tedms gallery

<p>Most of you are already in my G+ circles, but if not, feel free to post your name, and I'll add you to my Rangefinders circle.</p>

<p>How about a Bessa R and a couple of ltm lens. If you happen to end up liking the LTM lens, you can keep them with LTM to M adapters.</p>

 

<p>There is flare there, but you may also be suffering from diffraction. Stick with f8, if that covers the DOF for you. Diffraction calculations often assume the aperture is circular, with the 21/4 CV lens, it may not be, and in any case, with certail wavelengths (colors) you will be diffraction limited at F16, probably F11 as well, depending on film.</p>

<p>Thanks Starvy, one of my last remaining rolls of UC, then it's Portra and some Reala left.</p>

<p>I have a 1957 Elmar 50/2.8 that works well with film and digital. I don't know if it was cleaned or not, and if so, I would guess not recently, since the focus, while smooth, has very little damping. Shining my brightest cree LED light through it doesn't show any fungus or chips, or obvious haze but there may be the slightest amount, but not yet visible through the lens, or in any photos recently taken.</p>

<p>UC 100 film:<br>

<img src="http://matsumura.smugmug.com/Nature/Bessa-R-UC100-5028-coll-Elmar/i-8wXcdVS/0/L/47310017-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /></p>

<p>I've had the v3, v4, and cron asph, and I'd be very questionable of any focus sharpness tests that weren't done with either extensive focus bracketing with a RF, or focused with a live view system. I have found the cron asph having a more modern look than the v3 and v4, and in many types of photos, especially stopped down, did not see differences in the version 3,4, and asph. ymmv.</p>

<p>I've owned the CV 28/1.9, and 28/3.5, and two Canon 28/2.8s (a type 2, and a type 3) have performed well against them if not better, although the 1.9 is obviously a bit faster (and about 2-3x the size).</p>

<p>Here are some images, mostly at 2.8 taken with an M8, and med to high ISO:</p>

<p>http://matsumura.smugmug.com/History/Hanford-B-Reactor-Tour/12314585_yWGqA</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I love the Canon 28/2.8 LTM. Am using a lot on the M8 and NEX 5 these days.</p>

 

<p>I'd guess it's to keep the film from rolling back and getting uneven spacing until you are ready to rewind. I'm surprised you are able to rewind partially before depressing the lever.<br>

I have an M6 where the lever must be pressed (and held) until rewinding is done.<br>

Might also have something to do with resetting the frame counter.</p>

<p>You can probably get close with post processing, but not exactly as the optical OOF would be.<br>

There's a good Zeiss pdf on OOF from 3/2010, I'll find the link if needed.<br>

Fuji's F72EXR and probably other models in the family have a "pro-focus' mode that blurs the background, very interesting, but still a bit novel:</p>

<p><img src="http://matsumura.smugmug.com/photos/932471499_g9qrk-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="600" /></p>

<p>Hi Raid, you'll enjoy this lens a lot, the most common adjustments I make if the subject is still is I will bracket focus for example, first shot on eye, then 2nd on tip of nose, 3rd on ear, all at 1.4.</p>

<p>Other times I will take the same shot (if possible) at 1.4 1.7 and 2.0, The 1.4 will have the most glow, but sometimes the 1.7 and 2.0 will be the keeper by getting more in focus, and having a bit more contrast.</p>

 

<p>Nice photos, I love this lens, here are some taken around 1-3m, mostly wide open:<br>

http://matsumura.smugmug.com/Family/MAC-museum-20080309-rd1s-7514/4479599_VRneT#263478569_PFjAS</p>

<p>My experiences match the Nikon PDF referenced, basically I have myopia at distance, and use the exact -x.0 of my rx for my shooting eye, for the -x.0 diopter for my DE-3 finder. <br>

No HP finder needed.<br>

Same with Leica M bodies, exact diopter value as my rx.</p>

<p>I only have experience with the 28/2.8 non AI (.3m focus) and it works well. The images I take with it look as good as any I've seen with the .2m CRC AIS version, and as good as my RF 28's (M-Hexanon, 2 CV 28s, and Canon 28/2.8).<br>

I'd give one a try if it's in good shape.</p>

 

