Matching focus calibration between bodies and lenses

[F456]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apologies if this is an oft-raised topic and a longer post than optimal but I have not managed to get clear answers on the following over the years... but now I have joined this forum I know things will come right!

I have a few M-series film bodies, older such as M3 and M4 plus newer such as M7 0.85x v/f and MP black paint. Also lenses: 35/2 v4 thru late 90s/early 00s mk.1 ASPH designs. My longer lenses now above 50/1.4 ASPH are 90/2 v2, 90/2.8 E46, 135/4 E46, lateish copies w/ serial nos from 35----- to 37-----.

The problem of rangefinder mechanisms going out of adjustment has happened to me from time to time: once when I dropped a body in the British Museum and it landed flat on its back. Nothing at all damaged, no sign of scratching, dents etc, and optics all perfectly fine except that predictably from the sudden sharp shock the focusing was out and needed a trip to Leica (who still had an outpost in MIlton Keynes, which made for a quick same day turnround through a trip in person down the motorway). That was to be expected.

Other times the drifting of calibration has just crept in somehow or other, sometimes vertical, sometimes horizontal, sometimes probably both and it makes me nervous of the inevitable bumps and vibrations of normal western travel. 

So here are two questions:

1).In your experience how far does car travel with the items in a Billingham bag and on typical British roads (i.e. not as smooth surfaced as they could be in many cases as even the motorways can be bumpy when constructed in sections with small gaps between every 50 yards or so, and there are a lot of bumpier town and minor roads) affect the rangefinder adjustment? Am I becoming unnecessarily fussy because probably some of you are undertaking much rougher journeys, maybe on heavily vibrating motorcycles, and yet experiencing few problems? 

2). As far as rectifying focusing inaccuracies goes, especially with fast or longer lenses, is it true that the adjustment of the lenses is also variable? And if so is it rarer for the lenses to go out of calibration than the bodies? I have read that especially with the longer lenses they need to be matched by the service technician to the body. Is that typical or is it expected to be sufficient just to get the body that is clearly out recalibrated and then the lens in most circs will deliver the goods without adjustment? My experience in 2008-10 using two new M8s led me never to go down the digital route with the M-series again as I was unable to get correct focus with my 75 Summilux (fine on film) or 90 Summicron (also fine on film). 35/1.4 ASPH Summilux (first type with reported back focus issues) by comparison was spot on at full aperture.

Hopefully I am just too sensitive regarding qu.1 and maybe I shall hear that usually lenses don't need recalibrating regarding qu.2. Your experience will be appreciated.

Edited March 8 by F456
typos

[250swb]

Lenses (of any focal length) should never be matched to the body, and likewise bodies should never be matched to a lens.

I've not had any problems with vibrations making the rangefinder go out of adjustment but I use the same common sense that I'd use with any camera where they all travel in a bag.

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

When Leica calibrates lenses and bodies they do it to specific tolerances for each, they do not calibrate the two together. The one time I needed a lens just calibrated (I have had other lenses calibrated as part of a service/repair), Leica Mayfair asked for the body just to check that the problem was with the lens, not the body - correctly IMO, they do not trust the owner's assessment. They sent only the lens to Wetzlar.

[F456]

Thank you both, 250swb and LocalHero1953.  Those are reassuring answers.  I did lose faith when both my new MPs (film) were out of adjustment from the factory. They have since been put straight and I am now enjoying them and hope to put QC issues of the past behind me.

[spydrxx]

For years I was occasionally frustrated with my bodies falling out of alignment with seasonal changes. As it turned out yes, occasionally they needed a touch up, but mostly it was a function of my visual changes as age crept upon me. Nevertheless I do check infinity alignment on all RF bodies once each year. Never had to have a (Leica) lens aligned though.

