roger_dunham

<p>I have used both these combinations. No longer have the 400/6.8 . This is what I remember. <br>

The 400/6.8 was an excellent lens ..high IQ and designed for hand held use. Lightweight and breaks down for transport.<br>

The 180/3.4 with the 2x lost quite a bit of contrast and resolution..personally I didn t like the IQ .<br>

The 180/2x handles poorly with slow focus. The older 180/2.8 67mm handles much better . <br>

The 180/2x was in my bag when I needed it at the 96 olympics and I got the gold medal winning vault from the 7th row .<br>

The 180 2.8 apo and the 1.4apo extender (a lot more expensive) is a best in class solution.</p>

 

<p>I have used both these combinations. No longer have the 400/6.8 . This is what I remember. <br>

The 400/6.8 was an excellent lens ..high IQ and designed for hand held use. Lightweight and breaks down for transport.<br>

The 180/3.4 with the 2x lost quite a bit of contrast and resolution..personally I didn t like the IQ .<br>

The 180/2x handles poorly with slow focus. The older 180/2.8 67mm handles much better . <br>

The 180/2x was in my bag when I needed it at the 96 olympics and I got the gold medal winning vault from the 7th row .<br>

The 180 2.8 apo and the 1.4apo extender (a lot more expensive) is a best in class solution.</p>

 

<p>I have used both these combinations. No longer have the 400/6.8 . This is what I remember. <br>

The 400/6.8 was an excellent lens ..high IQ and designed for hand held use. Lightweight and breaks down for transport.<br>

The 180/3.4 with the 2x lost quite a bit of contrast and resolution..personally I didn t like the IQ .<br>

The 180/2x handles poorly with slow focus. The older 180/2.8 67mm handles much better . <br>

The 180/2x was in my bag when I needed it at the 96 olympics and I got the gold medal winning vault from the 7th row .<br>

The 180 2.8 apo and the 1.4apo extender (a lot more expensive) is a best in class solution.</p>

 

<p>I have used both these combinations. No longer have the 400/6.8 . This is what I remember. <br>

The 400/6.8 was an excellent lens ..high IQ and designed for hand held use. Lightweight and breaks down for transport.<br>

The 180/3.4 with the 2x lost quite a bit of contrast and resolution..personally I didn t like the IQ .<br>

The 180/2x handles poorly with slow focus. The older 180/2.8 67mm handles much better . <br>

The 180/2x was in my bag when I needed it at the 96 olympics and I got the gold medal winning vault from the 7th row .<br>

The 180 2.8 apo and the 1.4apo extender (a lot more expensive) is a best in class solution.</p>

 

<p>The zeiss finders take the same diopters that are used on their camera. I found them at adorama or BH ..they are cheap compared to the Leica diopters for the M. The zeiss finders are -0.5 as a base and I found the same magnification as I use on the M worked well on the finder. The zeiss 25/28 will cover ...18(24 on an M8) and 21(28 on an M8). </p>

<p>I am planning the same type of trip and have identified three possible issues:<br>

1. Lodging..it is my understanding as a foreign tourist you must prove with documentation that you have a hotel room and have paid for 3 days ...to clear immigration. If you can prove that you have paid hotel room..you are required to negotiate for a room at the airport and pay before you can enter. Many bed and breakfasts don t qualify unless a government form is provided. <br>

2. Money..you can not use a US bank issued credit card in Cuba. Prepaid debit cards issued on Canadian Banks are suggested. <br>

3. You health insurance isn t valid in Cuba ..see point 2 ..no AMEX as a backup. <br>

Has anybody considered these....I know you can easily go but I always want my contingencies covered. Had a friend who had a heart attack in India this year ..without his AMEX travel insurance...he might have had complications. Ideas appreciated. </p>

Here is my understanding of the back focus issue . Film M s have slightly more tolerance for focusing accuracy because the film itself has

depth. The M8 requires a tighter level of camera/lenses calibration to achieve acceptable focusing accuracy. The M8 also is an exceptional

piece of test equipment because you can see the results at high magnification on the screen. Not at all unusual that lenses which have been

excellent with film M s are found to be slightly off with the M8.

 

The 35/1.4 asph exhibits focus shift . As the lens is stopped down the focus moves back. This is a characteristic of the lens design. Generally

the latitude of the film system and the increasing depth of field is enough to produce acceptable results.

 

The question of whether the lens focuses correctly is independent of the focus shift but it affects the results. If you have a lens or body

combination that has some tendency to back focus ..then the "focus shift " starts to take the focus point beyond what the depth of field can cover

..you will see the results. It can be offset by being sure that the rangefinder achieves perfect focus at 1.4 and maybe even a little front focus.

 

If you plan to use the 35/1.4 asph with a film M then this may not be a relevant issue. If it maybe used on an M8 then the chrome version seems

to be favored ..maybe because the calibration is more consistent (but we don t know that).

