astral

<p>Hey Paul - I always like a good time! The sad fact is that the curency exchange rate for US Dollars to GB Pounds is $1 = £1 when it comes to price comparisons across 'the pond'. So a lens that costs $300 in the US generally costs £300 in the UK - or around $500.</p>

<p>However, I take your point - the 400mm Telyt (even here) is not overly expensive. However, I don't use many of my other-make 200mm lenses very often, so 250mm is pushing things, and 300mm and longer lengths are scary territory for me. I am using a 300mm f5.6 Tamron SP very occasionally - and might stick with that for a few months.</p>

<p>I'd like to have something longer than 180mm for a personal 'trans-Europa expedition' to the Carpathians and Hungary in a two months time. A 400mm would definately have uses in the flatter parts of Hungary, especially for the wildlife. Anyway, I have a short while in which to get organised. The early 250/4 Telyt that Iinitially attracted me was on offer at £210 and has now been reduced to £175 - with another £30 or so off the price I just <em>might </em>be tempted.</p>

 

<p>The Leica part number is 12506. Alternatively a 72mm screw-in hood may work, or even a larger one via a stepping ring. The main value is to give some physical protection to that large exposed chunk of glass.</p>

<p>Rob, Doug, thanks. Your comments tip the balance. As I have a 135mm f2.8, a 250mm could <em>substitute </em>for a 180mm at times, giviing a bit more 'spread' of focal lengths. However, given the limitations, the early 250/4 doesn't seem a wholly convincing bargain at present.</p>

<p>Maybe it's a question of knowing the strengths and weaknesses of various tools, and the limitiations and opportunities that they provide? For me, it isn't always about choosing the "sharpest tool in the box", or using it with the greatest precision or finesse: sometimes, a blunt tool and a heavy hand - and a few 'goofs' - can give wonderful artistic results, intentionally or not. Nowadays I try to make interesting 'pictures' rather than 'perfect' photographs. Yes, occasionally the gear "lets me down", but I often it's because I've choosen the wrong tools, or the wrong techniques . . .</p>

<p>There are not many posts (on pnet) about the Telyt-R 250mm f4 versions, and I am wondering what are the virtues (etc) of these lenses in real photographic use?</p>

<p>The Hove Leica Pocket Book shows that the earlier model (11920) has a generally better perfomance than the later (11925) model, at least in Erwin Puts' view. Photos from Doug Herr and others show good out of focus rendering at close distances, but does this break down as the subject to background distance, etc, varies?</p>

<p>Finally, the Pocket Book doesn't explicitly state that early version has a rotating tripod mount, but I assume that, logically, it must have?</p>

<p>I already use a 180mm f4, so 250mm is not a really significant increase in subject magnification. However, as the first models are now really quite cheap, so I am tempted to complete my focal length coverage. The lens will be used only occasionally, mainly for landscapes, on a SL2 or R5/7: hence, an Apo-Telyt isn't an option.</p>

<p>Any comments about the 250/4 Telyt and maybe how, or if, it pairs up with the 180/4 Elmar-R? Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As Gordon implies, Makinon were average to mediocre lenses with much lower manufacturing tolerance than Pentax, and were also optically inferior by a large margin. Identical lenses were sold under the Ozeck, Comet, Gardners, Inter-City and other store-brands in the UK, and similar re-branding no doubt applied in other countries. Typically, they cost half of the price of a good Vivitar or Tamron (in the 1980s).</p>

<p>However, they were popular as family snap-shot lenses, say up to 7x5-inches, and perfectly adequate for that purpose: their limitations kicked-in at larger sized prints and for projected images. In tests conducted by Camera Weely (UK) they consistently underperformed most other store brands. (See my earlier post <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00Sr1q">here</a>).</p>

<p>The technical challenge of fixing lenses like this can actually be pretty satisfying - sorry I can't offer any useful advice here. However, I would bear in mind that the results from a repaired lens <em>might </em>be pretty disappointing.</p>

<p>There are one or two very nice models in the <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/petri35.htm">Petri Color 35 range (link)</a> . Whist Petri were often not considered to be in the top-most tier, many Petri compacts are somewhat under-appreciated and thereby can be reasonably priced. However they are scarce in some countries.I beleive all cameras in that series had meters - I don't know if, or how. they were coupled.</p>

<p>At the really cheap and cheerful end, the later Ricoh 500G and related series have great lenses, and a few models have interesting features like multi-exposure (500ME) - as well as the funky (very noisy) clockwork winder. Most use silver cells and they can meter in manual mode and AE mode (or just forget the meter).</p>

