masjah Posted April 8, 2009 Share #21  Posted April 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) John, Good point! Probably the simple lens formulas do not work too well for this sort of stuff if you are using a retrofocus design wide angle where the lens barrel is considerably longer than the nominal focal length. For the longer lenses the esp. the non telephoto designs like the good old Hector the errors should be pretty small. But as a first estimate it should be acceptable unless you start hitting the "extreme macro" range at say 30cm or less.  My calculations for depth of field etc. also were done using the simple lens formulas and agree with the lens barrel markings remarkably well. See here & here.  Obviously these formulas are no good at all when you get to abberations, curvature of field etc.  Stephen  Stephen, thanks for the pointers to the two sites. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Hi masjah, Take a look here 90/4 Elmarit with Macro Attachment. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tgray Posted April 10, 2009 Share #22 Â Posted April 10, 2009 For the record, I don't think you can even mount any lenses on the adapter that extend past the end of the mounting flange. For example, there was an interference fit between the adapter and my 28/2. I'm sure you could mount any thing longer than 50 though, and others depending on the design. It'd still be pain in the butt to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted April 10, 2009 Share #23 Â Posted April 10, 2009 Why even think of doing so when you can't frame or focus accurately? The macro adapter is for the 90/4 only. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twittle Posted April 10, 2009 Share #24 Â Posted April 10, 2009 For the record, I don't think you can even mount any lenses on the adapter that extend past the end of the mounting flange. For example, there was an interference fit between the adapter and my 28/2. Â Yup. My 35 Lux won't fit, either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twittle Posted April 10, 2009 Share #25 Â Posted April 10, 2009 Why even think of doing so when you can't frame or focus accurately? The macro adapter is for the 90/4 only. Â Just because some people like to do what they're told won't work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted April 10, 2009 Share #26 Â Posted April 10, 2009 Why even think of doing so when you can't frame or focus accurately? The macro adapter is for the 90/4 only. Â Someone had asked if it could be done. The original answer was the same as yours - yes, but why? The corrected answer is "sometimes, but why?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share #27 Â Posted April 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just as a coda to this thread: in the end I bought a set with the goggles at a well known shop in London (that advertises on this site). Â It was a mint copy (probably belonged to someone here). Not had time to really try it out but the close focussing setting really intrigues me. I hope there will be good weather in the garden this weekend! Â LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted April 21, 2009 Share #28  Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) May I know if this Macro lens will work on M8? thanks. Hi Louis and Edward, Yes, very well the couple M8 and M Elmar 90mm macro +macro adapter, a wonderful lens according to me ! Please look at these pictures: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/82859-daisy-spring.html one photo just taken to day with my second M8 Lux 50mm and without the macroadapter we you can have this kind of picture (like a tele) : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/82710-red-yellow-tulips-spring.html 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! Edited April 21, 2009 by Doc Henry Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/81384-904-elmarit-with-macro-attachment/?do=findComment&comment=878216'>More sharing options...
twittle Posted April 22, 2009 Share #29  Posted April 22, 2009 Just as a coda to this thread: in the end I bought a set with the goggles at a well known shop in London (that advertises on this site). It was a mint copy (probably belonged to someone here). Not had time to really try it out but the close focussing setting really intrigues me. I hope there will be good weather in the garden this weekend!  LouisB  Hope you enjoy yours as much as I enjoy mine. Just been shooting with mine, in fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 22, 2009 Share #30 Â Posted April 22, 2009 Â If I understand correctly the only thing the Macro attachment does is bring the lens forward & recalibrate the rangefinder to the shorter focus distance. So the lens remains 90 mm. There is no optics in the Macro attachment between the lens and I guess the rangefinder-cam movement is also just transmitted 1:1. Â Â Actually focal length is defined at the distance where a lens is focussed. So without the attachment the focal length is 90 to 102 mm,rated 90, with the attachment 100 to 112 mm, it would be rated a 100 mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted April 22, 2009 Share #31 Â Posted April 22, 2009 Actually focal length is defined at the distance where a lens is focussed. So without the attachment the focal length is 90 to 102 mm,rated 90, with the attachment 100 to 112 mm, it would be rated a 100 mm. Â That's a bit confusing... ... Â "When a photographic lens is set to infinity, its rear nodal point is separated from the sensor or film, at the focal plane, by the lens's focal length" (Wikipedia) Â A 90 is "always a 90" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted April 22, 2009 Share #32 Â Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Agree, the focal length is carved in stone & does not depend on the actual location of the focal plane (which depends on the object distance). Â The focal length may vary slightly for different parts of the light spectrum, eg. with IR it is often a bit longer. This depends on the amount of correction of chromatic abberation and this is lens specific. See the lower half of the spreadheet (here) to calculate this for an "average" lens. Edited April 22, 2009 by SJP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted April 22, 2009 Share #33  Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) That's a bit confusing... ... "When a photographic lens is set to infinity, its rear nodal point is separated from the sensor or film, at the focal plane, by the lens's focal length" (Wikipedia)  A 90 is "always a 90"    Likewise a "300mm" process lens has the same focal length as a "300mm" general-purpose lens even though the former is designed for close-up use only.  