rgerraty

<p>I have the version 4 and used it this morning. It is almost glued to my Monochrom. The 'bear claw' focussing tab is great, as is the lens hood reversing with cap: you can't take a photograph with the lens cap on, and the whole package fits in the bag neatly and the hood is always available. My hood is plastic which adds a bit of protection in minor bumps and it doesn't deform. The optics are the same as current. It is very small for an f2 50. A near perfect lens, MADE IN CANADA.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

Thanks Arthur. Australia latitude 35 S is very bright but I will test it out here.

<p>No Bill, the area metered is not constant and expands with increasing field of view of the lens. The manual details this for the frame lines supplied, the metered area being the next smallest bound area, specifically defined for the 50, the RF patch for the 90, the 135 frame lines for the 35, and the 90mm frame lines for the 28, even though there aren't 28 frame lines. With a wide angle like a 25 the metered area will be much bigger than the RF patch and bigger than the 90mm frame lines.</p> <p>Arthur, I am not sure what you do with the sky reading. Even pointing a 21 straight ahead will produce underexposure if letting the in-camera meter determine the exposure. From 28 and wider, inclusion of the sky will cause consistent underexposure by an automatic meter like the M9's and with manual settings determined only by a behind the lens meter. Maybe a sky reading would work if you then add two stops of exposure.</p>

First, I mounted mine without thinking. It's ok on the M5. I use sunny 16 or a hand held. If I want a meter reading with the camera I point it to the ground to cut the sky out of the metering frame.

Thanks Charlie.

<p>The other</p><div></div>

<p>Not quite the Tower of London. Sorry for the cat photo, but he's borne this so nobly.</p><div></div>

<p>Agree with Stephen. Not economical to CLA and sell. CLA is by the owner for the owner.</p>

<p>Barry, wonderful shot. This is a black and white page I want to join. The small scale won't do justice to this one but never mind. And yours is sweet too Jim, and would do well in black and white as well.</p><div></div>

<p>M9-P and 50 C Sonnar</p><div></div>

You have my sympathy Mukul, although I never really noticed I had any trouble with the M6. I hate the 50 frame lines in the digital Ms and when I want to achieve inner peace, a lower heart rate, and lower blood pressure, I get out my M2 and look through its VF.

<p>The EVF on the Rolleiflex has very complex electronics which result in the image moving left when you move the camera right, proof that it is a functioning electronic device. The LCD was never included to keep it light and to stop you wasting the arbitrary buffer limit of 12 shots, a cute carry over from the days of film when there was a limit to how many photographs a photographer could take.</p>

<p>Stick a picture on the M3's film back, something bright and contrasty, and tell them that the LCD is on.</p> <p>Years ago the security services found the Queen's beat up old M3 every ready case in her luggage and there was some concern until they identified it as a camera and belonging to and in use by her.</p>

<p>There is just something about vertical RF focussing which is difficult. Most of us focus horizontal and the rotate the camera.</p>

Elliott Erwitt in a recent interview with his son maintained that HC-B was still for him the master and his favourite photograph was the other railway one, the two men at the concrete railing above the receding train tracks.

I have a Leica II which is well brassed, but the paint is otherwise glorious high gloss and perfectly smooth. Others I've seen online are the same. This can't be an original Leica paint job.

My sensor was replaced in Melbourne, rangefinder adjusted and shutter release button relubricated. Camera Clinic's repair staff had training in Solms and are approved for these major works. I'd be sure it's the same in London and New Jersey.