<p>Series filters have a plain, unthreaded mount and are held in place by a screwed-in ring or the proper hood. The Series numbers bear little or no direct relation to size, and finding succinct information about Series filters ain't particularly easy - remembering it is even harder, but there are photo.net threads about this.</p>

<p>The dedicated hood has a thumb-operated device to rotate a Series 8.5 polarizer as well as holding 'normal' filters in place. Without the hood, an adapter ring will not readily allow a polarizer to be rotated, but will simply hold filters statically in place .However, the whole issue of filters and hood for the 21/4 becomes a little tricky. If using a 72mm screw-in filter, the addition of any circular hood seems to me to be futile - the dedicated rectangular hood just about works, a circular one looks great but may be ineffective or cause vignetting. Choices, choices . . .</p>

<p>Series filters are increasingly difficult to find and increasingly expensive (especially polarizers), especially outside the US.</p>

<p>The 'official' answer would be a Series 8.5 via an adapter ring, or in conjunction with the dedicated rectangular hood. Standard 72mm screw-in filters do fit (some a little loosely). However, some makes of filter <em>may </em>leave no space between the filter glass and the lens front element, or even allow the filter to touch the lens (with undesirable consequences).</p>

<p>Retinas - Earlier (pre-60s) ones have the advantage of folding down to pocket size and excellent lenses, but have rather 'squinty. viewfinders compared to the later Japanese r/f compacts . . . some of which are really rather large.</p>

<p>I subscribe to Jay's view. I'd hang on to the Nikon but start looking for a decent shirt-pocket digital P&S camera so that could ease my way into the digital experience. Most modern ones can print directly to very cheap but quite decent A4 printers without the need for a computer, and there are plenty of photo shops who have a similar (indeed slightly better) facility.</p>

 

<p>"You always see outside the frame lines...so more than 100%."</p>

<p>Not quite - The viewfinder magnification <em>determines </em>the (maximum) angular coverage of the viewfinder. No M cameras are capable of directly showing the view of, say a 21mm lens or wider, and few are really able to reliably indicate the coverage of a 28mm lens. There are prlenty of threads on this subject which are well worth researching because there are further complications for spectacle wearers and when using the supplementary x1.25 eyepiece magnifier.</p>

<p>The Canon rangefinder lenses are perfectly good for colour and B&W photos. However, scratched lenses, haze, fungus, old film, over exposure, under exposure, poor development, flare, backlighting, lousy scanning, poor technique . . . and a host of other factors can result in poor photographs. <em>Superficially</em>, poor contrast suggests a lens problem such as haze or fungus, but may also be poor processing. Examples help, but so does some elimination of these key issues. . . . . .</p>

<p>John, the really great thing about Leica is that you have access (though often at a significant cost) to a very diverse range of lenses with some very interesting characteristics. Some old lenses are just as special as the lates aspheric models: put simply, sharpness and high contrast ain't everything. Learning about the character of a particular - often in detail - seems to be an important issue for Leica owners compared to users of most other marques, but there are few definitive answers. So, using Leicas can be quite an adventure . . . Enjoy!</p>

<p>John - for me getting the right tools for the job, and value for money are a key trade-off in considering Voigtlander vs Leitz/Leica lenses. In many respects I would rather use my late version Summicron 50/2 than the 50/1.5 Nokton - largely because I don't work at f1.5. Still at 50mm, comparing the 1960's 50/2.8 Elmar with the 50/2.5 Skopar, I would invariably pick the Elmar for its 'classic' performance, particularly in B&W, but the Skopar really does handle much better.</p>

<p>The late V4 Summicron 35mm f2 is a much nicer (sharper, contrasty) lens than the 35/2.5 Skopar, but it's becoming ridiculously expensive. Paradoxically, I much prefer my 'old school' 35/2.8 Summaron for B&W work to either of the the other 35mm lenses: the Skopar is, quite honorably, positioned right in the middle in my opinion. The 90/4 Elmar sounds like a good choice: I quite fancy trying one myself some day. I have the Apo Lanthar 90/2.5, but I don't use it seems to lack character - sharpness ain't everything</p>

