steven_fong1

I use an R8 with a 19 Elmarit and have no problem focusing the lens. It could just be me since quite a few of you mention difficulties.

 

I have not used the 21-35R and am very interested in this lens too. But I think comparisons with Nikon's or Canon's lens (those huge 2.8 lenses) are off the mark since they are faster and hence will incurr more optical problems. A fairer comparison should be with the slower zooms from N n C of similar speed. But then the price of the Leica zoom becomes silly if the performance is not way above the competetors'. I am really hoping that the R lens will be 'much' better than the Japanese equivalent. Cheers.

Thanks Carl. Well what i want to ask is that even though the vf is not through the lens it has the same field of view as, say a 28mm lens, how come it doesn't look like a 28mm as seen through an SLR viewfinder? Any clearer? I'm so sorry for the confusion.

This could well be a really naiive if not downright ignorant question

but please indulge me. How is it that the 35mm or 28mm view through the

M viewfinder not like that of any SLR? There are no distortions even

though it covers the same field of view as when a 28mm lens is attach

to an SLR. Foreground/background perspective contrast is also not

extreme. Am i not looking at the same angle/field of view in both

system? Thanks in advance. Cheers.

Photo number 5 reminds me of a similar but immensely more powerful one by the same photographer taken during the Ethiopian famine many years back. It burns into my mind, an image i will probably not forget. This one is less so only because the previous one is so heart renching. Photo number 12 or 16 will likely be the poster for the current drive for aids to relieve famine in southern Africa. Bring tears to my eyes. Perfunctory? Not!

I agree with Marco completely. The 135 Elmarit was never one of the legends from Leica but i've tried many other makes and to my eyes it has the most pleasant color rendition of them all. I must stress that this is very subjective:) Try a roll of slides and look at the shadow details as Marco suggested, you might be surprise. Happy shooting.

Can anyone please give me an idea of this lens' performance, wide open

and stop down? How does it compare with the legendary 90 Elmarit? Ant

distortion? I like the size of it, not larger than a 35/2. Good for

hiking. Thanks in advance.

I used to shoot with the right eye but switch to the left when the

astigmatism on the right got too bad and found that my pics improved by

a huge margin. I'm not talking focusing here since i was using an AF

Canon then. The pics just look much more well thought out. I cannot

explain why, maybe someone here can. BTW i'm right handed and R-footed.

I use the previous version (82mm front) a lot and i am very happy with

it's performance, even wide open. Yes the corners are not as sharp as

the centre but very much usable IMO. Stop down it is quite fabulous.

other than the size i have no complains esp. when it is so much cheaper

than the current one. Absolutely no distortion.

Not having used any Leica shift lens i cannot comment on them, but i

have experience with Nikkor shift lens. Please do not get the 35, it's

just not wide enough. If you need the shift, then a 28mm lens is the

way to go. Cheers.

I completely agree with Andy. I don't own a 90M-cron, but the 50 M-lux

and 180 Elmarit are indeed very similar in their 'look'. As MD has so

wonderfully demonstrated, it's not the resolution but how the lens 'put

you in the picture'. Now i know i am not doing my lux any justice.

Needs more practice. Cheers

I use a 19 Elmarit on an R8 with the matte screen and have no problems

with it whatsoever. The 19 works just as well, ok , slightly better on

the SL2. I think this is rather subjective. There are many who don't

like the focusing screen on any Leica Rs, then again there are those

who just love it. I use an EOS too, and can never feel as confident

about the focusing accuracy as i do with the Rs. The screens i tried

with a Nikon F3 are even worst. I get away with them because of the

forgiving nature of wides, though the 20 2.8 Nikkor did give me a great

amount of headache:) and i eventually got rid of it. Don't know if this

is any help or just me blabbering. If it doesn't work for you then it

doesn't. Very subjective.

I second Mani about children in Cambodia. They'll break your heart. Be

kind to them and buy something, even if it's a dollar.

 

<p>

 

If you are going now i can tell you that it is very very hot, not humid

though. The paddy fields are all dry now, and can be quite dusty. The

moat around Ankor Wat it self is also rather dry. But the sky is

something to die for if you like deep blue. Don't even need a

polarizer. You do need a wide lens, more than 28, a 21 will be very

nice. I took along a 180 and i was glad i did.

 

<p>

 

Forget about car and guides. A motorcycle and a good guide book is all

you need. Useful to get an idea from coffee table books before you go.

 

<p>

 

Just remember, be kind to the children. They'll break your heart.

I use an R8 when the M becomes inappropriate, and my experience with it

has been extremely pleasant. It is wonderful in my hands. I think many

people did not go past the asthetics of the camera to the stage where

they actually use it for some time. I understand the cost is high, but

having already inherited some fine primes from the days of SL2 it was

actually less expensive than to start a new system based on EOS or

Nikon. For those who are used to SLs the R8 is indeed their logical

successor, with all controls naturally falling into place. So why is it

not a success? Must be due mainly to the aforementioned cost factor.

IMHO, the EOS looks ugly, too:) Come to think of it, the SLs were

'minor' failures, too. Seems like the general buying public just like

the competetor's offerings better, for some valid reasons i'm sure.

