christopher_junker1

<p>Greg's response +1. Also, if you tension the film by rewinding too tight you stand the chance of leaving stress and abrasion marks on the emulsion. </p>

<p>Robin, great shot, nice "patina".</p>

<p>Peter Meade's photo portfolio presents a wide range of subjects that are nicely done. Having a professional photographer being willing to try a Leica LTM for the first time is new to me. Hopefully he'll soon find a good LTM and share his Leica experience with us. </p>

<p>The comments above are accurate. I've used Leica IIIc, IIIf and IIIg LTM bodies for many decades, but rarely now as I have a good M3 body which I prefer. Of the Leica film rangefinders, the M3 with a 50 Summicron is a great shooter. Although not a problem with the M3, if you wear glasses you will be pressing them against the LTM rangefinder/viewfinder windows as there is little eye relief, the M3 has a much better and brighter combined finder window. If you prefer 35mm lenses to 50mm, the M2 is the preferred setup as it has a built in 35 viewer frame. All LTM bodies frame the 50m lenses, not 35s. I note that you shoot equestrian sport pictures. Shooting moving subjects is not easy with a standard LTM body. An LTM body with the collapsible Elmar is useful as a casual back up camera and doesn't take up much space. No LTM is metered so you'll have to be ready to meter subjects. There is one advantage the LTM bodies and M2/M3 have over digital, there is no shutter lag. Robin made a good point regarding the Canon P. Good camera, and if it has a Canon f1.4 50, that is a good set up. I use the Canon 1.4 50 with an LTM to M adapter on my M3 and have consistently excellent results.</p>

<p>What happened to the Cord dash picture?</p>

<p>As I am curious, what is the difference between an Elmax and the later Elmar lens?</p>

<p>Nice panning shot Bill. I inherited R & T photographer Alix Lafontant's Leica IIIg after he switched to Nikons in the early 60s. I still have it, patina and all.</p>

<p>Larry H-L. Great bird picture. Based on your result, I'll be taking my Canon f3.5 100 LTM out of the bag for some shooting. The 100 f3.5 is one of those almost forgotten lenses until you use it and again realize how nice it is. Bill Bowes, good picture of Pete Lovely's "Pooper". Back in the '50s and early '60s all sorts of road race specials were built in CA. I'd like to see the "Flying Shingle" again.</p>

<p>All three of my medium focal length lenses are rangefinder coupled. However as they are LTM lenses I use a 90 Leica M adapter then mount them on an M3. I have two problems using them, first, focus is critical due to the shallow depth of field when used close up. Accurate focusing is not a severe problem with the Elmar 90 and Canon 100 at f3.5-4.5, but it is with the 85 Nikon at f2. The M3 has a .95 bright finder making it easy to focus, but the Nikon at f2 leaves little room for focus error due to the shallow depth of field. Secondly, stopping down to increase depth of field requires slower shutter speeds so camera movement needs to be minimized or you have to go to a faster film. Camera movement becomes more apparent as you use longer focal length lenses. Due to the weight of the Nikon on the M3, I use a monopod and a softie shutter release button and that helps steady the camera. I love the portrait results but I have to concentrate when using these focal length lenses. You may wish to consider practicing by dry shooting with the camera/lens combination prior using film. Best wishes.</p>

<p>A second to Mukul's recommendation of the Canon black 100 f3.5 LTM lens. In addition to rendering a good sharp image, it is light with white on black distance markings together with click f stops. I prefer it to the 90 Elmar LTM.</p>

<p>JT's problem is exactly why I continue to use a beater IIIg with the 35 finder in the accessory shoe as I have to wear glasses. There may be another possibility, but I haven't actually seen it done. There is a accessory shoe clip with two clip in slots. I recall a picture with a Leicameter3 and a bright line finder mounted in the two slots.</p>

<p>Per Brian, I use a black Sharpie often. Lens hoods, especially on the outer edge get banged up, nicked or otherwise worn through so there is a bright reflection point on the edge. The sharpie blends right in and can be easily renewed. Don't try flat black model airplane paint: messy, chips, wears right off, won't stick to chrome.</p>

<p>Robin, nicely done. Larry, the green shirts and the green out of focus area go well together. The Canon 100 f3.5 LTM is one of my favorite lenses due to the very sharp in focus areas and the smoothly separated out of focus backgrounds.</p>

<p>Sorry to read about your Dad's passing. Finding a special lens by itself such as your Dad's is a bit unusual. If he enjoyed photography as a business or hobby, you may wish to do a thorough search of his effects to see if there is a camera or other photographic equipment that makes up a set. The above comments are very good advice.</p>

<p>I can't speak to Summar lens repairs, but John Van Stelten rebuilt my f1.5 Summarit 50 LTM several years back. It was dirty inside with a slightly abraded/no deep scratches front lens element. Most of the coating was still on the lens, but clearly abraded. I contracted for a CLA with polishing and recoating of the front element. John informed me that he wouldn't guarantee the lens or recoating as it is a heating process and he had had lenses crack during the process. I took a chance and everything came out fine. At f1.5 and 2.0 the lens is low contrast and soft focus, but images sharpen and contrast improves at f4 and beyond. I was able to buy a Summarit cast lens hood for $6.50 at a bankruptcy sale and it does help reduce flare. Within the limits of the lens, I thought Focal Point did good work and I wouldn't hesitate to use them again. With reference to the f2 Summar I have an original Leica brochure describing the lens and it must have been exciting to have one back in the mid 1930's. Grandfather to the f2 50 collapsible Summicron of fame.</p>