yoyo lee

<P>Your adapter is not a counterfeit. I have a LEIOM (OM lens to LTM ring) which gives OOF image when I use it to mount an OM lens on my Leica IIIf. I conclude that these LEIxxx rings could be designed for use with bellow rather than adapter per se. Well, I could be wrong.</P>

<P> </P>

<P> </P>

I've found the v4 cron pretty sharp, even wide open. Here is a random shot of my friend. Taken with M8, ISO360,

resized to 25%:

 

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/yol925/2726379595/" title="ykw_myfriend_0 by yol925, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/2726379595_c435be0dde_o.jpg" width="1024" height="688"

alt="ykw_myfriend_0" /></a>

 

<a href = "http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/2726380137_0d15a27bdb_o.jpg">click here to see 100% crop</a>

<p>

Not the best lighting nor pix, I know :) and apology for the large size.</p>

<p>A little fact-finding might have made comments like "A meter is equal to .. three feet, three inches." and "Take a basic photography course, or get a book on it." quite unnecessary.

 

Drew was not 100% correct about the Elmar lens going down to 1 foot, but close. It is 0.5m. Theere exists a near-focus nickel Elmar 3.5cm which does focus down to 0.5m. According to Paul-Henry van Hasbroeck's Leica book (on p.208): "It was apparently issued with metric marking only- as was <B>the near focus Leica I, with which it was especially intended to be used. A special rangefinder, with a close-up accessory, was available separately for use with the lens.</B>

 

So now we know why Drew produced those soft pictures with this lens! They could never in focus, without using that separate rangefinder.<p>

 

<p>OTOH, if Drew were to sell this lens, it would probably fetch quite a huge sum. BTW, I have one which I picked up 10 years ago in Surrey/Guildford for a song. I was a student then. This is how it looks on a Leica II, lens set at min. focusing distance (see? it is definitely below 2 feet.)

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2371/2148345720_5e8e7a73dd_o.jpg">

 

</p>

The Canon 35/2 screwmount has very high centre sharpness, even wide-open. 2-3 stops down it is reputed to be as good as the summicron. The w-nikkor 35/3.5 is of a Tessar design (if I remember correctly). Already good wide-open and by 5.6 to f8, it's great. It's slower than the canon but is also much more compact and looks sooo nice on a Barnack.

<p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/375331423_edb19fc0e5_o.jpg">

 

</p>

Recently, I paid $530 for a mint canon 35/2 (probably on the high side, an exc one is $400-ish.) paid about $300 for the w-nikkor, about the same level as a mintish summaron 35/3.5. OTOH, I was lucky to have the LTM 35 cron ASPH for about $2000, same 3 years ago. Not sure what is the current price, but certainly higher. That is IF you can find one.

Hello Miffy,

 

Since you are looking for a 35mm <modern> lens, good as they are, summaron's probably won't fit the bill. Not even the first gen LTM summicron (which is way too expensive these days.) Same goes for the UC-Hexanon 35/2.

 

The limited LTM 35mm cron ASPH would probably be what you are after, BUT, it is hard to come by and also quite expensive, heavy and bulky.

 

The Canon 35f2 is compact and sharp, not that expensive. Some people don't like its bokeh wide-open though.

 

If speed is not a critical factor, you could also consider the W-NIKKOR 35/2.5 or even the 35/3.5(my favourite) in LTM. They are really great performers.

Oops! I meant "B+W filter would NOT do."

I encountered the same error before. Yes, it is most likely due to the filter and when focusing close. I found out that using the standard E46 UVa 13004 filter by Leica will not result in such problem! (Ha, try it out and see for yourself.) It must have somethig to do with the thickness of the filter. B+W filter would do.

:D :D

 

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/208/515708311_9b73bde671_o.jpg

">

 

Leica M3, Macro M90/4. Reala.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/71241795@N00/397083589/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/150/397083589_ad57103d3c_o.jpg" width="937" height="640" alt="Convenience Store" /></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/71241795@N00/359463886/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/359463886_52a8525ca3_o.jpg" width="812" height="559" alt="kopitiam chess players" /></a>

Hi Andreas.

 

After hearing all these horric stories of RF misalignment, if you don't intend to keep it, do let me know. I am keen.

 

Cheers!

 

yol

Hi Rich,

 

>>should the Elmar be set at infinity focus before using it?

 

From the question ask, I reckon that you may not have fully understood step 2).

Quote: <<2) Fully collapsed my Elmar and screwed it into the adapter by the rear flanges,>>

 

When fully collapsed, the Elmar lens tube must be de-coupled from its focusing ring already and hence the question of whether Elmar should be sedt at infinity focus is non issue.

 

Once mounted properly as per the 3 steps you mentioned, you can focus this close-up setup by a focusing lever on the NOOKY itself from 9 o'clock position (1:17.5) to about 2 o'clock position (1:6.5), which is about 1 foot.

 

It is quite a fun and cool looking setup. Just that the rangefinder spot will become quite dim and fuzzy as a result and that makes accurate focusing a challenge.

 

Enjoy!

 

YOL

Hello Ant�nio Ferreira. Your method works great also on a Hexar RF. Not only that, the RF can focus all the way down to the minimum focusing distance of the M-ROKKOR lens, which is 0.8m. I tried the same with a Leica M6, the RF can no longer couple below 1.2m. Strange?!

 

YOL

Lutz,

 

You may want to try this:

 

http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/download/

 

Silkypix does support Lumix LX-1 RAW. Free trial for 14 days...

 

Cheers!