rosuna Posted September 20, 2006 Share #21 Posted September 20, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) They looked at a 50mm f2 ASPH but decided the image quality was not sufficiently improved to justify the expense. As for the Noctilux, it occupies a unique position but I can't see how it can be updated, especially since it is less useful on an M8 than a film camera. Right. The study was led by Peter Karbe in 1989 (LFI 4/2006), and it was employed in the design of the 50/1,4 ASPH. Now the situation may be different and a new, revised 50/2 ASPH could make sense. A better performer and smaller -this is important- design could be achieved. The Noctilux is a symbol for the Leica M system. It is an expensive lens, but it is selling well from 1976 (several "versions" of the same basic design). A new design would allow for improved performance (more resolution and contrast, less vigneting, better performance stopped down) and a smaller size, using aespheric lenses. It would be a great demonstration of Leica capabilities. Whether Leica does not updates this design Zeiss could try... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Hi rosuna, Take a look here 24 or 28mm on the M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted September 20, 2006 Share #22 Posted September 20, 2006 I use the "original" 1.25 magnifier and diopters, no problems. However I'm not 100% certain about the correction lenses listed for the M8. As discussed in another thread they have a different catalog number and price from previous lists but are described as also being suitable for earlier M series. It's been suggested the packaging/presentation of the originals may have changed resulting in new numbers. Bob. I haven't tried any correction lenses on the M8 but, as mentioned in the review, I did try the 1.25X magnifier and it worked fine. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted September 20, 2006 Share #23 Posted September 20, 2006 I haven't tried any correction lenses on the M8 but, as mentioned in the review, I did try the 1.25X magnifier and it worked fine. Cheers, Sean That's good news, thank you The correction lens screws into the rear of the magnifier so that's answered the original question. If the "old" magnifier works on the M8 then it should work in conjunction with the correction lens. It's a bit of a hassle to have to take the correction lens off the camera, put it on the magnifier and then put the magnifier on the camera. Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcemanYQQ Posted September 20, 2006 Share #24 Posted September 20, 2006 Is a 24/2 really going to be that big? I have a Nikon AI 24mm/2, and it's not that big a lens. It only takes 52mm filters, and if anything it will be a little smaller because of the difference in distance to film plane. I realize it would be slightly larger than a 35mm Summilux, but I imagine it would still be smaller than the noctilux. It would certainly cost a great deal more, but I would also imagine it would provide better image quality, especially wide open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchell Posted September 20, 2006 Share #25 Posted September 20, 2006 Thanks Bob and Sean. That's good news. Mitchell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted September 21, 2006 Share #26 Posted September 21, 2006 When anyone figures out how to properly 6-bit code the rear flange of the 25mm Biogon AND cause it to invoke the 24mm frame on the M8, please broadcast your discovery. Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billh Posted September 22, 2006 Share #27 Posted September 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) That's a tough call but yes, the 24 does feel to me more like a 35 on film. But I also may influenced by the fact that I've come to really like the 32 EFOV (which I get on the R-D1 with a 21). Cheers, Sean http://www.dpreview.com/articles/leicam8/page4.asp 21 x 1.33 = 28 mm 24 x 1.33 = 32 mm 35 x 1.33 = 46.5 mm 50 x 1.33 = 66.5 mm 75 x 1.33 = 100 mm Both the 50 (and particularly) the 75 mm frame look really tiny to me. That is a shame because the APO 75 is an incredible lens (which is why the Puts comparison to the Canon zoom was so disappointing). I love my 0.85 viewfinder and hope they will soon release at least an equivalent. Perhaps it will be retrofittable... When looking at the frame lines, I see there is space outside the 24mm frame. I will try the 21 ASPH (which I use more then any other lens on the Epson). I understand the MTF curves will soon be available on Leica’s site. It will be interesting to compare them to the 28 Summicron and the 24 f2.8. Sean does bring up a good point about the 24mm = 32 mm being quite useful. Besides the comparable image quality question (how do these four lenses compare to each other, as well as is the sensor a limiting factor, meaning is one as good as the other on the M8), what do the out of focus areas look like with these cameras? