Aligning textures/details "within" the patch (Coincident focusing)

""xx**,,%%

- and aligning 90° lines "across" the crisp edges of the patch (Split-image focusing)

   |               
   | |             
   | |             
   |

The brain can distinguish split lines more precisely than overlapping textures, expecially if the textures are low-contrast (see (1)) or details/textures are too fine to see sharply. Or just generally "noisy" with distracting or repeated details. Although not quite as fast as simply snapping everything in the patch together.

Thank you for this! The contrast filter looks a great idea. And yes, I already have a range of micro fibre cloths in bags, drawers etc. I'm forever wiping the flipping rangefinder and viewfinder windows because, no matter how careful i am, somehow grease gets on them - in fact I'm obsessive about it to the risk of wearing away the coating on the glass. I already experienced these two kinds of focusing, though it was well worth reminding me. Unfortunately some of my subjects haven't had a 90 degree line anywhere near, and that thoroughly confuses my eye - any hints for dealing with that?

meanwhile I'm a) waiting on the contact lenses and b) seeing if I'm too late to return my +2 diopter and get a stronger one. Red Dot Cameras, Manchester, have been very flexible about returning, but I'm not sure if I've missed the return window

[mmradman]

Talking of sharpness did anyone including you mentioned shutter speed, did you hand held or shoot off tripod?

Unless you have steady hand of neurosurgeon unsharp picture can easily result from slow shutter speed. 

[dpitt]

8 hours ago, FlickM said:

Thank you for this! The contrast filter looks a great idea. And yes, I already have a range of micro fibre cloths in bags, drawers etc. I'm forever wiping the flipping rangefinder and viewfinder windows because, no matter how careful i am, somehow grease gets on them - in fact I'm obsessive about it to the risk of wearing away the coating on the glass. I already experienced these two kinds of focusing, though it was well worth reminding me. Unfortunately some of my subjects haven't had a 90 degree line anywhere near, and that thoroughly confuses my eye - any hints for dealing with that?

meanwhile I'm a) waiting on the contact lenses and b) seeing if I'm too late to return my +2 diopter and get a stronger one. Red Dot Cameras, Manchester, have been very flexible about returning, but I'm not sure if I've missed the return window

I am not obsessive about cleaning the RF, but I just treat them like I would any modern hard coated lens. I clean them every few weeks maybe. Wipe with a clean cloth and use lens cleaner fluid on occasion. The spray for my glasses works great too. The RF window gets smeared all the time but I never had so much issues that I it was impossible to focus.

One extra thing. Make sure that you clean the second (and third) window too, and more important is that you keep it free of obstruction !
Putting a finger in front of one of them by accident will stop your ability to focus or at least make it much harder.

And yes, do not worry about budget. Certainly for 50mm and longer, there are lots of gems to be found. 40/50/90/135 mm can be very cheap in Leica terms if you do not want very fast or recent lenses. The wider you go, the more expensive it gets,. 35mm is reasonable, but 28mm and shorter were exceptional in the 50s and 60s, and not very common in the 70s and 80s. So that makes them harder to find and more expensive now.

Before looking at the Summitar. I would go one generation more modern to a Summicron.
The Summicron 50 v1 is a very nice lens and is cheap in Leica terms. Most of them are M bajonet, a few were made in LTM. It has a very soft coating, so finding one with a good front lens is sometimes hard. In any case use it with a UV filter and you are fine.
Look at Ken Rockwell for the classification we mostly use, our wiki is a bit confusing on that point.

IMO, every Leica M owner should own a Summicron or at least have tried one. I have tried them all, and my favorite is v4.
The v1 is the best value for money and it is the the most compact one. I still own it. It was my first Summicron. Many followed later  😎. They are especially addictive.

Edited February 16, 2024 by dpitt

[FlickM]

2 hours ago, dpitt said:

 I clean them every few weeks maybe. 

Oh, gosh, I wipe mine several times a session ...

One extra thing. Make sure that you clean the second (and third) window too, and more important is that you keep it free of obstruction !
Putting a finger in front of one of them by accident will stop your ability to focus or at least make it much harder.

 I clean them all. And I'm embarrassed to say I thought my rangefinder was faulty because it kept going blank and orange 🤦‍♀️

And yes, do not worry about budget. Certainly for 50mm and longer, there are lots of gems to be found. 40/50/90/135 mm can be very cheap in Leica terms if you do not want very fast or recent lenses. The wider you go, the more expensive it gets,. 35mm is reasonable, but 28mm and shorter were exceptional in the 50s and 60s, and not very common in the 70s and 80s. So that makes them harder to find and more expensive now.

I'm happy with old lenses. My first grownup camera in the 70s, a Pentax SV, had an amazingly sharp Super Takumar 55mm 1.8 screw mount lens. We got a 28mm for it later.We thought it was incredibly wide at that time. I actually dislike that focal length, though I have it on my Q2 of course. I like it only slightly more than 35mm, which i actually don't like at all. 

Before looking at the Summitar. I would go one generation more modern to a Summicron.
The Summicron 50 v1 is a very nice lens and is cheap in Leica terms. Most of them are M bajonet, a few were made in LTM. It has a very soft coating, so finding one with a good front lens is sometimes hard. In any case use it with a UV filter and you are fine.
Look at Ken Rockwell for the classification we mostly use, our wiki is a bit confusing on that point.

Thank you for this. I see they can be had for around £500/€580. I'm not sure about this focal length as I have 40mm Voigtlander for the 262, plus I have 50mm for my Fuji X-T5, so I'd be doubling up. 

IMO, every Leica M owner should own a Summicron or at least have tried one. I have tried them all, and my favorite is v4.
The v1 is the best value for money and it is the the most compact one. I still own it. It was my first Summicron. Many followed later  😎. They are especially addictive.

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[FlickM]

10 hours ago, mmradman said:

Talking of sharpness did anyone including you mentioned shutter speed, did you hand held or shoot off tripod?

Unless you have steady hand of neurosurgeon unsharp picture can easily result from slow shutter speed. 

The answer was that the head of the lens wasn't screwed in completely. I got a sharp image yesterday hand holding at 1/30 sec. I've had a lens of around this focal length with every camera pretty much, so know how steady your hand has to be. Though I have to admit this particular lens makes the camera front heavy. But, anyway, the point of the post was that I couldn't see to focus the lens properly - and no wonder as the head of the lens was slightly loose. 

 

Edited February 16, 2024 by FlickM

[dpitt]

13 minutes ago, FlickM said:

 

If you do not really like 35mm on FF, that is a bit like me. I love my Summicron 40 C though. It is for me the perfect compromise lens. And on top of that one of the cheapest and best vintage Summicron's around. I had it modified to bring up 35mm frames on my M9 which works amazingly well, and it sits on my M9 90% of the time.