philip_wilson

Allen. I generally shot the manufacturer's lenses or lenses designed for the system on my bodies. Indeed I have never been known to buy cheaper glass. Thus I currently shoot Leica M and canon DSLR (there are subjects a Leica does not work for). In the past (and even now) I will also shoot my old film systems (Mamiya and Fuji medium format - M645 and GX680 plus canon FD and Contax G). That said I have been known to put film MF lenses on mirrorless bodies. I shoot M645 lenses on Canon EOS at times (you can get a high quality TILT SHIFT adapter and while not up to my 17F4 the IQ is very high). Similarly I have shot Leica R on EOS ( the 35-70 F4 zoom is better than my Canon 24-70 F2.8 for example). With my M4/3 body I only ever shoot canon FD or Contax G series lenses as the M4/3 lenses I have used do not produce the same results. Of course I am comparing very expensive glass to quite cheap glass. Indeed the M4/3 lenses are generally optically weak but corrected in software but the Contax G and best FD lenses are optically excellent. Interestingly I never shoot Leica M glass on another body - why would I as I can shoot it on Leica. Indeed, from what I have observed and read rangefinder lenses struggle on digital that is not designed for them. This review seems to sum up what I have observed http://www.dirkahlgrim.com/wordpress/?p=1637 In general I believe that lenses work best on the system they are designed for. Of course high quality lenses are better than low quality lenses and if digital gives the ability to use a high quality (but inexpensive) lens on digital then it makes a lot of sense. Louis' images show what good FD glass can do - indeed the canon FD 50 f3.5 can be found for about $50 and will outperform lenses that cost 20x as much. The other reason to use legacy glass on a new digital body is that it gives a look that the native lenses do not offer. I even use FD glass on my Leica M240 - primarily the Fd35 Tilt Shift lens and the 15mm fisheye. The reason being that there is no Leica (or native M mount) alternative. So there is my view I use Old MF glass on digital bodies for two reasons - cost ( in the case of Mamiya M645 on EOS as the outlay of $400 gave me a large selection of TS lenses from 35mm to 210mm as I already had the glass), native lens lack of availability (e.g. FD fisheye on Leica) and a different look ( such as the FD 85 f1.2 on Leica) I would personally not buy Leica glass for a non M series body but of course that is personal choice. I can see why it makes sense if you are possibly later moving to an M series body or you just want a different look. What you should remember is that while a digital Leica body depreciates, the glass almost always appreciates in value. Looked at this way an M series lens perhaps can make (some) sense. For example a 28 F2 that cost $2500 about 6 years ago will sell used for about $2800 today. In contrast a $500 Sony NEX or m4/3 lens of six year ago is probably worth $200. Given the opportunity cost of the money invested in the Leica this would suggest that the two lenses have a similar cost.

One thing I should mention is that the viewfinder of the G2 only covers about 85% or so of what is actually in the shot. Also (unlike Leica) you cannot see what is just outside the frame. That said they are great little cameras and it is a shame there was never a digital upgrade for the system. While I still love film the cost and convenience of digital means that my digital Leicas get used a lot more than my film bodies.

I like the G2 system and find them great little cameras. They are rangefinders - just not manual focus ones. The viewfinder is small but of course you use all of it as it zooms to the lens in use. The AF takes some getting used to as it is not the same as a DSLR. You need to adopt the two button approach and you will find many posts explaining this either with Google or a search on this site. One thing to watch with the G series bodies is than the LCDs can give up so check they are all good. In terms of lenses they are all great. I have all except the 16mm. The 90mm is an amazingly good lens as is the 45mm. The 28 is very good and I love the 21. The 35 mm gets a bad reputation but it is still an excellent lens. When you say all lenses I assume you mean the 28,45 and 90. The 16mm sells for more than you are paying and the 21 is also quite expensive. There was a period where the G series lenses were very cheap but unfortunately mirror-less bodies and availability of adapters that can be used to focus the lens have pushed prices up a lot.

