Jump to content

Does anyone use the 28mm on their M6?


don_m1

Recommended Posts

The 28 lines in the .72 M6 are nearly impossible to see, and they are

not there on the new .85 M6 (where you can barely see the 35mm lines)

You can get used to using a seperate finder, but it slows you down a

tad having to focus in one finder and view in another. Its also a pain

if you want to pop your ttl flash on the shoe and shoot a group shot,

and an expensive accesory at that. Which M6 did you purcahase, the .72

or .85 magnification? From a quality stand point, all the current

Leica built m series wide angles are exceptionally corrected, sharp,

and resistant to flare. I think the best standard lens on the M6 is

the 35mm f2.0 or 1.4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use the tiny 28mm F5.6 on my M-4P (0.72 the same as the first

version of M6) during many years. The 28-frames are visible. No

goggles, no problem.

When shooting I see the inner borders of the viewfinder, it is a

pain, but this allows me to use 21 mm too with no parallax

compensation. In any case, when shooting with RF & short-focus lens

(shorter than 28mm), frames are not so correct when shooting with

SLR. This problem, if any, I solve in the darkroom. Just I don't like

bulky Nikon for street shooting.

Best.

Victor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so much an answer, but an observation:

 

<p>

 

It seems like a lot to put up with to shoot anything wider than 35mm,

the extra finders etc. Is that what most people end up doing, or are

most M6 shooters not of the wider-than-35mm-focal-length family? I

like compact, unobtrusive, mechanical, and top optics. But I also like

wide...

 

<p>

 

This might start a tangent, but what I'm getting in lurking in the

Leica threads is that the M6 is what it's known to be- fast to use,

discreet, etc., between 35mm and 75mm (the frameline for the 90 is a

bit small most seem to say). Is that the case? A pretty limited

range. Beyond that you need to put up with a small framing patch, or

additional viewfinders. Is this fair to say?

 

<p>

 

(yes, I'm looking to rent, but there seems to be only one place in the

SF Bay Area to do that...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way I know to get exact 100% coverage of the 28mm lens is

with an Imarect and 28mm attachment. The frameline in my (early) M6

is a special disgrace, as are all the frameline coverages. The 35mm

frameline exactly covers the field of a 40mm Summicron, my favorite

lens, which is helpful. As to the quality of the 28mm lens, my third

generation sample is sharp and contrasty, even wide open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd be surprised how many great shots can be taken within the 28 to

90mm range, even just carrying a 35mm and a 90mm can cover a great

deal of shooting situation, and it is such a compact outfit. I looked

through a .72 M6 again, and if you do not wear glasses, you can see

the 28mm lines, but you have to look around the corners a bit to do

so. I have an M3 now, with the 35mm Summaron and eyes, 50mm DR f2.0,

90mm f2.8, and a very sharp 135mm Tele Elmar that I seldom use. I did

get some great shots at the vintage car races with the 135mm. The

ability to see the cars coming in the finder made it easy to pan and

get them right on center in the shots. I use the 35mm for quick

shooting, landscapes, environmental portraits, classic cars, and low

light portaits. I use the 90 for tight portraits, candid shots, and

for isolating details in landscapes. It is razor sharp wide open-I got

over 80 LPMM on the chart wide open for a good part of the negative.

The dual range 50 allows for near macro work with a rangefinder, and

the images are really excellent. I also use it often wide open for

existing low light shots. What I still have to get use to is focusing

with the patch on the subject and then composing with the subject off

center, especially on verticles. I noticed recently that a lot of my

verticle shots have more space at the top than they should. These

cameras take some getting used to, but the ability to capture photos

of incredable detail hand held in low light with total silence is

worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is for Bill Mitchell:

Does the 40mm bring up the 35 lines on your M6? I thought the 40mm

would be a great match for the .85 M6 as a standard lens as well. It

is such a sharp little compact lens, and one of my favorites as well.

I have the Minolta labeled version. I thought only the 50 lines would

come up with the 40 on the camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is in response to Bill's earlier post. The area inside the M

framelines covers the area of a mounted slide (23mm x 35mm) or

approximately 93% of the of the full negative when the lens is at its

closest focus. The outside of the framelines show the same area as

above when the lens is focused at about 2 to 3 metres. When the lens

is focused to infinity, about three frameline widths wider all around

is correct. Leica decided it was better to error on the side of

including too much rather than cutting off some of the subject when

you focused as close as possible. This seems to be a reasonable

compromise to me.

