75 Lux

[bob_stevens3]

I'm new to this lens. Can experienced uses share with me how

or when they use the 50mm framelines, rather than the 75mm

framelines, when using this lens? Thanx! Bob Stevens

[sandy.]

Bob, try to get in touch with James Allen, who has a post a few threads down. He is an expert on these two lenses. I am sure you'd get an answer there. Kristian Dowling is another member in this forum to contact. So is Al Kaplan, Jim Britt, grant, jeff S.....

[james_.1]

Haha, no expert! Just a user...I'm a user. I've read that using the 50 framelines for further off (maybe infinity focusing) and 75 for closer is the way to do it.

[jay_.]

At the near focus range to 2m, use the inside of the 75 framecorners (I refuse to call them framelines any more!). From 2m-3m use the outside of the framecorners. Beyond 3m you can use the inside edge of the 50 framelines. Recognize that the field-size expansion is gradual, not with sudden jumps, so these are just usable approximations which of course aren't going to be as precise as an SLR with a 100% viewfinder (not that Leica ever made one of those either).

[eliot]

As Jay implies, the framelines were designed to show the field of view of the lens at closest focus, at infinity, the field of view is a little greater than the outside of the 75 mm framelines. This is because the angle of view of a lens decreases as the lens is focussed closer and closer.

 

BTW, how many SLRs show 100% of the field in the VF? It couldn't be very many. Most SLR cameras show anywhere from 77 to 90% or so, according to Pop Photo. Even if the VF showed 100%, a slide mount would cover from 5-10%, so what you see is not what you get.

[cabophoto]

Bob,

 

this question comes up from time to time. I have no idea why as the 75 framelines are exactly like all other framelines in this respect : at the closest focus, the inside of the framelines shows the 'truth'. At 2m, the outside of the framelines. At infinity, the outside + three times the thickness of the framelines.

 

Check http://nemeng.com/leica/006ba.shtml for more detailed info. Also, Günter Osterloh´s book on the Leica M system is a good read.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[sandy.]

Jay, I only know how to guess distance by feet, not meters; so can you educate me approximately the distance of 2m and 3m in ft? Someone in this forum just suggested that his dog is smarter than me, so I have to keep asking these stupid questions to keep my reputation going.

 

Cheers

[eliot]

Yes, when Leica designed the frameline system, they corrected for parallax but not for the reduced field of view seen by any lens as the lens is wracked in from infinity to closest focus. I don't what the problems are in correcting for this, but it seems to me the technical problems should not be insurmountable, since there are other RFs that correct for the field of view.

[james_.1]

Sandy:

 

http://www.admiralmetals.com/metric_conv.htm

[dave_cheney]

Elliot,

 

Nikon F, F2, F3, F4, F5 all show 100% of the image area in VF. If you're scanning your negative the scanner would probably be able to resolve past the edge of an unmounted slide or negative.

 

In 35mm you need all the film area you can ...

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[al_kaplan1]

Sandy, since we're not dealing with exactitudes about framing at various distances, thinking of yards instead of meters is close enough. A meter is about 3 inches longer than a yard. Please, nobody jump in here with the EXACT measurement to five decimal points. We don't need it.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Is the framing for the 75 similar to the 90 or 135? Are they all "off" that much? It

would seem that the description of how the 75 frames seems to confirm that

the M series is good for 50 and below and not so good for 75 and above? Just

asking. Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest. I have a 90 that I rarely use. Mostly

for urban landscapes and such. Seems to frame fine. Like I said, just asking.

[eliot]

John, the 75 mm lens gives a diagnoal coverage of 31 degrees, close to that of a 90 mm lens (27 degrees) but very different froma 50 mm lens (46 degrees). Leitz originally wanted a 90/1.4, not a 75/1.4, but decided on the latter because the 90/1.4 would block too much of the frame. That's my understanding on why the 75 mm lens was made.

[Rob F.]

"I have no idea why as the 75 framelines are exactly like all other framelines in this respect."

 

I think the reason must be that the 50 and 75mm framelines are in the same finder field, making it easy to use whichever is best at the moment, with no need to employ the frame selector lever. If the 35 and 28mm frames were in the same field, I imagine we would probably be asking this question about these two, instead.

[mike dixon]

The coverage of the 75 is very similar to the 90. I have a thread in the archives (under Leica Adventures) comparing coverage. Unfortunately, my site is down at the moment, but it should be back up by tomorrow or the next day.

 

I use a 75 with an M3, and after some practice, it's not difficult to estimate coverage using the 50 framelines.

