denis_pleic

If you're planning your kit around the lens you will use, then you should take into account the viewfinder...

BTW, from what I've seen, 35/1.7 Ultron might be a better choice than the 40/1.4 Nokton. I have the Ultron, but not the Nokton - from various shots posted on the Web, I got the impression that Nokton OOF areas might be disturbing under certain conditions.... (read: unpleasant bokeh).

 

The bodies you're contemplating (R2A, R3A) are bayonet M-mount (like M Leicas), and most of the CV lenses are screw-mount, so you'll need a LTM adapter. I'm not sure, but I think that Nokton comes in M-mount. Others will probably clarify that, or you could just take a look at Stephen Gandy's site - lots of info there.

 

In short, the "right" setup is something you'll have to decide for yourself.

Swans...<div></div>

Well, I thought I'd also share a pic of my rather unorthodox hood solutions.

On the left is the M3 with Series VI 42 mm push-on adapter, with polarizer and Series VI hood.

On the right is the M2 with 39F to Series VI adapter - which actually screws in on the Summicron (just like a filter). That one also uses Series VI filters, and the kit I have on the Summicron can be used as a hood (well, kind of...)

 

Denis<div></div>

Jeff, I'm not sure about the Mamiya one - I haven't tried it, and I don't know how big it is.

 

My Summitar hood solution was to find a 42mm to Series VI adapter, and use a Series VI hood. The adapter is a push-on type, and the hood and other accessories (filters!) fit onto it.

 

This solution also allows me to use Series VI filters on that adapter.

 

The Series VI hood which I have intrudes a bit into the VF, but not significantly. There are other, smaller Series VI hoods which could be used...

 

Denis

Frank, do a search on "Zeiss Ikon" here on photo.net, and check out their <a href="http://www.zeissikon.com">Web page</a>. </p>

There are some tech details about both the camera and lenses... </p>

Denis

AFAIK, the new Zeiss Ikon *IS* an M-mount camera... That's one of the reasons why it got so much attention, IMHO...

 

Denis

What "effects" do you have in mind?

Fog, haze, split, "duto" (i.e. soft) filter, or "color correction" for B&W? Darken the blue color, lighten the greens, or something else?

 

Probably the most useful filter for B&W is a yellow filter, which will darken the sky somewhat, emphasizing the clouds, etc. It might also buld up some contrast...

I recommend to do some reading on filters for B&W - there are numerous sources on the Web.

In short, you should know in advance what you want to achieve, and then use the filter which yields the desired effect.

 

As for being cheap, I guess you're talking about Leica filters in 39mm filter thread. There are cheaper alternatives - use an adapter (39-49mm or Series VI adapter), and you can buy cheaper filters in other sizes.

If you want the best quality filter, search a bit here on photo.net, and you'll find some good suggestions.

 

Denis

I just saw this on another forum - another member from Japan posted these prices he was able to find in Japan (for NEW lenses): </p>

 

=== Quote: </p> <i>

M-Hexanon 28/2.8 = 79,590 Yen </p>

M-Hexanon 35/2 = 72,240 Yen </p>

M-Hexanon 50/2 = 50,400 Yen </p> </i>

=== End quote </p>

</p>

According to Yahoo currency converter, that's currently about $716 for NEW 28/2.8 lens... in Japan.</p>

 

Denis

Carnival time, time for "Trick-or-treating" here... <p><center><img src="http://hrtranslations.com/slike/02-carn.jpg"><p>

<I>M3, Summitar 50/2, Efke KB100</I> </center>

<center><img src="http://hrtranslations.com/slike/07-miso.jpg"> </P>

<I>M3, Elmar-C 90/4, Efke KB100</I> </center>

Quiet moments<div></div>

Elmar-C?

Very compact and light, cheap, but definitely not fast (90/4.0).

 

That's what I have on my M3. I wish it were a bit faster, but then it would probably also be heavier, not to mention MUCH more expensive.

 

Others will probably have other suggestions.

