andy_piper2

In searching for a small 90mm alternative to my Canadian 90 Summicron I've noticed that there is some variation in how Leica lenses transmit color. The first two lenses I bought were the 90 and a Canadian 21 Elmarit. These two lenses are distinctly warmer (yellow, not red or pink) than my Midland 7-element 35 Summicron, or any other lenses I've tried (50 'cron, 90 Elmarit-M and Tele, 135 TE, 35 ASPH 2 & 1.4, 28 2.8). The color difference is about equal to 1/2 of an 81A filter, but there seems to be a UV-blocking component as well, because the 90/21 absolutely strip away Velvia's tendency to go violet, especially up here at 5,280 feet (and higher).

<p>

In an earlier post someone also mentioned that the Noctilux is yellow-warm and that this was because Leica had used a UV cutoff glass in the design simply because the refractive index fit the requirements.

<p>

Anyway, I am curious to know whether the pre-APO/ASPH 90 f/2 and 21 f/2.8 do in fact contain UV-blocking glass that is not used, or used less, in most of Leica's other lenses.

<p>

Or is there some other difference? Once upon a time I remember a rumor that Leica used a Black Forest pine resin that absorbed UV as a cement for lens elements.

<p>

Any thoughts?

Voigtlander/Cosina offers a right-angle finder for wide-angle lenses (see cameraquest.com's V'lander accesories page). Has anyone out there tried this? I'd like to know if it is a true waistlevel finder where you can see the whole image with your eye several feet away from the eyepiece (as with Nikons with the prism off) or if the eye must be right against the finder (as with the rightangle finders for FM2/Leica R, etc.)

<p>

In the past I've taken some great ground-level or over-the-top-of-the-crowd pictures with Canon F-1/Nikon F-F3 bodies with the prism off without having to put my belly in the grass or stand on a ladder. I'd like to be able to do this with my 21 on occasion now that I'm using Leica M. Any info?

<p>

Thanks

Thanks for the notes so far - I've been reading cameraquest for years,

so knew about the potential for problems. This TE has clean rear

elements, and I can't imagine how lubricant from inside could affect

the outside of a front element (but maybe it got sloppy service

sometime and a drop fell on the glass - or it may be something

essentially benign.) The TE IS beautifully light - maybe it's just

cursed in compensation.

<p>

I'm keeping the voightlander in mind, also the regular Elmarit. I have

the small 90 summicron - it's heavy, but has a wonderful color (as

does my 21 2.8) - about an 81A yellower than my 35 'cron. I really

need the warmer lenses shooting Velvia up here at 5,000 feet - more UV

light - they're giving me the best color slides I've had since I moved

to Denver.

<p>

My first glance at slides shot with the TE is that the color is more

like the 35 (and presumably other leica glass, since people always

refer to it as 'colder') The v'lander 15 and 25 are also a little

cold, so I wouldn't be surprised if their 90 is also.

<p>

Any ideas as to whether the 90 Elmarit runs to blue or yellow? If none

of the small 90's can match my Summicron's rembrandt glow, I may have

to stick with it, brick though it is.

<p>

(no sharpness/bokeh/tonality comparison betwen the TE and 'cron

yet...if I see anything interesting I'll make a separate post)

<p>

Thanks again

Thanks Jay and Andrew; very useful info. I decided to try out a TE for

myself to see if it's something I can live with...cause I'm really

feeling withdrawal from the size and weight of the CZ Sonnar 90 on my

late, great G2.

<p>

See more recent post on "Tele Elmarit Spot", though, 'cause I've got

another problem now.....

I'm trying out a mail-order 90mm Tele-Elmarit (thin). It has a spot on the front surface of the front element that has me concerned. The spot appears to be almost a mirror surface (like a grease spot, but won't rub off) about 2 - 2.5mm in diameter. It's a little over 1/2 way out from the center to the edge. From the front it looks smooth and undifferentiated, but looking through the lens from the rear there is clearly a smaller, more ragged mark in the center of the "mirrored" area, like a small scratch or chip. I have not yet seen processed film to determine if this mark is having any effect on image quality.

<p>

Is this a sign of some horrible process that will spread and eventually make the lens unusable? Or is it just a localized boo-boo that won't go any further? Any idea what a TE with such a mark is worth? I'd be glad to give it a good home as a user, but only if it won't get worse and I can get the price down to reflect its true bargain condition.