[matthew_kerr]

for those wondering about 100% view, read the column on the front page of photo.net called "SLRs: finding the view".

[michael_kastner]

Hi Jay! This is also completely OT, and this is also completely un-nice,

but I have always wondered why there are so many Leica freaks (to me this

means Leica M freaks) who also have and therefore also like an Leica R when

they could have any other SLR (e.g. Nikon) instead.

 

Many professionals and amateurs who I know posess an M plus a Nikon and

not an M plus an R!

 

Me... myself, I once had a Nikon F2... fantasic as to 100% view of what you

want to shoot.

 

If this is not possible with an M, that's okay... BUT THAT THIS IS NOT THE

CASE WITH A LEICA R... THAT IS NOT OKAY!

[watts]

<i>who also have and therefore also like an Leica R when they

could have any other SLR (e.g. Nikon) instead.</i><br><br>It's

generally because they are obsessed with the Leica brand.

There are a few exceptions to this - e.g. Douglas Herr (though I

don't think Douglas is an M user?).

[kristian dowling]

Expert????

 

Sandy, you are too kind...I'm actually just a horny little dude who's obsessed with his "Emmy". Infact, never used the Lux, the Noct wins over for me. Love that Nocti!!!

 

No seriously, all I do is take images....and to be honest, al that stuff that Erwin talks about in his reviews like micro constrast, mini micro contrast, milli-mikey micro details, etc etc etc means absoutely nothing to me....it's sharp or it isn't.

[cameron_sawyer]

Ah, no, M users will be attracted to the R because of the optics which they know and love from their M's. A real dyed-in-the-wool Leicanut will not care about precise view (he sure doesn't get it with his M).

 

I personally use an F3, exactly because the precise viewfinder is so important to me. But compared to Leica, or even compared to VC, the Nikon optics are mediocre at best and often crappy. The comparison to VC optics is especially depressing -- as the Nikon lenses are more expensive.

[jay_.]

Michael, I was attracted to the R system by the promise of superior optics, a promise which the heft and smooth operation of the R lenses seemed to uphold. I was not disappointed in that regard, and retired my long-time Nikon F outfit to a display case. But I was never happy with any of the R bodies I owned: R6, 6.2, 7 and 8. The only one I really liked was the SL, and I couldn't focus it well because it doesn't have an adjustable diopter (I have to still wear glasses even with the correction, and the clip-on diopters keep my eye too far from the finder to see it all). Coincidentally I was making the switch from Nikon AF to Canon EOS on account of Image Stabilization, and suddenly found myself with the possibility of using my R lenses (albeit without the automatic diaphragm or wide-open metering)on EOS bodies. Despite the forementioned inconvenience, I found the EOS 1V infintely more enjoyable (it does have a 100% finder BTW)than the R8 (and the 1V never scratched my film the way the R8 always did)and sold the R8's right away, hanging onto the R6.2's for their size. Then I began tentatively and with great skepticism and trepidation to pick up a few inexpensive Canon EOS prime lenses: a 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. Unable to resist the obvious temptation to shoot them side-by side with my 28/2.8-R (current version), 35 Summicron-R (current), 50 Summicron-R (current)and 90 Summicron-R (non-APO), fully expecting to be so disgusted with the EF lenses that I would sell them immediately. To my shock, I could not tell *any* difference at any aperture or distance with the 28 and 50, and at the widest apertures both the 35 and 85 EF lenses far--and I mean *far*--outperformed the Leica R counterparts. And so I sold the rest of my R system.

[andrew_hall1]

Jay, this heresy of yours could well get you burned alive at the stake! ;-)

 

Seriously, it's possible that EOS primes can match equivalent R lenses in performance, but far-outperforming? Did you use a tripod and the same roll of film for all your tests while the subjects remained static? And was the glass of your R lenses as pristine as your EOS primes? (I'm not being sarcastic, just curious.)

[michael_a._shapiro]

This has nothing to do with the 75 question, but, rather, with the thread developing about R systems. I use both M's and R's, and it has nothing to do with lens quality. I use them in case I forget my hammer to drive tent stakes. Truly, I have been shooting in the Arctic, and I like thinking that my tools will withstand the environment. On my first trip up there, I had two very electronic battery dependent cameras, and they both failed. None of my Leicas ever have. When I'm not in the Arctic, I generally put zooms on my R's, and I know there is no optical advantage there. The 28-70 is made by Sigma (Leica brand).<div></div>