vahe_sahakian

<p>“I really wish Leica would come up with a short, light and relatively cheap 135.”</p>

<p>Relatively cheap from Leica? Not goig to happen, but then there is the 135 4.0 Tele Elmar, one of the finest 135’s and almost as good as the current 135 apo and it is relatively cheap.<br>

I have three 135’s, Elmar, Tele Elmar and the big Elmarit, the Tele Elmar is the finest of the three.</p>

<p>I have the Nikkor 28 F3.5 PC, to me this is strictly a tripod lens, I use a plain ground glass with grid on my F2.<br>

As for focus, I normally just guess the distance while the lens is in the shift position, the depth of field is very latge on a 28mm lens and sice this PC is primarily optimized for F8 or slower settings getting a perfect focus is a non issue.</p>

 

<p>I have the older 300/4.5 ED, not the EDIF, spectacularly sharp for nature long distance shots, now I am wondering about its 400mm equivalent.</p>

<p>I have the 28/3.5 PC Nikkor, this one is really a tripod lens and requires a small pocket size level to get it aligned perfectly, at about f/11 it becomes critically sharp producing photos that rival 4x5 view cameras for moderate size prints.</p>

<p>Strictly at 400mm and considering the image quality alone, and lets not discuss the slow focus and AF, just the optical quality in long distance nature shots, how do these zooms compare to the older manual focus 400/5.6 ED or EDIF lenses?</p>

<p>It would be next to impossible to guess what 50mm lens this is, but considering the rather heavy dose of field curvature evident in out of focus background it would be easy to establish one fact, that it is not one of the better Leica lenses such as Summicron, Elmar-M or Lux.</p>

<p>If you are primarily interested in 5.6 / 8 you should really consider 2.8 Summaron, it is one of the sharpest 35mm lenses at this F ratios.</p>

<p>Just a step above in quality is the 35 f/2.8 Summaron, I bought mine a little over 40 years ago, at f/5.6 to f/8 this lens will stand against anything that Leica has to offer, if you do not need speed look into this one.</p>

<p>Yes, Don did a real nice CLA for my IIIg but it took forever to get it back.</p>

<p>That is the reason for asking about CLA person other than Dag and Sherry, DAG did my IIIg and it took a very long time to get it back.</p>

<p>Bypassing DAG and Sherry, who would be the next best option for Leica repair/CLA?</p>

<p>Vahe</p>

<p>"Rarity is its only virtue."<br>

The IIIg viewfinder is the most important virtue compared to other LTM’s.</p>

<p>Very nice presentation, let the pictures do the talking, I wish that Ken had included the 35/2.8 Summaron in this test, this little old lens continues to amaze me with its image quality.</p>

<p>I am a bit skeptical about cameras with CLA that are offered for sale. Not all CLA’s are indication of quality work by a competent camera expert and with what I know about doing it right I do not see how anyone would send a M camera to DAG or Sherry for a full CLA and then turn around and sell it, numbers just do not add up.<br>

I have two M3’s, both are SS and are over 50 years old, they work perfect with no CLA so far.<br>

If it were me I would look for the cosmetically cleanest M body that I can afford and then send it to one of these folks for a quality CLA.</p>

<p><em>"the submariner will retain it's value much longer than the m9."</em><br>

But it can only give you the time no better than your cell phone, the M9 will freeze time and leave you with your past memories long after it disappears in the landfill.</p>

<p>Why not have have both, get a Timex + M9</p>

<p>The Climate, high humidity and all other problems do not fully explain the level of abuse that this camera was subjected to, based on what I see in the photo this poor old M3, for whatever reason, was simply beaten to death.<br>

I was born in Iran of Armenian parents, came to the US in 1993 to attend a college and stayed here, when I arrived here I brought with me three Leicas, a nice IIIf and two M3, all in like new condition, I started over there with the older ASA10 Kodachromes doing mostly landscape photography.<br>

There were several fine camera stores in Iran back then, they carred Leicas of all sorts, Rollei, various East German SLR’s including Exakta, Pentacon etc.<br>

M3’s were very popular, a good many of my old friends traded their Contaxes for M3’s </p>

<p>And then there is the 35.2.8 Summaron, I have one with goggles. If you do not need the speed this lens will stack up against any in quality and sharpness, in fact between f5.6 and f8 it is one of the sharpest wide angles from leica.</p>

 

<p>If you are really interested in Leica reflex system you obviously are not interested in autofocus, big zooms and all those fancy gizmos that have made Nikon/Canon so popular with the go-go crowd.<br>

So, with that in mind and with an eye toward more basic SLR but with the highest quality optics, if it were me I would consider one of the earlier SL, SL2 for the quality of viewfinder or R-6 which is one of the most recent mostly manual SLR.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Actually it is not all that expensive if compared to the top of the line pro Nikon/Canon DSLR’s, in fact I am surprised at the price considering the fact that it is hand made machine using German labor.</p>

<p>Vahe</p>

<p>It will probably come down to that if you can wait a while.</p>

<p>Vahe</p>

<p>I am still in the stone ages with 4x5, medium format, Leica & Nikon film cameras, but I am getting ready to get my first digital, I considered M9 but it is too darn expensive, the D700 is a bit more reasonable although it is going to take a while to get used to the size after using Leica and Nikon F2 film cameras.<br>

My main interest is landscapes and I will be using all MF Nikon lenses, full frame is the only criteria that I am not willing to compromise, I want my 50mm lens to be a 50mm and not become a telephoto. One other important criteria for me is the quality of the reflex viewfinder, I am spoiled with what I see through the F2 viewfinder, I have looked through a D300 viewfinder, no contest, but I have not looked through D700 viewfinder, hope it is at least close enough to my F2, if not I will wait.</p>

<p>Vahe</p>

<p>Somewhat related.<br>

A long time ago I bought 400/5.6 Kilfitt telephoto for M3 Visoflex II use, I wanted a sharp lens for landscapes, Kilfitt was ok but not too sharp so I sold it.<br>

The Kilfitt came with its own "visoflex" which I still have in my collection, this thing resembles Leica's Visoflex I.<br>

Currently I use a Nikon MF 400/5.6ED lens on my F2, very sharp indeed. ALL pre ED long telephotos are ok but if sharpness is your main criteria you need to consider an ED lens.</p>

<p>Vahe</p>

<p>I suggest trying this with another film first before you use your stock of K25.<br>

The older Kodachromes were extremely high contrast material and photographing them again on K25 will produce unacceptably high contrast duplicates.<br>

My experience with Kodachrome goes back to K10 in fifties, very little latitude with this film, requiring a perfect exposure or all was wasted.</p>

<p>The only way to reduce the contrast to acceptable level in slide duplication, not practical and extremely difficult, is to first make B&W duplicates, underexposed and exactly 1:1 in size. Place the B&W on the slides, align and photograph.</p>

<p>Vahe</p>

<p>The Elmar-M is my next Leica lens purchase, that is if I can find one that is not so darn expensive. I do have the older Elmar 50/2.8.</p>

<p>Vahe</p>