I tend to work on PROJECTS as opposed to individual pictures - and

when I start I make the choice that a given project will be B&W or

color (Small-town car racing at night - B&W; City of Denver coffee

table book - color). Sometime I choose B&W for technical reasons

(exceeding poor light) and sometime I see it as just an extension of

color photography (just a VERY limited color palette!!) - a way of

interpreting the subject, like lens choice or film size.

<p>

I have a digital darkroom, and one of its magic elements is that I can

scan a color slide original and make EITHER B&W or color prints - in

fact some of my nicest B&W work from the past 8 years started as color

transparencies (and yes, some of it is dramatic and/or sulky. e.g.

memorials for the 13 people killed at Columbine High School, anti/pro

gun demonstrations,etc.)

<p>

I actually prefer B&W from 50-speed slide film if there's enough

light. Velvia has much finer grain than any B&W negative film I've

seen, and amazing highlight detail (at least with Leica lenses). Plus

I can shoot at larger apertures in sunlight and get beautiful sharp/

soft bokeh pictures.

<p>

Ever since I discovered this interchangeability, I have basically

chosen B&W film only if I KNOW I'll have no need for color, and I need

really fast turn-around on weekends when the color lab is closed but

my bathroom lab is open, or if I need extra high speed for very low

light. Otherwise I default to color slide because I know it will work

either way.

<p>

If you don't have your own scanner or a nearby digital lab, or if you

just love doing your own chemical B&W processing I guess my technique

won't help. I'd still shoot color as default, though, because

EVENTUALLY you will have some method of getting B&W out of your color

pictures, and there will never be a way to add realistic color to a B&

W original (Ted Turner and his digitized movies notwithstanding).

<p>

As to your final question, I now often choose B&W after the fact,

because I want that dramatic sulky look, or because the color and

content of a picture don't mesh, or sometimes just because a picture

isn't especially colorful and makes more sense as a straight B&W

picture; essentially the same choices you would make on the fly with

two camera bodies, but made in the peace and quiet of my study while

looking at both versions on a computer monitor.

<p>

(Sorry about the yankee spelling of "color".)

Thanks for all the comments/ideas. Anyone know how to e-mail the whole

list to Solms? (I knew I'd get at least one "Ooooh! Ooooh!," with that

list)

<p>

Originally, I myself was most interested in the small short teles (see

post below - I still have withdrawal symptoms from my tiny G2/90

Sonnar) and was trying to gauge support for these, among the other

items.

<p>

But the night after I posted this, I was looking through my .60x Hexar

finder and thinking how great it was for wideangles (and how useless

for anything over 75mm) and I realized how well it would pair with a

1.00x finder (50-75-90-135 frames - stick your new tri-elmar on THAT!)

A 50mm frame in a 1.00 finder would be exactly the size of a 28 frame

in a .58 finder or a 35 frame in the .72 finder.

<p>

I actually had a vision of this 1.00x M6 (TTL height, black paint with

white/red engraving - sort of an über-M3.) But regular chrome/black

chrome would, of course, be fine.

<p>

I don't know if you've ever looked through a true life-size RF finder

(G2 with a 90, Canon P, various accesory finders) but it is so amazing

to see in stereo with both eyes open - the camera "disappears" and all

that remains is the real world with a frame floating in front of it.

<p>

Now MY keyboards damp!!

<p>

Andy

From a fellow Front-ranger;

<p>

I have a Hexar RF which has essentially a .58 finder. I have had a few

problems focusing my 90 at f/2.0, but none with anything shorter. And

remember that the Konica rangefinder is not quite up to Leica

standards (the secondary image moves around if you shift your eye,

throwing off focus...plus mine is out of adjustment - it's just so

much fun that I haven't been able to part with it long enough to send

it in for warranty fix yet.)

<p>

And if I'm careful, it WILL even focus the f/2 most of the time.

<p>

I do dream of a 1.00x finder with 50-135 frames for the longer guys.

<p>

But, in short, I would not hestitate to use an Elmarit on the Leica

.58 or the Konica - and being able to see a 28mm frame with space

around it (!!) is SOoo liberating!!

Leica's done an amazing job of updating the lens line over the past decade, as well as doing some functional stuff with the M-cameras (motor, .58 finder). Essentially they've replaced every lens in the lineup except the 50s and the 90 Elmarit (and the Elmarit may really count as the first of the upgrades).

<p>

So my question is, if YOU could sit next to Herr Cohn in Solms and choose ONE new or revised product in the lens line or cameras, which would you vote for (you may choose an item not on the list below). Where's the biggest hole? Where should Leica concentrate their R&D now?

