new hampshire john

...but very nice pic, if it's any consolation.

 

How do you like the Kobalux, btw? I searched high and low for one and eventually just picked up the CV21/4 out of damned impatience, but still keep my eye out for deals on the Kobalux.

...and quite impressive.

I knew someone still had a copy of that picture.

<br>

<br>

And congrats on a smart purchase, Paul -- I loved my M5 dearly for its useability. And if you're looking for M5 commentary, I'd check <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0056w3">here</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0050Lr">here</a> first.

I -- for one -- am impressed. Tinker on, dude.

huh - interesting stuff - in my neck of the woods, UPS deliveries are much more reliable (and friendly) than the competition. i guess YMMV.

Okay, HF - you've piqued my interest - keep those pics coming!

 

Good luck,

 

John

I'd go even further -- at 28 I find myself backing up to get any frame of reference in vehicles -- the 24 end of the 24-90 zoom is usually enough for me, but my 21 (in another mount) would be my lens of choice for doing extremely cramped interior shots... might even spring for something wider if I were going to do it with any regularity. You can get a Voigtlander 15mm and Bessa L for under what you'd pay for a superwide Pentax lens...

Henry - you might just try it with the included hood for a while. I guess the group consensus is that it is "good enough." And as with all things (including the Leitz - CV dialectic itself), it's a cost-benefit analysis. Personally, it was worth it to me to get the additional coverage and get it at the same time as I picked up the lens. I guess I'd still recommend the step-down ring if you were looking for a work-around, though.

Henry -

<br> <br>

I plumped for the big square one, but from using it I can tell you the following, none of which you don't already know if you've used the lens: the filter mounts on the exterior of the barrel, and thus the barrel has the female threads and the hood the male threads -- so my intuition is that you could use a step-<i>down</i> ring (reversed) in order to get a hood "effect" from an alternative....

<br>

<br>

...of course, by the time you figure out which size/brand step-down ring matches the barrel mount size (not too hard as the lens comes with the little hood, just measure that) <i>and</i> the appropriate depth of such a ring in order to give maximum protection without vignetting, I suspect you'd be better off either just using the little hood or springing for the new one.

<br>

<br>

What I'd really like to see is a square cap to fit on the end of the square hood.

<br>

<br>

LMK how it goes, I'm interested to hear of your results.

Take lots of pictures along the way -- in fact, if you can either get an assistant or rig up some kind of remote shutter, I'd like to see a picture of little springs sproinging out of the camera...

<div></div>

'nuff said.

cool stuff, Craig -

...this question hadn't been asked in a couple of days and I was getting worried.

Yeah, the case is purportedly for the 21 as well, and I might buckle and get it -- but with space at a premium I'm likely to rig something up myself. For the Contax G21/2.8 finder, I knit a little pouch (yeah, yeah, laugh it up) that worked really well, but when I got rid of the G-system I tossed the pouch. We'll see -- I just don't want it bouncing around in there, particularly given the exposed front element.

Fred -

 

Yah, you can leave the adapter on the camera if it locks positively into place -- my VC 50/75 usually pops out of the bayonet mount when I twist it, so if I twist the lens, the adapter comes out too. YMMV. Think about which adapter to get:

 

There isn't a 21mm frameline in the M6 (so you're going to frame shots using the accessory VC viewfinder), and for that reason it doesn't much matter which adapter you get as far as the 21/4 is concerned. But think about what other LTM lenses you might use. Right now I'm using a vintage Summitar (which I highly recommend, BTW) in LTM, and I've got a 50/75 adapter for it. I use the same adapter for the 21/4 (as again, it doesn't much matter which framelines come up for a superwide as you've got no internal framing). If I were going to use the VC 35/1.7 (which I also recommend!), I would get the 35/135.

 

So look at the rest of your kit and then get the adapter that'll match your next LTM purchase given that it won't matter for the 21/4 -- and enjoy! I've been shooting with the 21/4 for a week or so and haven't gotten tired of it yet -- much smaller than similar offerings and getting some good shots. Only downsides so far: I need to rig up some kind of holder for the lens and finder in my bag, and the finder's front element is right out there -- not as protected as the old Leitz one or the current Contax G2 one -- I already have fingerprints all over it. Pretty small concerns, though -- and if that's the only downside at the end of the day, it's still a winner of a lens.

...got any high-contrast images, or images that otherwise play on the

interplay of light and darkness (abstracting out for the argument that

all photography is about light and darkness)? I found this one in the

course of wiping a hard drive as a predicate to a move and found it

interesting.<div></div>

...to clarify my mis-statement: the prongs on the back of the cap don't "unscrew" the cap -- rather, they let you dismount it from the camera ("unbayonet" it?) if the adapter alone is on the camera (which can otherwise be difficult if it's tightly on there).

The VC adapters come with an M-mount rear cap -- so if you're geting those, you won't need to worry about it. The other nice thing about the VC adapter rear cap is that it has three little prongs on its backside that let you unscrew the adapter easily. But you're right, the 21/4 comes with a screw-mount rear cap -- if you're getting an adapter without a rear cap, you oughta pick up an M-mount rear cap.

 

Incidentally, I just picked up the same kit and am curious -- are you getting the new (square) hood as well?

 

John

Assuming no problems (aside from the usual slight internal dust particles) mechanically or cosmetically, you'll probably pay between $400 (not too bad a deal) to $600 (getting up towards what you'll pay at a good second-hand retail outlet like Midwest or Lens and Repro). At least, that's my experience based on a few weeks' searching for one. I've got a line on one for $450 but haven't quite passed it by the family comptroller.

Okay, couple days later = couple more lenses I let slip through my fingers on the auction site. In the back of my head is a local auctioneer's sign: "we buy junk and sell antiques." But again, thanks for the priceless suggestions. And I will report back -- I think you're right that the 5x7/4x5 is a nifty combo -- at some point I'll spring for something that's wide on the 4x5 and superwide on the 5x7, and will try to post some pix taken from the same perspective with the same lens but different backs...

Thanks for the descrip. I keep meaning to bring some order to the 3-ring binders up here in NH, but never get to it; maybe this will inspire me to do so (okay, so I can easily predict that it won't, but this is still interesting).

 

And yeah, let's see a Janis pic. I say let's all chip in and get Al a scanner, and get him to post a random pic a week from the archives...

I've used the 35/135 on an M5 and an M6 with no problems. The handy thing about the CV adapters is the lenscap they come with -- it's handy for removing the adapter from the body (which can at times be difficult). The only caveat I've had about the CV adapters is my current 50/75 -- it "sorta" brings up the 50 lines on my M6 but it doesn't seem to actuate the lines entirely sometimes -- it also skips the mount sometimes -- that is, in focusing my Summitar the lens will release without my hitting the lens release button. It is my opinion that it is the adapter -- rather than the body -- given that my 50/2 'cron brings up the 50 framelines clearly and without hesitation, and it does not release without my hitting the button.

 

These two issues don't happen all the time, and they're terribly small prices to pay for getting to use the Summitar and the CV 21/4 I use the adapter with.

 

I should also note that I had no such issues with the 35/135 (I used it on a CV 35/1.7, which I heartily recommend as well), so my 50/75 may be a bad sample.

good to see someone interested the bokeh, too -- a lot of those fixed-lens 70s rangefinders have evil bokeh. think about the electro 35s, too -- fast and sharp, sharp, sharp (but bigger than many other RFs and sometimes TOO sharp)...

 

check out kyle cassidy's page, he's got an interesting GL17 review: http://www.netaxs.com/~cassidy/images/equipment/ql17/index.html

great shot -- love the range of tones and textures... crop out the street lamps, though.