 

<p>

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oskar Barnack designed his Leica viewfinder to show 100% of the field

at 10 feet, a practical distance for real-world photogapers. I have

no problem with the inside of the frameline showing the projected

area of a Kodachrome, as long as the outside of the frameline covers

the entire image from edge to edge. To base the frameline size on

the closest possible focussing distances is just plain silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is better for accuracy that frames are set for closest

distance.I used my 90 Tele- Elmarit for document copying

for years.The framelines are perfect on M3.Guess I`m gonna hear how bad the frames are on the new wunderkind M6.....

The more I read and hear about the M6,the more I appreciate

my M2 and M3.No wonder the prices are so high for old cameras...I prefer to use 28mm lenses on a reflex.No extra viewfinder or force my eyes to see frame on edges.I wear glasses some of the time.I find better composition that way.For my Leica I prefer the 50,35 and 90.The last lens alas is gone due to theft.I am forced to use my 135mm Tele-Elmar f4.0 on the M3 which is ok.The M2 is "guess" using inside the 90 frame.Actually I do rather well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>You'd be surprised how many great shots can be taken within the 28

to 90mm range, even just carrying a 35mm and a 90mm can cover a great

deal of shooting situation, and it is such a compact outfit. </i>

<p>

Agreed. (Personally, I just feel closer to the 28mm perspective- at

least in SLR- I'm not sure about an RF viewfinder. Conversely, were I

to shoot with a 35/2 on my SLR, would I feel the same way about it as I

do my Hexar..?)

<p>

However, it has been said that RF makes for wonderful wide angle

lenses. I find it ironic then that one needs to compromise on

compositional and focusing ease (less of an issue in the latter due to

extreme DOF) with the M6 in focal lengths less than 35mm. Maybe that

is the tradeoff between excellent optics and ease of use...

<p>

Am I being overly SLR-centric?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tse-Sung Wu,

There is always going to be a bit of personal bias in the selection

and use of a camera. I too find that I can switch back and forth

freely between the SLR and rangefinder when using the 35 and 50mm

focal lengths... yet I have all but given up on the rangefinder for

the 90mm... a truly great lens. I just can't use it as easy as I can

my 105mm on my Nikon, while others can wield their 90mm's as easy as

a 35... it is just a personal preference.

 

<p>

 

Another fact regarding the use of one camera over the other is style

of photography. Yes the wide angles are not too convenient on the

rangefinder, but in all honesty, you really don't spend too much time

looking through the viewfinder. Using the depth of field marks and a

surreptitious technique, the Leica M is "THE" street shooting

camera. Yes for a well composed, filtered, and tripod mounted

landscape, the SLR shines. When the desire is to remain invisible

and take those great journalistic shots as seen in the old "LIFE"

or "NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC" magazines, you can't beat a rangefinder.

 

<p>

 

Also, with the rangefinder, a 21mm and a 50mm lens focus with the

exact same ease. With an SLR, the same can't be said. To your eye,

an SLR viewfinder can make the focus look fine, due to the reduced

scale and DOF. With the rangefinder, you can focus precisely on any

point, and with lenses that can readily be used wide open, this is

not a small point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I use the 28mm (version 3) on my M6. For a day of serious shooting,

I wear contact lenses. This lets me see the whole frame line

easily. With eyeglasses, I have to move my eye slightly left and

right with the camera held steady, to check for exact framing. My

version 3 lens does block the lower right finder area, a bit of a

nuisance. The current version looks to me, judging by a picture of

it, to be more compact--so it may not block the finder

significantly. The lens itself is a hot performer--very sharp and no

vignetting. I use it often for landscapes and indoor shots, at times

preferring it to my favorite, the 35mm. The 28mm is halfway between

my 21mm and 35mm in focal length, and comes close enough to

the "natural" perspective which the 355mm focal length has, in my

opinion.

 

<p>

 

Regards, Bob F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Don,

 

I use only two Lenses and two bodies a 28mm ASPH and a 50mm Summicron. The 28mm is always on my M6 with a 28mm finder...the 50 used to be on my M4P but I very recently traded in that body and my 3rd version 50mm summicron for an M3 and the 50mm Summicron DR. The 28 for me is my workhorse...I work as a photojournalist and I like the perspective I get with it...I have no problems with the 28mm finder or the standard in camera 28mm framelines, you just get used to how things work and dont think about it...sometimes I wish I still had my 21mm but I have found great peace of mind with the simplicity of two bodies and two lenses...my style of shooting has over the years honed its way to these two lenses...it works for me and editors arent shouting at me about my coverage, they just know what to expect from me and everybody is happy, well most of the time...but its different for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...