<p>Thanks, I think the pluck foam may have its uses, but the compartments are rather more future-proof. The cost is quite significant though, so I have just improvised a compartment system using an old camping roll-up sleeping mat cut into strips. There's room for improvement through practical trial and error, but this approach costs only a few dollars/pounds/euros. Clearly this isn't a good solution for a hand-portable case, but it should be fine for use in the car, etc.</p>

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

<p>Thanks, I think the pluck foam may have its uses, but the compartments are rather more future-proof. The cost is quite significant though, so I have just improvised a compartment system using an old camping roll-up sleeping mat cut into strips. There's room for improvement through practical trial and error, but this approach costs only a few dollars/pounds/euros.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you have a six month warranty what is the problem? Also, if you live in the EU and bought buy from an EU supplier, you are covered by rather strong consumer protection legislation, including the Distance Selling Directive if you buy by mail order. As far as my own experience goes, I've had more problems with poorly executed CLAs than inherrent manufacturing problems with Leica cameras. Apart from that I believe that Leicashop has a good reputation, and I have never had a problem with gear from them or with the shop itself.</p>

<p>Good point David, I could just stuff cameras and lenses into their own padded bags (or a couple of socks, or bubble wrap as Thomas suggest) and pile the lot into the Peli, and other cases.<br>

That has the advantage that <em>any</em> item can be transferred to the lock-up cases without further fiddling with dividers. For the time being that takes the pressure off trying to order items before Easter.<br>

Slow brain day here today, D'oh!</p>

<p>I have just inherited a Peli 1550 to add to my other 'expedition kit'; however, it doesn't have any inserts ... It will only be used to transport medium format gear in a off-roading 4x4, and not 'hand-portable'.<br /><br />I have used the regular "pluck-out" foams previously, but they are not 'future-proof (that is, easily re-configurable), though they can be made to hold gear snugly, but at the expense of some wasted space in order to keep the 'walls' firm. <br /><br />I'd appreciate any comments on any "<em>shake, rattle and roll</em>" with the Peli Padded Dividers insert system, and whether a large 645 slr camera can be easily accomodated.</p>

<p>Thanks<br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p>For me it all started with a 15mm Voigtlander (plus Bassa R2) because it was cheaper, more compact and generally better, than the Nikon equivalent. It's been 'all downhill' since then, with a plethora of Voigtlander and Leitz/Leica lenses of all sorts and ages.</p>

<p>I use the 21mm Voigtlander: it is a really fine lens and the 35mm f2.5 is no slouch either. There are plenty of posts on these lenses and many sample images (e.g. see a previous post of mine) - they are well worth researching.</p>

<p>This occurred on my first 50/3.5 Elmar. I cured it by working-in <em>a very small amount</em> of watch-maker's grease: the focussing needed similar treatment, since it was very dry and 'lumpy' However, I did subsequently have the lens cleaned because as the original lubricants dry-out they often cause haziness inside the lens - in mine it was at a critical level. You may find you have a similar situation.</p>

<p>There's only one hat for a <em>gentleman </em>- a genuine 'crushable' Panama . . . (but I ain't always a 'gentleman')</p>

<p>The F5 (and F6) are great for sports, fast action, fashion, news photojournalism, or similar 'dynamic' photography. However, for general photography, landscape, steet photography and macro I find the F5 to be too big, too heavy and over-specified. Instead I mostly use an F80 (N80), F3 or FM2n - all lighter and more convenient to use. Also, in practical terms the rather inflexible focus point selection of the F5 (don't know about the F6) is less satisfactory than that in the F80/F100.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Voigtlander Skopar 50mm f2.5 has had many mixed comments. Mine is great (link ) - optically, the lens is plenty sharp enough for enlargement to A3. There is no vignetting and no discernible distortion. Contrast is high and colour rendition is pretty neutral. It's quite compact and ergonomically easy to use, but rather it's heavy - however it (thankfully) doesn't have an infinity lock. Some of the earliest production lenses are reputed to have centering issues which adversely affect image quality.</p>

<p>Alternatives that I will happily use are: Canon 50mm f1.8 and f1.4. The late version Canons are styled to suit the 1960s Canon r/f cameras and may not look as elegant as a Leitz lens (or silver Skopar). The older (non-Serenar) silver 50mm f1.8 is not dissimilar to the Summarit. Its only drawback is in finding 40mm filters and hoods (I use a step-up ring to 40.5 available on-line).</p>

<p>The ultimate 50mm is the rigid LTM 50/2 Summicron (both vintage and modern limited edition) - but they are pretty rare and very desirable - hence expensive (in the order of Eur 1000).</p>