[F456]

I have recognized ageing eyesight as a factor too. At present on the bodies that I know are calibrated correctly I am OK with either a +2 dioptre screw-in lens or wearing my specs. Specs make framing hard with 35 & 50 (my favourites) but for the wider lenses I use the accessory finders which curiously make my shooting experience feel simpler not fiddlier! 90 & 135: I can see their frames with specs on but the 135 always was a bit tricky to focus spot on. So I tend to use a reflex F6 with 135/2D AF-DC Nikkor for that focal length with defocus control set to zero, especially in lower light or when quick reactions are needed: sport, animals, children. It does make life easier but for wide to standard Leica M works well for me still. 

Edited March 8 by F456

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been using Leica M models since 1968, and have M2,3,4,5,6,9,&10 (and film CL). The M9 is the only body that ever "drifted" or went out of RF calibration. However, a couple of the film bodies came back from CLA service with the RF slightly off, and needed correction. However, I don't uses lenses that are super critical on focus (combination of max aperture and focal length). I do use f1.4 35 & 50 lenses, but 90 f2.8 & 135 f4. I do a lot of available light work so may use them wide open, but generally prefer images stopped-down, so I may not be as critical and many users.

[Al Brown]

6 hours ago, F456 said:

1).In your experience how far does car travel with the items in a Billingham bag and on typical British roads (i.e. not as smooth surfaced as they could be in many cases as even the motorways can be bumpy when constructed in sections with small gaps between every 50 yards or so, and there are a lot of bumpier town and minor roads) affect the rangefinder adjustment? Am I becoming unnecessarily fussy because probably some of you are undertaking much rougher journeys, maybe on heavily vibrating motorcycles, and yet experiencing few problems? 

It took mine a round trip of about 2357 km around Ireland in a Hadley to go out of adjustments. Not Britain, sorry, but I was in Northern Ireland as well so the answer kind of counts.

[jaeger]

The RF will never go “occasionally” out of alignment.  The focus system is a simple but military grade mechanics between the body and the lens.  
 

[Jeff S]

Regarding eyeglasses, I use thin, flexible frames, and scratch resistant lenses, that allow me to press tightly against the VF.  The glasses remain on at all times, to correct for astigmatism as well as distance (and sunglasses for light sensitivity and glare). 
 

With aging eyes, optimal viewing and focusing are now provided by also adding a +.5 diopter, which I tested at my local optician using their free trial diopters. 
 

I have no problem seeing 35 or 50mm frame lines, despite using both glasses and diopter.

Jeff

 

Edited March 8 by Jeff S

[dpitt]

Occasionally I have bought an old vintage lens that is out of alignment. A simple CLA fixed that most of the time. I think that I did not really have one "going" out of alignment on me yet. Nor an M camera going out of alignment.

Maybe I am a very gentle user. I do not know. My gear is never carried on motor bike or bicycle. It has never traveled by airplane unless in hand luggage. And it has traveled lots of miles by car. We nearly always do car vacations doing 3K+ km on a trip on average. I avoid putting it "naked' in a trunk, always in a bigger backpack or padded photo bag, and we do not do off road trips.

Also, I never dropped, not even bumped my gear significantly yet... Although I must say that I often just carry it in a coat pocket when on a city trip.

It helps when there never is any pressure to get a shot. If I was a pro, I would probably have to take more risk sometimes, and maybe the situation would be different.
YMMV

[jaapv]

8 hours ago, F456 said:

I have read that especially with the longer lenses they need to be matched by the service technician to the body.

Incorrect. Both bodies and lenses are adjusted to a common standard. The only thing one could do is tolerance matching.

[darylgo]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Incorrect. Both bodies and lenses are adjusted to a common standard. The only thing one could do is tolerance matching.

Wouldn't that be the same as adjusting to the body?

I remember Josh at Leica Store Miami saying on a youtube presentation the 75mm Noctilux is his standard for correct focus with M bodies, it is the best adjusted lens he has found.  I had the same experience, the lens is dead on accurate at f1.2.  I think there's more to this adjustment process, a lens I sent to DAG came back focusing poorly, when I told him about this he said he will make it work without the need for the body indicating there are two common adjustments set points, he would switch it to the other and it was perfect when returned. 

 

[adan]

33 minutes ago, darylgo said:

Wouldn't that be the same as adjusting to the body?