Some users believe that the chrome version of the 35 1.4 asph is preferred because of the heavier mount. This lens is

known for issues with back focusing which gets worse as you stop down the lens. While this is a characteristic of the asph

design, it doen t appear to be the same in every copy and the chrome versions seem to have fewer problems. The M8

made this easy to see and document . The LUF has several exhaustive threads on the subject. Bottom line is that the

chrome version is preferred. These are available if you search over a period of time .....try the following forums

....rangefinder,getdpi, lecia user forum and fredmiranda. Dealers try camerawest,popflash,photovillage . My advice would

be to not overpay thru one of the collector sites on ebay as they don t approximate fair market value and you can buy for

way better than 10-15% off list .

I am working on almost the same issue ....a macbook, a macbook pro and a 30" mac display using the i1 Display 2....the

macbook and macbook pro are very close but the 30" is much warmer... Is this the difference in gamut?

Anybody been out on the ships during the parade. I just bought tickets for the California . I am thinking I will not need

much more than a 90 on my M8 ..thats a 120FOV. My guess is that some shots will benefit from a 200Mm but beyond

that probably isn t needed.

Skip The Google Map you have is correct. I visited this summer and have some nice photos

facing the open fields to the top of the frame.

I use the zeiss finder with a diopter and find it an excellent solution. Somethings that may

help you. (1) I believe the diopters like the cameras provide a view that is similar to 2M..so

whatever correction you need to see something at 2M is what you need. This may not

match your eyeglass prescription. I need a stronger diopter to see my computer screen

than I use on my cameras /finders. (2) when I searched on the zeiss finders I found

conflicting information on the standard correction. One source indicated that the finders

were set at -0.5 and another at -1.0. I used the -0.5. (3) you are correct in that you add

the finder correction to the diopter to match your eyesight (4) the correction lens are fairly

cheap..were about $33 ....if you buy form B&H you can return them ..so trial and error isn t

a big deal (5) they(diopters) unscrew and fall off quite easily. I am still loooking for a

better solution ..something like loctite .

Keep in mind that the Leica finder is set up for a viewing distance of 2M . To get this right

you need whatever correction is required for you to see at 2M . This is typically not the

same correction you would use for drug store reading glasses. For example , I use a +1.5 to

view my computer screen but find that a +1.0 diopter is best for the M8 viewfinder. Since

the finder is a set at a -0.5 ..I have an effective +0.5 . This of course may not fully correct

your vision or help you avoid the rocks and trees .

If you want to read a more detailed description of how the M8 rangefinder works you might

search over at the Leica User Forum. It may take a little effort but a post on how you can

adjust the rangefinder with a 2mm allen wrench includes very detailed pictures of the

rangefinder. The infinity adjustment is quite easy but may throw off close and intermediate

focus. If I was in Italy I would try it ...but it will almost certainly require a trip to Leica

service...

There is no comparison between these two for your stated application. The Telyt compares

favorably with Leica s current 180 f2.8 APO when used at infinity. The contrast , resolving

power and color saturation are comparable to the very best Leica or Zeiss lenses . I used

both of these lenses at the the same time. The advantage of the Nikkor or the Leica 180 2.8

(pre Apo) was the faster handling and closer focusing. These were both ideal long portrait

lenses. Also much better for sports.

IMHO you start with the intended subject ..sounds like young children and their activities.

For most sports you need the auto focus , zoom and telephoto capabilities . The issue isn t

getting the "best " quality ..its getting the picture . The above recommendations follow

conventional wisdom on the top rated mid priced DSLR. I have used both the Canon and the

Nikon ...as an M8 user my bet is that you will like the Nikon D200 better because of the

smaller size and better feel. I would also bet that the 70-200 2.8 is ideal for soccer. I think

you will also like the DSLR better for flash although you can do this equally well with the M8 .

So my response is really a recommendation for a M8 user..not something tailored for a

general DSLR forum.

While I don t have the Canon 50 1.4 ..I do use a 5D , R9/DMR and a M8. On the 5D I

frequently use the 35 2 Summicron and this combination is capable of excellent images .

IMHO ..the saturation, micro contrast or what ever you chose to call it makes the Leica lens

instantly recognizable on a 5D . Its better on the R9/DMR and the M8 is the current best in

class. With that said the Leica R lenses like the 50 Summicron can produce so very high

image quality on a 5D . If you decide to go in this direction you should consider a good

adapter with the focus confirmation chip. The combination can be much more difficult to use

..you should read the Alternate Systems forum over at Fredmiranda.

I found a 58mm Heliopan Uv/IR filter for my Noctilux . It will not be exactly the same IR

transmission as the Leica filter but this is less critical on the 50mm.

I have them both an recently tested them on my DMR. The APO image quality is substantially

better. You probably know that the APO was originally designed for the Navy and is

optimized for infinity. Disadvantage is that its very slow to focus ..no fun to use for sports . I

like it for travel ..its light . The 2nd version 180 2.8 handles like a dream IMHO ...close

focusing is a snap . I originally got it for sports and for shooting children . It still has the

Leica look ..color, depth etc..but isn t as strong as the APO . The APO can be had for less

than $1000..I would target $800-900. Neither works well with the Leica extenders ..which is

a key advantage of the current 180 2.8 APO . I am looking for one if anyone reads this!