<p>

a. 75 f/2.8 APO-Tele-Elmarit (250 grams or less)

b. 90 f/2.8 APO-Tele-Elmarit (300 grams or less)

c. 50 f/3.5 APO-Elmar collapsible (sharper than 2.8)

d. 50 f/1.4 Summilux (new design ported from R-series lens)

e. 24 f/2.0 ASPH-Summicron (hey, they're on a roll!)

f. M6 1.00x body with life-size finder and 50-135 frames

(with or without: TTL, black paint, script engraving...)

g. M7 body (type 1. Hexar RF-style body; autowind, AE)

h. M7 body (type 2. Electronic shutter shoehorned into classic M oval metal body cavity, manual wind/rewind, aperture-priority AE)

i. M7 body (type 3. All-mechanical, but without bottom loading)

o. "0" product with interchangeable screw-mount lenses and integral rangefinder (sorry!, just being cute!)

n. other...

I have a pre-APO 90 Summicron-M, which is beautiful, but also a brick to carry. I'm looking for a smaller, lighter companion 90, and would appreciate any evaluations or comments on the various E's, TE's and Elmar-C.

<p>

I'm especially interested in knowing about image color - it was the warm Rembrandt glow of the Summicron that persuaded me to bail from my G2's. I'd like to know whether the 2.8's or 4 are warmer, colder, the same, etc. Also compare relative sharpness - I know the Elmarit M is the tops, but I'd like to gather info on how the others compare with the 'cron. Wide open sharper, softer or the same? BEST aperture sharper, softer or the same?

<p>

From other postings here I'm aware of the mechanical issues with some TE's (element separation, lubricant etching, etc.) so you can ignor those aspects.

<p>

Erwin Puts hasn't gotten around to posting ratings for the historical 90's, so I'm counting on you folks...Thanks.

This may be after the fact. I approve your lens choices.

<p>

I recently may the switch from G myself - never had a problem with

the mechanics, actually, but hated how the Zeisses interacted with

Velvia. Leitz glass (yeah, most my stuff is so old it says 'Leitz') is

much more delicate in how it lays down the image on film.

<p>

Expect some culture shock - you're going from an auto-everything

camera that showed you 28 and 35 frames that you could actually see,

and gave you life-sized viewing with a 90 - to an auto-nothing camera

where the 28 and 35 frames are out in your peripheral vision and the

90 frame is a distant box in the middle of the finder and you have to

surgically insert the film through the bottom!

<p>

(Leica folks sit down and shut up for a second - this is a private

counseling session between recovering Zeiss addicts!! OK???? )

<p>

Some tips.

<p>

1. Loading film - the watch words are "trust but verify". Best trick

I've discovered: bend back the first 1/4 inch of the film leader AWAY

from the emulsion and MORE than 90 degrees. Slide the film leader into

two of the slots of the takeup spool so that it runs in one side and

out the other and the bent part "hooks" back around one of the spool

splines. And then WATCH IT as you make the first wind to make sure it

get trapped under th incoming film. Then you can feel pretty safe. If

you don't do this you WILL eventually find yourself stuck at frame 6

as the film wind goes "gratch-gratch-gratch" because the film came off

the spool and the sprockets and isn't winding anymore.

<p>

2. If you really find yourself getting withdrawal symptoms from the G-

cameras' features, consider a Hexar RF as a 2nd body. As Jay and

others mentioned, it is basically a G2 minus the high speed motor and

multi-exposure, and with Leica M focusing and a beautiful wide-angle

finder with easy-to-see 35 and 28 frames. (Some people have issues

with the Hexar - see Hexar strings on this website for details. I have

some issues with mine - but still use it as much as my Leica!!)

<p>

3. Zeiss puts all of it's MTF into contrast - Leica puts some into

contrast and some into extra resolution. At first glance your Leica

images will look soft compared to the Planars and Sonnars. In reality

the sharpness will be essentially identical for the focal-lengths/

speeds/models you've chosen, and in addition the Leicas are giving you

much smoother tonal gradations. That 3D effect you got in the Zeisses

from CAPITAL-C CONTRAST will come in the Leicas from sharp edges and

soft backgrounds. I won't spend a lot of time on it here, but you've

never really understood the term 'Bokeh" until you've seen a shot with

a 1981 Summicron 35 at f/2!!