Who says the body is (and stays) correctly calibrated to the common standard? Especially once it has been out of the factory and in use for a while.

In fact, it is far more likely that the body's sensitive RF mechanism is what gets out of whack - it is made up of moving levers and springs and such, while lenses are simply solid brass-on-brass threads that are hard to decalibrate - except during factory assembly.

 

[Michael Geschlecht]

11 hours ago, spydrxx said:

For years I was occasionally frustrated with my bodies falling out of alignment with seasonal changes. As it turned out yes, occasionally they needed a touch up, but mostly it was a function of my visual changes as age crept upon me. Nevertheless I do check infinity alignment on all RF bodies once each year. Never had to have a (Leica) lens aligned though.

Hello spydrxx,

No need for a special set-up once a year.

You can test your cameras/lenses for Infinity alignment on any clear night of the year when enough of the Moon is visible.

Best Regards,

Michael

[F456]

18 hours ago, Al Brown said:

It took mine a round trip of about 2357 km around Ireland in a Hadley to go out of adjustments. Not Britain, sorry, but I was in Northern Ireland as well so the answer kind of counts.

This is reassuring info; and I'm guilty of using the word Britain loosely instead of UK. Wrongly I know!

While I'm very fond of Leica and find M cameras far faster handling than say a Nikon F3 or FM2 I have had rangefinder calibration go out a couple of times from no obvious cause (OK I did drop one hard once, and to the camera's credit that was the only thing that went wrong - no marks etc to tell the story) but the unexplained 'disalignments' did shake my confidence to the extent that I took an F3 instead of an M on a tour of Hungary in the 1990s. It got me great pictures but I did curse the SLR way of focusing with the wide angle - much slower than an M, while my tele shots (105/2.5 AiS) were that much easier, though there wasn't much in it really.

[F456]

8 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello spydrxx,

No need for a special set-up once a year.

You can test your cameras/lenses for Infinity alignment on any clear night of the year when enough of the Moon is visible.

Best Regards,

Michael

I may be wrong and I expect infinity alignment is a sure check most of the time, but Cameraworks UK tells me that it isn't quite that simple. I don't remember their explanation but it made sense at the time! 

[F456]

18 hours ago, jaeger said:

The RF will never go “occasionally” out of alignment.  The focus system is a simple but military grade mechanics between the body and the lens.  
 

I like to hear that but what I think is safe to say in my case anyway is that I have once or twice had my first M6 (1991 purchase new) go out of adjustment: it was very noticeable with the 90/2 v2. They both had been working fine for some time, used in dusk conditions focusing on eyes at full aperture, but without any harsh treatment or impacts something caused it to need attention. But of course I can't account for what it was; perhaps somebody messed about with the camera while it was out of its bag at home etc....  

Again without knowing the previous history, a lot of Ms for sale pre-owned have out of adjustment rangefinders that otherwise show signs of careful handling, and I have heard some London dealers admit that it is a known problem.

Still, great cameras most of the time!

[F456]

19 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

I've been using Leica M models since 1968, and have M2,3,4,5,6,9,&10 (and film CL). The M9 is the only body that ever "drifted" or went out of RF calibration. However, a couple of the film bodies came back from CLA service with the RF slightly off, and needed correction. However, I don't uses lenses that are super critical on focus (combination of max aperture and focal length). I do use f1.4 35 & 50 lenses, but 90 f2.8 & 135 f4. I do a lot of available light work so may use them wide open, but generally prefer images stopped-down, so I may not be as critical and many users.

Thanks for this; my experience in some ways is a bit similar. The most discouraging thing was receiving 3 MPs just before the 2020 lockdown (ordered nearly a year earlier) only to find that 2 of them had calibration very obviously out straight out of the box! They have since been put right and at last I am enjoying them!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[F456]

17 hours ago, jaapv said:

Incorrect. Both bodies and lenses are adjusted to a common standard. The only thing one could do is tolerance matching.

Thank you; that's what I had originally assumed. Thanks to joining this forum I am able to jettison some of the incorrect 'wisdom' picked up along the way  over the last 33 years of mainly happy shooting with the M system.