 

<p>

 

As a general observation, M users, when they decide to use an SLR, they

will opt for the very features they abhor in an M, ie all the

electronics bells and whistles. As such, Leica SLRs are sorely

uncompetetive. But for those who want the viewfinder of an SLR but

don't want or need all the 'features' available from the likes of EOS1

and F5, the R8 is probably right, if they like the look of it in the

first place. Alternatively, an R6 or an SL2 will do just fine.

 

<p>

 

As to why the designers make the R8 the way it is, Erwin wrote an

entire article on his site. Designers are artists, too. As such, it is

subjective. Good design don't always succeed, and some very bad designs

are very successful, no doubt due in part to the efforts of the

marketing departments. Whatever that makes us tick.

The 2nd generation 21/2.8 is a fabulous lens, with almost no distortion

and sharp to the corners even wide open. My only gripe is that the

aperture click stop at full units instead of the more useful half stop,

but you can still shoot at half stop even without the click stops.

Another drawback is the minimum focus of 1m but can very often be

overcome with DOF. Build quality is very good, much better than the VC

variety. The finder for the 21 is a huge piece with front diameter

about 36mm or so, but otherwise is very good. No flare and with clearly

visible brightlines with close range correction line. So, to sum up, i

kind of like this lens. Hope this is helpful. Cheers.

The only way to completely avoid 'manipulation' is to act without any

intention whatsoever. Photography is intended, even when you're trying

to be unintentional, thus the idea of manipulation is inescapable. More

to the point is whether i am truly present when i make that picture.

Cheers.

My family is mix too and i have never found the occasion where i have

to change film to shoot either side. For colour i use E200 chrome, Tri-

X for B/W. The problem is in the metering, i found. More so with

chrome, so bracket if you can. Happy holidays:)

I have a copy of Abbas' 'Allah o Akbah' and i like it a lot. It is not

the grande humanity of Salgado, yet not quite as intimate as Smith's

'Minamata' work, but it is at once panoramic and close. I also happen

to like Iturbide's (sorry if i got the speeling wrong) way of telling

the story of her people. Poignant? i suppose what style one subcribe to

has a lot to do with the personality. i cannot do what Smith did,

neither can i do what Salgado did. But that's why i like them.

I've had a pair of Zeiss glass once. In a word, great. But as my eye

sight deteriorates the glass got heavy and that gives me severe

discomfort, so i opted for plastics nowadays. Need to be comfortable

before i can even function, much less take photographs:) Interesting

thread.

This question actually mirrors the one when AF first came out. What is

the point of a single central AF patch when everytime you shoot you

have to re-AF, re-compose, re-AE lock? So now we have 45 (?) AF points

coupled with X number of AE points in some high end wonderflex:) You

think Leica will go this direction with the M39 say in AD2525 in their

10Giga Pixel Digiluximus? An interesting thought is if it's possible to

zone focus, is it also possible to 'zone' meter? If so, how exactly is

it done. Seriously. I'm sure someone in this forum actually knows and

practice this. Cheers.

Hi Richard,

 

<p>

 

I live in Singapore, in fact right behind the Leica and Minolta

buildings. The Leica building deals only with microscope system and not

photographic. Since the microscopy division of Leica were sold to some

Swiss company some years back i don't think they have anything to do

with our beloved cameras nowadays. The institue where i work buys

microscopes from them, and they told me they have nothing to do with M6

and Rs now. But they like to boast that if we respect the cameras' and

lenses' capabilities, we can expect the same from 'their' microscopes.

They are priced like the camera systems, too:)

Cheers.

Yup, I have the same problem and decided to go either with filter no

hood or with hood no filter. Doesn't seem to have anyway around it.

Those engineers in Leica must have forgotten something when they

designed the lens:) On the plus side, with an added filter the

thickness of the filter ring just barely function as some sort of hood

too without any sign of vignetting on top of what the lux already

exhibit at 1.4. Hopefully you will find a solution that eludes me and

when you do please keep us posted. Thanks and happy shooting. The lux

is one of my favourite.

I agree with Jeff Spirer that they should use local photographers when

they can. It will provide the depth that is sorely missing from many

recent articles. But I suspect that the real culprit is the TV

division. They seem to be focusing on NatGeo Channel nowadays, at the

expense of the journal. Another case of the TV killing good journalism?

Who knows, in 20yrs time there will be no more magazine left because TV

finally won:(

 

<p>

 

As an aside, i thing the photos all have a degree of sameness about

them. Not in the content but in the colours. Is Velvia making

everything look similar, hypereal? Some of the pics of Asian cities and

cultures sure don't look like what I actually see and know, and i live

in Asia. Progress?

Enduring Spirits by Phil Borges. Fast disappearing culture. Gorgeous

medium format work and great selective hand toning. Proceeds goes to

the Amnesty International.

38, but has the back and knee of a 65. Handled an M at 12 (Dad's),

finally bought one at 33. Mind leaves the body once in a while to the

edge of the universe. Hasn't lost its way back, yet. Happy belated

birthdays to all who's had theirs in the last few days:) Happy

shooting.

Thank you all for the prompt and valuable response. I should seriously

consider getting this lens instead of the far more expensive APO macro,

though reputedly phenomenal, just plain out of my reach, wallet wise.

 

<p>

 

Happy New Year to all. Cheers.