Not sure how dim the arenas in question get. For ice hockey small rural ones can be as bad as LV 7 or 8 and even the better ones ten to be only 11 or 12. When you are trying to keep at least 1/250 and preferably 1/400 or better this stresses the equipment. Setting the AF correctly and using good technique is more important than the than the equipment. Once the techniques are mastered the AF system does make a difference. When shooting ice hockey I usually use a 70-200 f2.8 or 300 f2.8. And have used several bodies. The 5DII has about a 5-10% missed shot rate due to its AF. The 7D is in the 3-5% range and the 1 series is perhaps 2-3%. To put this in perspective the 7d is as good as my old 1V HS was and this had the same AF as the early digital 1 series bodies. Similarly the 5DII has the same performance as my 1NRS. If the 6D has the same AF performance as the 5DII (and I understand they are very similar) then you still have the same AF performance as the best sports shooter of 14 years ago. As you can see the keeper rates are high and you kill most of your images due to composition Mark if you want to see the issue with the 7d at higher ISO try doing your comparison and deliberately miss exposure on both bodies by half a stop of a full stop. Then use photoshop to correct the exposure. You will see that the 7D images suffer a lot more than those of a full frame body

Great to see your photos. When the 50 arrives shoot it as a normal lens not just a macro. While slower than my Leica Sumicron it gets remarkably close in sharpness (for about the price of the sumicron lens caps!)

Mark my apologies you caught my mistake. I meant to say ISO has no effect on the AF performance as the first part of my sentence. After that all is correct. In my experience for shooting tricky subjects in arenas (I shoot quite a lot of ice hockey) my 7D is a much better camera than my 5DII. For almost every other subject the 5DII is better. Indeed I find that the 7D if exposed correctly is fine at ISO1600 and OK with care at 3200. Somewhere I posted a few ice hockey comparisons between my 1DIIN, 7D and 5DII. The 5DII was clearly the best for noise but the AF is not the best for complex movement that is fast and hard to predict - I have shot dogs and they are a challenge for AF - even on a 1 series body. The difficulty with the 7D (and I suspect this is a feature of many APSC SENSORS) is that it is much more sensitive to exposure accuracy at higher ISO than my full frame bodies. On full frame at ISO1600 even being a stop under exposed when shooting RAW can be fixed to a reasonable extent. - on a 7D the RAW file is much more fragile. My suggesting that the OP make sure his AF settings and technique are good before buying a new body is perhaps still a good one.

<p>In general I am very pleased with the results of this old R series lens on my M240. The Adapter (14642) is very well made and the tripod mount can be removed and replaced with a plastic cover. The indexing works to an extent selecting manual and giving an R series lens list. It will remember the R series lens you last used. In terms of EXIF data I have always found the aperture data a bit approximate (e.g. F4 may show as F4.8) It seems no different with the R series zoom.</p>

<p>Similar crop from the Sumicron. This is the latest version (non -APO)and is the 6 bit chrome (now discontinued) model. I like the substantial weight and solid feel of this lens - it is about 1.3 times the weight f the black lens as it is brass construction.</p><div></div>

<p>I am very pleased with the image from the zoom. While perhaps not the best Leica R zoom (that is the F2.8 35-70 but they only made 200) it is a great performer. On my Canon's I found it better than my 24-70 F2.8 L series lens and I am impressed with it on the M. Even Irwin Puts review of this lens concluded </p> <p>The LEICA VARIO-ELMAR-R 35-70 mm f/4 is the first choice for a versatile standard lens for the Leica R system. In addi- tion it covers three important focal lengths, the 35 mm, the 50 mm and the 70 mm. Its performance is as good, if not bet- ter than that of the comparable lenses with fixed focal length at the same apertures, the LEICA SUMMICRON-R 35 mm f/2, the LEICA SUMMILUX-R 35 mm f/1.4, the LEICA SUM- MICRON-R 50 mm f/2 and the LEICA SUMMILUX-R 80 mm f/1.4. <br> <br> Here is a crop of the tree (which was the point I focused on)</p> <div></div>

<p>Both shots were taken at ISO 200 on the M240 and 1/1500. I shot in RAW and just open the image in photoshop to shrink to a jpeg. No processing was do to either image. Here is the 50 Cron at F4</p><div></div>

<p>I thought I would post a few crops taken using my 35-70 F4 R zoom lens on my M240. I am hoping that this lens makes a good alternative to a lens like the 28-35-50 MATE for travelling use. Obviously the camera is a bit bigger and heavier with this lens and you have to use the EVF to get accurate focus. I took a few quick images in the back yard. I will apologize in advance that this is not an exact scientific test. You will also notice that the camera position changes slightly - this is due to having to use different tripod mounting points. With the M-R adapter I used the mount on the adapter (it can be removed) as my tripod head caught the adapter tripod mount if i wanted to use the one on the camera. With the 50 F2 Cron I used the camera mount. You will also note that the 50mm setting on my 35-70 is slightly wider than the Sumicron. Finally as you can see the clouds moved slightly as I switched lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Will this help<br> Canon full frame 50mm F1.2 focused at 3 m gives a DOF of 26cm<br> The 50 F1.4 gives 30cm<br> The 85 F1.2 at F1.2 gives 9cm and at F1.4 10cm<br> This 40 F.85 on APS-C gives 19cm at F0.85 and 3 m<br> If a 60 mm lens existed this would give 18cm at F1.2 and 21cm at F 1.4</p> <p>So if you want a shallow DOF get the 85 F1.2 - of couse with the same viewing angle the 40mm lens would be closer giving a similar angle of view but less flattering perspective. The shallowest DOF I have ever seen is the Canon MP-E65 macro which at extreme magnification (5x) gives a paper thin DOF wide open (it is technically F2.8 but at 5x it is really F14). The entire focusing range of this lens at 5x is about 4cm!<br> So there we have it the lens with the shallowest DOF is an F14 lens (of course the subject has to almost press their face against the lens.<br> In the real world the Leica Noctilux F0.95 is pretty hard to beat (as it is sharp wide open) but of course will set you back $10,000 it is not that cheap!</p>