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted September 22, 2006 Share #28 Posted September 22, 2006 The 21mm on the Epson is giving you 32mm equivalent angle of view, the same as the 24mm on the M8. Seems to me the viewfinder magnifier is going to be worth using for 50, 75 and 90mm, with 24, 28, 35 "native" and the aux finder for 16, 18, 21mm. BTW, it's pointless quoting effective field lengths to even 1, still less 2 decimal places as Sean does in his article. The focal lengths of lenses are not accurate to 1 part in, say, 3500 and the focal length changes slightly according to focussing distance. Just round to the nearest mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 22, 2006 Share #29 Posted September 22, 2006 The 21mm on the Epson is giving you 32mm equivalent angle of view, the same as the 24mm on the M8. Seems to me the viewfinder magnifier is going to be worth using for 50, 75 and 90mm, with 24, 28, 35 "native" and the aux finder for 16, 18, 21mm. BTW, it's pointless quoting effective field lengths to even 1, still less 2 decimal places as Sean does in his article. The focal lengths of lenses are not accurate to 1 part in, say, 3500 and the focal length changes slightly according to focussing distance. Just round to the nearest mm. Hi Mark, If desired, one can also use the magnifier for the 35 mm lens (if he or she wants to work with a .85 mag). As for the decimals, I just do the math. Readers are welcome to round as they see fit. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manolo Posted September 22, 2006 Share #30 Posted September 22, 2006 Sean, If I understand it correctly: if one uses the 1.25 magnifier on the M8, it would be easier to focus from 35 to 90 but it would not be possible to focus from 28 down? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted September 22, 2006 Share #31 Posted September 22, 2006 Sean, If I understand it correctly: if one uses the 1.25 magnifier on the M8, it would be easier to focus from 35 to 90 but it would not be possible to focus from 28 down? Sure you could focus fine. But you wouldnt be able to see the edge of the frame. Plus you don't need the increased accuracy that the magnifier would provide. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manolo Posted September 22, 2006 Share #32 Posted September 22, 2006 Thank you Rex, do you think you could get used to guessing the framing on the 28 if you don't get to see the lines or at least not completely? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manolo Posted September 22, 2006 Share #33 Posted September 22, 2006 I am thinking that on the DMR it is important to see outside of the frame; so it is probably best to use the 28 without the magnifier Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted September 23, 2006 Share #34 Posted September 23, 2006 I have been struggling over the same decision on whether to get a 24 or 28 in order to recover the 35 mm equiv. focal length. I have gotten so used to the simple viewfinder frame lines in my M5, that Andy Piper's comments made the decision for me. 28 it is, so that I don't confuse the frame lines of the 24 with my 35 by accident. This thread really brought that decision home, now I just need to decide 2.0 or 2.8 . Best, Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 23, 2006 Share #35 Posted September 23, 2006 28 it is, so that I don't confuse the frame lines of the 24 with my 35 by accident. This thread really brought that decision home, now I just need to decide 2.0 or 2.8 . Best, Ray It is my case too. I am waiting to see the first review of the new 28/2.8 ASPH. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted September 23, 2006 Share #36 Posted September 23, 2006 Thank you Rex, do you think you could get used to guessing the framing on the 28 if you don't get to see the lines or at least not completely? No, because its hard to quess something that you can't see. With the RD1 you can keep both eyes open and it works because of the one to one viewfinder. What you can do is use the VC 28-35mm minifinder. I will probably leave the minifinder permantly mounted in the hotshoe of my M8. That way I will be covered from 21mm to telephoto. I do the sane thing with the RD1 and it works well. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted September 23, 2006 Share #37 Posted September 23, 2006 I'm looking into an M8 and am seriously considering the 24. I agree with Sean in that the 32mm lens equivalent could be very seductive. I've used both the 28mm and 35mm lenses on an M6 in the past. And often the 28mm FOV was TOO wide for my tastes and while the 35mm (which I used as my 'normal' lens) too narrow. But I think the real killer lenses with the M8 may turn out to be the 50mm either in Summilux form or it's Noctilux variant. At 66mm equivalent, the 50's may turn out to be a really incredible for portraiture. With the drawing ability of the summilux bringing out awesome detail (maybe TOO much detail for some subjects) and the Noctilux providing very subtle bokeh due to it's very narrow DOF. The long overlooked 75mm lens may also benefit from renewed interest due to it's 99mm equivalency. My only problem (not having tried it so this is only from photos of the finder) is that the frame lines and patch may be too small and require some extra special attention like one would have to do with the 135 telyt. P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsh Posted September 23, 2006 Share #38 Posted September 23, 2006 At present, I have the 24, 35 Summicron Asph, 50 Summluux Asph, 50 Noctilux, 75 Summicron and 90 Elmarit. I will wait to see how these lenses work, as I do not really want to purchase new lenses. A more difficult decision is whether or not to sell the MP .85. I plan to mothball the M5's and the MP, but maybe someone would enjoy using the MP. I do not need to sell, nor do I really want to sell. I only use it with the 75. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 23, 2006 Share #39 Posted September 23, 2006 Sean, If I understand it correctly: if one uses the 1.25 magnifier on the M8, it would be easier to focus from 35 to 90 but it would not be possible to focus from 28 down? As Rex mentioned below, one can't see the frame lines for lenses wider than 35mm when the magnifier is mounted. I myself would tend to use it only for 50mm and longer lenses. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.