 

Denis

My solution was to get a Series VI adapter for 42mm, and put on a Series VI hood. An added bonus is that you can use all other kinds of Series filters... including the polarizer :)

 

Denis

<I>Wow... pretty. Leica shot?</I> </P>

I'm ashamed to admit - no... Don't have lens that wide for Leica. </P>

Besides, it was taken before I even owned a Leica... </P>

It was Nikkor 24/2.8 </P>

 

Denis

<B><I>Dennis Couvillion , feb 13, 2005; 02:33 p.m.</B> </P>

Just kidding, Denis... Where are you from?</I> </P>

</P>

 

Croatia... something like this: </P>

<center><img src="http://hrtranslations.com/slike/hvar.JPG"></div>

</center> </p>

 

Denis</div>

<B><I>Dennis Couvillion , feb 13, 2005; 02:13 p.m.</B> </P>

 

BTW, how long have you misspelled your name? ;>) </P>

 

Dennis </I> </P>

 

Ever since I learned to write :) </P>

 

In these parts that's how it's spelled. </P>

 

Thanks for the comments, </P>

 

DeNis

<center><img src="http://hrtranslations.com/slike/07-summitar-mirror2.jpg"></div>

</P>

Mirror(s) </center> </P>

Denis

Great shots, Trevor - I like shots # 2, 3 and 4, although #7 is also very good.

 

You're putting both the camera and lens to good use!

 

Denis

And the lens is a spitting image of an Industar :)

 

Probably just a fake front ring with the name and SN, just like a fake E. Leitz Wetzlar engraving.

 

You know what they say - "There's one born every minute" :)

 

In short, it's a complete fake - the seller states so ("Leica COPY"), only he left out that the lens is a fake, too...

 

It's a Russian FED, complete with a FED lens.

 

Denis

Al, as far as the Westons go, the Weston VI is not the "real thing" - i.e. it's a knock-off, not really made by Weston, and therefore not as reliable.

 

Back to the original question: Wee-Ming, if you decide for a Weston, your best bet is Weston V for battery-less operation, or a Weston Ranger for a better meter which uses a battery and offers a (kind of) spot measurement.

Make sure you also get the Invercone (incident metering attachment).

 

Weston Rangers are not that easy to come by, compared to older ones, and are often more expensive (in the $100 range usually for a working specimen).

 

Denis<div></div>

Well, I'm one of those who use Linux - I've been a Linux fan for a long time, but switched completely only about a year ago, mainly due to security concerns. I still use windows, though - but in a vmware window, so windows has no access to internet or anything "dangerous". Would like to ditch them completely, but need MS Office for work. Actually, not Office, but Trados, and some other proprietary specialized translation tools...which can be run only on windoze :(

 

Linux DOES have stuff for a photographer: Gimp is OK, but not really up to Photoshop standards. For me, it's easier to do some quick stuff in PS. Scanner support is better under Windows :(

 

OTOH, my digital point'n'shoot works much better under Linux - the interface is much better than the one offered under Windows (Canon).

For browsing, it's Mozilla (Firefox). Can't live without tabbed browsing, once I got a taste of it...

 

Spyware is a non-issue in my setup...

 

Denis

More like a stare :)<div></div>

<I><B>

Kirk Teetzel , dec 21, 2004; 08:01 a.m.</B> </P>

Has anybody ever noticed a differece between the chrome and black versions? For example, my black Jupiter 8 seems to be slightly more robust than the chrome ones I've seen; I was just wondering if the same was the case for the 12.</I> </P>

 

In my experience, black Jupiters are usually newer, and with better coating - not an extensive comparison, but based on several Jupiter 12 lens I've seen and used. </P>

OTOH, I have a chrome J8 ('66 vintage) that came with a Zorki 4, and which is excellent - doubt that a black (newer) one could be any better. </P>

Denis

While we're at it, I wonder if anyone has any info on the lens used for his "(Sunday) On the banks of Marne"? That one definitely doesn't look like 50mm perspective - but I might be wrong...

M2 & Summitar 50/2, Efke KB100<div></div>