<p>according to mir.com after the P*C version was the first double gauss design. From what I can tell, very similar rendering to earlier Sonnar designs, probably less focus shift and distortion in later implementations.</p>

<p>I've found that they do. The M8 manual, on page 82 seems correct. No adjustments are needed with older Leica lenses for hyperfocal or DOF adjustments for the M8 to equal an M-mount FF system.<br /> First photo is with my M6, 2nd two photos are with M8. Both are using the same 35/1.4 pre-asph lux at f8, and both are at 1/30th. Both are on the stationary tripod (note that the M8 has tripod threads under the center, M6 has tripod mount on side).<br /> Focus for the first two images is on the "Scotch" tape wording on the tape on the white comforter, 6 feet away.<br /><br />Focus for the 3rd image, or 2nd M8 image, focus barrel was moved exactly 1 stop on the DOF markings towards wider open, further focus of about 7 ft.<br /><br />This author found no improved benefits for the DOF barrel move, to match the DOF of the film image.<br /><br />Conclusion? Internet Myth Busted. Leica is correct in that no lens adjustment is needed with 35mm M-mount lens on the M8, in order to equal DOF of M FF systems.<br>

Results are here:<br /> http://matsumura.smugmug.com/Journalism/M8-and-M6-depth-of-field/12529753_UJFd5#898702880_f85d9</p>

<p>I'd highly recommend getting an M mount, and a Summicron, or Summilux lens.<br>

There are some special edition Summicron 35s in ltm, but they would be much more expensive than just getting an M-body.</p>

<p>Those all sound like great options. One other option I'd suggest taking a look at, if you can deal with the ergonomics of the one-touch zoom ring, is the later 12 element 80-200 AI 4.5:</p>

<p>http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/80200mm.htm</p>

 

<p>This is one of the most common failures in later M bodies. I've had the issue with 1 M6, and 1 M4P. You have to be careful, as I believe one or more parts screw on backwards. Also, sometimes the washers are deteriorated, so can't be reused again.</p>

 

<p>If you're a bing cashback type, you might get a few % back that way as well, try keywords hdmi, hdtv, or wii console to see what your % back from bing might be.</p>

<p>We're happy with the D40x with a few AFS lenses and handful of older MF lens, and would be with a regular D40 too I'm sure.<br>

The one thing that is appealing to the newer cameras is something I haven't seen, but sure looks good on paper - it's that CA correction feature of the newer models.<br>

One lens we have is a cheap $150 Sigma 70-300 with pronounced CA with high-contrast photos. It would be nice if the camera just got rid of that automatically :)</p>

<p>The top one looks like a late pre-asph 50 lux, the bottom is definitely the asph. The late pre-asphs focused to .7m, had a filter size of 46mm, but otherwise are optically identical to the same 50 pre-asph v2 design from the '50s. These were made in Germany, with late s/n of 3,8xx,xxx and 3,9x,xxx along with some black paint ones with scalloped (retro) focus barrels.<br>

Some say the pre-asph has a more vintage look with lower contrast but some field curvature and edge softness. I've never owned the asph 50, but have had a couple of pre-asphs including a late v3, they're all very nice.</p>

<p>on F3 and D40x mostly: 28/2.8 non AI .3m, 35/1.8 AIS, various 50 MFs, 105/2.5 *PC version.</p>

<p>I agree the 35 pre asph lux at 1.4 has can be unpredictable in certain types of light. I'd be wary to use it on film where I couldn't preview results.<br>

But from f2 on, it has performed as well as my v3, v4, and very close to my asph cron so I always use the lux.<br>

I have a minty v3 cron if you're thinking of trading.</p>

 

<p>The CV 21/4s are great for the price, especially the ltm version that comes with a finder for ~$400 or so. You'd need an ltm to M adapter for that one. CV also makes a M mount version of the 21 for about the same price, but no included finder.<br>

You'll want a ~28 ish finder, so you'll need to sell or trade your 21 finder. I use the 21 on the M8 without a finder, but if I used the 21 a lot, I'd get a finder, you lose about 10% off the edges of the whole VF, maybe more for glasses users.<br>

No IQ differences between M8/M8u/M8.2.</p>