<p>

4. Focusing with a 90. Again the watch words are "Trust but Verify".

Even my M4-2 occasionally misfocuses with the 90 (OK, OK, I mean I

occasionally misfocus my M4-2 with the 90) There is a black hole out

there between about 60 feet and "effective infinity" (200 feet) where

the accuracy of a rangefinder just slips outside the available depth

of field for a telephoto wide open (I have an f/2 which makes it even

trickier) But even at closer distances there are times when I KNOW the

images were lined up and - "poof" - the focus is out by 10-20%. Just

remember to take extra care with the long lens, because it CAN bite.

<p>

I've tried the 15-25 voightlander lenses. My impression is that they

are a) colder than Leica lenses and b) not quite as sharp/tonally

sophisticated, but extremely usable and very sweet compared to SLR

lenses: An "A" to Leica's A+ and Nikon's A-/B+.

<p>

If you have any other questions feel free to email me as well as ask

'em here.

My wife's Canadian, so I have a built-in respect for the quality of

anything produced up north. She and I are both tickled that since all

my lenses (21,35,90) are also from Midland, I actually own something

very collectable and rare - the ONLY professional-quality

interchangeable-lens 35mm camera system produced not in Germany or

Japan but entirely in North America!! (Kodak made something in the

40's/50's, but I think it was German-built).

<p>

Salute the M4-2. It's the camera that carried the torch for

rangefinder photography during Leica's years (literally!) in the

Canadian wilderness. They made only 16,000 of them (half as many as

the M5) If the M4-2 had died, there would have been no M6, no G2, no

Hexar or Hexar RF, no Voigtlander...nothing but a sea of SLR's as far

as the eye can see.

<p>

"Oh, Canada....!"

I, too, have a possible wish list for both camera and lens innovations

from Solms (how about taking another stab at a 250-gram Tele-Elmarit

or APO-Tele-Elmarit 90 or 75 - now that we've gained 35 years of

computer and glass development and experience. It might actually be

sharp this time!)

<p>

But we also need a reality check. As noted, the last time Leica tried

to produce something that wasn't essentially a 1954 M3 with bells on

(the M5) Leica users ran screaming.

<p>

And the last time Leica tried to maintain two rangefinder body lines

simultaneously (CL and M5/M4-2) they cannibalized each other to the

point the company nearly went under (yes there were other factors,

too.)

<p>

If Leica produces an M7 that is not just an electronic shutter dropped

into the existing M3/6 body cavity - but more along the lines dreamed

of here - what happens to the M6 with its ruggedness, timelessness,

and mechanical reliability? Suppose total Leica sales go up 60%, but

M6 sales decline to 60% of current levels? Will the cost-per-unit kick

M6 prices up to $2500 on the street.

<p>

Even if Leica just licenses the bottom half of Hexar RFs and adds

their own 1.00x .72x and .58 finders, do they end up killing off the

M6? And if they don't, does the competition end up killing off the M6?

<p>

Thoughts?

You guys do, of course, know that Voigtlander is making a "waistlevel"

wind-angle finder for rangefinder use, with interchangeable optics to

match 15, 21, and 25mm framing? See Steve Gandy's Cameraquest.com page

under the V'lander accesories link.

<p>

If Steve (or someone else familiar with these finders) can tell me:

I've always wondered whether these are true waistlevel finders (i.e.

you can see the whole frame from several feet away) or just right-

angle finders where you must jam your eye right up against them (as

with COntax, Nikon FM2, or the R-series right-angle finders). If they

are true waistlevel (like the Nikon F and Canon F1 without prisms)

I'll order one tomorrow.

<p>

Even as a Leica lover, I realize that sometime eyelevel is NOT the

best point of view.

For what it's worth - while doing the lens comparisons that persuaded

me to switch from G2 to Leica M, I noticed that the 90mm framing of

both an M4-2 and a G2 exactly duplicated the view through a 105 Nikkor

on a 100% Nikon F viewfinder. (Quasi-infinity focus: a storefront

about 100 feet away across a city street)

<p>

In other words, both RFs show you the field of view of a 105 with

their 90s. This corresponds exactly with everyone's estimates that the

viewfinders show about 85% of actual image area (on average).

<p>

(I do sometime pine for the life-size view through a G2 with a 90 -

both eyes open and stereo vision, with just a frame floating in space.

Dare I dream of an M6 1.00x with 50, 75, 90, and 135 frames? Or how

about an M7 1.00x with the shutter/wind of a Hexar and a nice, big

Leica-made Leica-quality rangefinder!!)

Check out the "Austin Powers" commemorative Leica M-4 at Steve Gandy's

Cameraquest.com web site - did somebody mention wanting a rainbow

camera?