<p>The banks of the Marne. Not necessarily quintessential HC-B composition, but such a lively movement in that picture. The handlebar moustachioed man behind the tennis court perimeter. The glinting glasses lens of the man at the wooden gate. The parade of figures along a curving road in Scanno. The cyclist in Hyeres. The Indian lady's splayed fingers delicately cradling her child's head, those fingers echoing his ribs, echoing the cart-wheel's spokes...The Gondola's prow marking the arch of the bridge like a speedometer needle, with a girl dashing off the bridge to the right. And many portraits, Giacometti carrying his sculpture, M and Mme Joliot-Curie in their appartment, Francois Mauriac, The man kissing the hand of Cardinal Pacelli.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I agree with Philip about the Summicron. I have a Canadian tabbed Summicron from around 1980 and it has a hood which revereses with a cap and the ergonomics of the reversible hood, the tab and the size of the Summicron let alone its optics makes it a staple lens glued almost to one of my cameras. I also like the modern Elmar M 50 2.8 which collapses. It has no tab, but it has a short focus throw and is not diffiuclt to focus. For street shooting it is sometimes nice not to have a tab, as I don't then knock it off the prefocus position. For me size is almost the first consideration in choosing a lens from the cupboard. The Zeiss hoods are great and their bayonet mount is lovely but they add to the bulk and the number of things to carry and capping the lens is fiddly and the Zeiss caps are awful.</p>

<p>The C Sonnar is a wonder and very compact for such a fast lens. I don't agree that it is special purpose. I have used it on the M5 for months at a time as my only lens. It has a distinctive character even at f5.6 depending on the shot. The dreamy out of focus background in Philip's shot is part of its charm, but the extreme shallowness of the depth of field close up in portraits is part of the excitement too. This often works out better at f2 or 2.8 for at f1.5 perhaps only one eye will be sharp. Focus shift varies from copy to copy and from one user to another. Some do not notice it. Some have been maddened by it and sold the lens. One expert here has two C Sonnars: one optimized for f2.8 and the other for f1.5. I studied mine and I think it is optimized for ~f2.2. This gives me the best of both worlds, very slight front focus at f1.5, then increasing back focus from f2.8 to f4, the sharpest focus point well contained by the depth of field provided by those smaller apertures.</p>

<p>On digital I might go out for an afternoon with the 21 4.5 and not use the external VF. I soon get in the groove of the FOV. I wear glasses and used the Zeiss 25/28 finder the first time I used the 28 and only once since. I can see one frame line of the 28 in the camera only, but I am just used to it.</p>

<p>The 28 2.8 ASPH is razor sharp and very small. It is Leica's smallest and cheapest lens for M mount. I bought one second hand for $1600 with hood and all caps etc. I do think the 28 Summicron gives a very special look which one day I might think is worth having. But the size of the lens I have is a great boon. And with digital I don't miss the extra stop of the Summicron. I recently travelled with just the 50 Summicron and that 28 2.8. I used to always have the Zeiss 21 f4.5 in my bag for city architecture, but since I got a 28 I don't need to. With your mountain hikes I reckon the 28 2.8 for its size and weight would be the thing. I find 28 focal length is a long way from both 21 and 35.</p>

I love the vertical hanging and love having no lug interfering with the right hand on the M5. Very easy to protect in the rain. Doesn't swing about so much over the shoulder. Without the custom sliding leather strap the M5 has to be taken off the shoulder to put into shooting position, but I carry mine in the left hand when shooting and have the strap wound around my wrist. I would hate a huge M5 lug on the controls side of the body.

I have the Zeiss 2.8 35 and really like it. There is also a thread on the f2 Zeiss 35 on rangefinderforum.com. I am very happy with the build of all my Zeiss lenses, except my 25 which is a bit stiff and perhaps has the beginnings of the Zeiss wobble. I have the 35 Summicron and like that very much. It is an understated look that the images made with it have. The most remarkable thing about the version 4 (pre ASPH) Summicron is its size: absolutely tiny. I think there is something special about some of the Zeiss lenses which isn't just imagination. I agree with th earlier suggestion to look up images. To search RFF use Google: try searching Zeiss biogon f2 love site:rangefinderforum.com and you'll find the thread I refer to above. EDIT: Here's the RFF thread - just looked through it again myself. You couldn't be unhappy with the Zeiss. See Tom A's posts. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127259