Philippe D. Posted March 3, 2009 Share #81 Posted March 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I didn't specifically check this but IIRC 24/35 is correct. It's 50/75, like the original Distagon ZM. That's perfect. Code is 110100, works very well. Thanx again Leica ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Hi Philippe D., Take a look here Leica m 3.8/18 super-elmar. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
RockyIII Posted April 23, 2009 Share #82 Posted April 23, 2009 As I understand it, you can fit an IR filter glass into the lens hood, similar to the 21 and 24 Summiuluxes. The filter adapter is used if you want to fit other filters. The part no for the IR filter glass is 13422, for the filter holder, it's 14484. Does anybody know if the 14484 filter holder, for say a polarizing filter, can be mounted on the front of the 13422 UV/IR filter? Rocky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted April 26, 2009 Share #83 Posted April 26, 2009 Rocky: As mentioned here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/83391-super-elmar-18-uv-ir-filter.html The front of the Leica 18mm lens, and also its dedicated IR filter, are threaded with a male 58mm thread. You can mount anything with a 58mm thread on the lens or on the filter - but reversed. The lens shade will mount on either the lens directly or on the filter on the lens. It seems like the 14484 holder should work the same way - if it fits the lens alone, it will also fit on the Leica IR filter 13422. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyIII Posted April 28, 2009 Share #84 Posted April 28, 2009 Thanks for the information Adan. I also contacted Leica and received the following reply: The adapter uses the same thread as the shade so technically it will attach to the front of the UV/IR filter the same way. There doesn’t appear to be any issue with possible vignetting. The factory however does not describe this combination in their technical data. Rocky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepiareverb Posted July 26, 2009 Share #85 Posted July 26, 2009 [ATTACH]129910[/ATTACH]/QUOTE] It would seem that this might prevent any direct mounting of a filter directly to the lens however. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 27, 2009 Share #86 Posted July 27, 2009 Why should the Super-Elmar need a 77mm filter size for complete coverage, when the Zeiss Distagon does very well with 58mm? Can the speed increase from f:4 to 3.8 really have such a price? I feel the burning smell of bad engineering -- meaning engineering without regard for the user. The old man from the Age of A36 fFilters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 27, 2009 Share #87 Posted July 27, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sepiareverb: correct - in that the front element sticks out quite far - but one can reverse-mount an EMPTY 58mm filter ring on the 18 as a spacer to clear the protruding glass, and then reverse-mount a 58mm filter on the empty ring. Or do as I did, mount a 55-58 stepup ring backwards, and then reverse-mount a 55mm IR filter. (Ultimately - I gave up my 18mm after a couple of weeks for reasons that have to do with my shooting preferences, not the quality of the lens. I still prefer the drawing of the older, lower-contrast, greener Mandler lenses, and I found that I was constantly wanting either a wider field of view or a faster wideangle. So I went back to the 15 Cosina + a 21 Elmarit. As I said, my preference, not anything technically wrong with the 18.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted July 27, 2009 Share #88 Posted July 27, 2009 Why should the Super-Elmar need a 77mm filter size for complete coverage, when the Zeiss Distagon does very well with 58mm? Can the speed increase from f:4 to 3.8 really have such a price? I feel the burning smell of bad engineering -- meaning engineering without regard for the user. The old man from the Age of A36 fFilters Well, I really would prefer not to differ from Lars Bergquist's point of view, for what I have since read from him makes me regard him as one of the most experienced and trustworthiest members of this whole forum. But - from what I can see and hold in my hands with the new 3.8/18 lens, it's 58mm UV/IR-filter and lenshood, i can only say that it is the best lens/filter/hood construction i have yet seen and touched on any lens: the well-built metal hood is completely stabile, though unobtrusive, much, much better than those for the 35mm Summilux or the 28-Summicron. You don't even notice that you have a filter in between it and the lens. M8 user's are optimally regarded for - if you do not mention the filter's price of 165,- €... What i still don't know is, wether there will be a vignetting problem, if you use this combination on 24x36 film (my first tests aren't devellopped yet - i will show what i get). If there is no vignetting problem, the only problem remaining will be the industry not offering other filters (UVa - non IR, yellow etc.) with this construction. I am rather sure Leica and also BW will do so when they hear that there is a demand for it (though the price will remain to be "sportive"...). If there should be vignetting on "full-format" this would be a pity and give some justification for calling it "bad engineering", though the 77mm- filter will still give you a solution for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 28, 2009 Share #89 Posted July 28, 2009 I understand that the thing will indeed create hard vignetting when used with a full frame camera. Hence the monstrous 77mm 'Frankenfilter' adapter. So I insist: This is bad engineering. Even worse, it is confused thinking. I bought my Distagon before the Super Elmar existed, but I would still go that way today, I'm sorry to say. The old man from the Age of A36 Filters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted August 2, 2009 Share #90 Posted August 2, 2009 I understand that the thing will indeed create hard vignetting when used with a full frame camera. Lars is right: the 58-mm UV/IR-Filter causes hard vignetting when you use the lens on film. Hence the monstrous 77mm 'Frankenfilter' adapter. Can anybody show how the adapter for 77-mm filters looks like? I insist: This is bad engineering. Even worse, it is confused thinking. I hope Mark Norton won't read this, for he says, the filter-hood-construction was his idea: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/93700-m9-m10-full-frame-why-buy-2.html#post981845 Anyway i insist that the construction is a very good idea and excellent engineering - but only for the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyIII Posted August 2, 2009 Share #91 Posted August 2, 2009 Can anybody show how the adapter for 77-mm filters looks like? Here it is by itself and mounted on the lens: http://www.adorama.com/images/large/LC14484.JPG Leica 18mm f/3.8 ASPH Rocky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 2, 2009 Share #92 Posted August 2, 2009 My 18mm Distagon works perfectly with its standard 58mm filter on my M4-P. No vignetting. I stand vindicated ... Now of course rumours are circulating that a M9 release is impending. And the rumours say that the new model won't need external IR/UV filtering. In that case of course the Frankenfilter holder will be relegated to the sidelines. I have no ideas whatever about how this has been done --- if there is anything in the rumours of course. But they just may come true in one or two years' time. The old man from the Age of A36 Filters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 2, 2009 Share #93 Posted August 2, 2009 I hope Mark Norton won't read this, for he says, the filter-hood-construction was his idea... The confused thinking was Leica's, not mine!! The reason we were able to use a 49mm filter on the WATE as compared with the standard 67mm is because we accepted hard vignetting on a FF camera - this is an IR filter for the M8 don't forget - and mounted the filter as close as possible to the front lens element at the most critical focal length, 16mm. In the WATE, the front element moves forwards as you zoom out and the key requirement was not to have the front element strike the back of the filter at any point. The Super-Elmar is not as wide as the WATE can go but the filter is mounted rather further forwards that it needs to be which calls in turn for a larger diameter filter than the WATE needs. It's clear that neither filter solution will work on FF and we will then be back to either using no filter at all (if they've really cracked the IR problem) or the horrible filter adapters with peep holes... I think the Super-Elmar is a great lens but I would have preferred them to use a 60mm filter glass mounted as far back as possible, like the 21mm Summilux. Haven't done the maths but I think that would work, even on FF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted August 3, 2009 Share #94 Posted August 3, 2009 The vignetting on film with the super elmar and the Leica uv/ir filer is quite significant. I have some test shots at home that I can post later if anyone is interested. I like the lens a lot, but the hood cap is a joke. Look at it and it falls off the hood. It is even worse than the one on the 35/2. Sadly, the designs possibly the worst one for any of my lenses. - Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.