Old front-cell-focussing and modern internal-focus lenses do focus entirely or partly by changing their focal length, but that's another story. Edited April 22, 2009 by giordano clarity Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted April 22, 2009 Share #34  Posted April 22, 2009 Just as a coda to this thread: in the end I bought a set with the goggles at a well known shop in London (that advertises on this site). It was a mint copy (probably belonged to someone here). Not had time to really try it out but the close focussing setting really intrigues me. I hope there will be good weather in the garden this weekend!  LouisB  I think you'll have a lot of fun with it. Even without the goggles, I found it a very versatile lens while traveling. And I've only had it for about 2 weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 22, 2009 Share #35  Posted April 22, 2009 That's a bit confusing... ... "When a photographic lens is set to infinity, its rear nodal point is separated from the sensor or film, at the focal plane, by the lens's focal length" (Wikipedia)  A 90 is "always a 90"  Yes- but point is that it is not - hence the trouble with framelines on the M8 (or any M for that matter). The change in focal length causes a narrowing of the angle of view, which gives the impression of inaccurate framelines. The key phrase in the Wikipedia entry is "set to infinity" which implies that every other distance setting has its own focal length, which is the case. The lens rating is normally "at infinity", however with a macro ring the lens should be rated at the furthest possible setting, i.e. with the lens at the shortest possible barrel length.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted April 22, 2009 Share #36 Â Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Yes- but point is that it is not - hence the trouble with framelines on the M8 (or any M for that matter). The change in focal length causes a narrowing of the angle of view, which gives the impression of inaccurate framelines. The key phrase in the Wikipedia entry is "set to infinity" which implies that every other distance setting has its own focal length, which is the case. The lens rating is normally "at infinity", however with a macro ring the lens should be rated at the furthest possible setting, i.e. with the lens at the shortest possible barrel length.... Â Yes but... (hair splitting )... I meant that when a lens designer plots a lens for which a focal length has to be declared, he/she (hadn't Mandler a daughter ? ) takes anyway into account the "focus at infinity": I mean, for instance... the Leitz Photar 25 mm lens (a micro lens) isnt' by sure designed to be used at normal distances... probably it even doesn't cover 24x36 at infinity... but is anyway declared as a 25mm, even if it has to be used as at least, say, a "100mm" lens. Not to dispute, of course, and your observation on framelines is spot on... Edited April 22, 2009 by luigi bertolotti Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted April 22, 2009 Share #37 Â Posted April 22, 2009 Yes- but point is that it is not - hence the trouble with framelines on the M8 (or any M for that matter). The change in focal length causes a narrowing of the angle of view, which gives the impression of inaccurate framelines. The key phrase in the Wikipedia entry is "set to infinity" which implies that every other distance setting has its own focal length, which is the case. The lens rating is normally "at infinity", however with a macro ring the lens should be rated at the furthest possible setting, i.e. with the lens at the shortest possible barrel length.... Â By that logic you also need a second set of markings on the aperture ring. (IIRC the Contarex actually did adjust the aperture blades as you focused close.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted April 22, 2009 Share #38 Â Posted April 22, 2009 By that logic you also need a second set of markings on the aperture ring. (IIRC the Contarex actually did adjust the aperture blades as you focused close.) Â This I think is one of the legends about these fantastic Zeiss lenses : I have a number of them (18-25-35-50-85-135-250) : ALL are exceptional glasses on my bulky Contarex Super... but none has anything that moves aperture blades via focus helicoid... they are already rather complicated with their diaph presetting mechanism . BTW few days ago I found an adapter to mount them on Leica M body... the 18 is very appreciable on M8... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 22, 2009 Share #39 Â Posted April 22, 2009 Yes but... (hair splitting )... I meant that when a lens designer plots a lens for which a focal length has to be declared, he/she (hadn't Mandler a daughter ? ) takes anyway into account the "focus at infinity": I mean, for instance... the Leitz Photar 25 mm lens (a micro lens) isnt' by sure designed to be used at normal distances... probably it even doesn't cover 24x36 at infinity... but is anyway declared as a 25mm, even if it has to be used as at least, say, a "100mm" lens.Not to dispute, of course, and your observation on framelines is spot on... Â I'm just being pedantic and obnoxious, Luigi. Don't pay attention Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Wijk Posted March 3, 2020 Share #40  Posted March 3, 2020 On 4/8/2009 at 6:06 AM, twittle said:  I just attached my 75 Lux to the adapter to see what would happen. The cam movement is not the same as with the Macro-Elmar, so it would be quite difficult, I'd guess, to successfully shoot pictures with anything but the intended lens. Today with visoflex or other "digital See-through" option you can use the adapter with googles. focusing have to be made through the visoflex. Below picture was taken with Leica M10 visoflex 020 and Noctilux (f0.95 fully open). I will presume quality of out of focus area would be better if lens was stopped down to around F4. like the macro elmar. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/81384-904-elmarit-with-macro-attachment/?do=findComment&comment=3923996'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now