Ashley. Raising the ISO has no impact on shutter speed. raising the ISO to use a smaller aperture will help as it gives the AF more room for error. For example if you are ISO 400 and f2.8 you could go to ISO 800 and F4. This will give you a bigger depth of field (in focus distance) which gives the AF a better chance. In general for difficult moving subjects you have two options. You can pre-focus on a known point (e.g. One of the poles) and wait until the dog gets there (this is a technique I used a lot before AF arrived). The other option is to give the AF the best chance possible - to do this select Center plus expansion points and track the dog for as long as possible. A fast USM lens will also help a lot in this situation and the AF should be set to AI Servo. The ISO has no impact on AF performance but the settings, AF point, lens and light levels do. Just looking quickly at your images which seem to be taken in reasonable lit arenas you challenge is more likely to be AF than ISO. I suggest that you read the Cannon technical notes on how to get the best from your AF and try this before you buy a new body.

First I have to confess that I don't have a 6d and have never shot it. That said I do have a 5dII and a 7D and have used both quite a bit. While I find the 5DII is a better camera if I am shooting dogs playing I would use the 7D (or a 1 series). In general I find dogs playing is a difficult subject as their movement is rapid and hard to predict and you are often shooting from close range and need accurate focus on the eyes. For me the 7d AF is clearly superior to the 5DII for this purpose and the 7d is fine up to ISO 1600 and can be used at 3200. I understand the 6d AF is very similar in performance to the 5dII - hence the reason for my comparison. It also helps a lot is a fast (e.g. f2.8 or better L series or similar) lens is used on the body. In terms of noise performance the 5DII is around two stops better than the 7D and I assume the 6d is even better. The other thing to be aware of at high ISO is that the raw image from a 7D is a lot more sensitive to exposure errors than the 5DII ( that is if you miss the exposure the noise problems are much more severe on the 7D)

<p>Bill I have the 100 Macro and it is a good lens. The only reason that I suggest you also consider the 50 is that it is cheap and very sharp. If you need to shoot from longer ranges then the 100 or 200 would also be necessary.</p> <p>Keh has an EX 50 macro with extension tube for $65 and the 100 for $139 - plus the extension tube for about $8. KEH EX is usually very good and a safer option than ebay.</p>

Sorry in my post I said the lens cap was extra - I meant the lens hood although the Zeiss lens cap is also a bit of a pain as it falls off easily

Geoff as someone who lives in Canmore I am glad you enjoyed the area. In fact we had a lot of late snow this year. March was the snowiest for several years (2 meters) and we had a big snowfall at the beginning of May - indeed sat may 3rd lake louise had almost 40 cm of fresh snow so the skiing was great. If you come again you may want to try and visit lake o Hara.

While I love my C sonar I would not suggest it as the only 50 mm lens to own. Mine is the later version and optimized for f1.5. I believe the earlier ones are optimized for f2 to 2.8. It is a fantastic lens but I suggest you get the lens cap which is extra. It is larger than the sumicron and has a very different look. You will either love it or hate it. I love mine but probably use my 50 cron four times as often. I think Steve Huffs review is fair http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/04/11/a-new-look-at-the-zeiss-zm-50mm-c-sonnar-t-1-5-lens/ As I said earlier I would also suggest the Zeiss 50f2 as it is a very versatile and cheap lens. Also remember that while Leica lenses cost more they tend to appreciate rather than depreciate.

If you get a chance buy the 50 mm macro. It is an astonishingly sharp lens. It gets close to the sharpness of my Leica sumicron but costs about the same as a Leica lens cap

While I am a Canon shooter who also shoots Leica I would suggest that you will not get the same image from an SLR lens as a rangefinder lens. Perhaps rather than a Nikon 35 mm lens you should consider an adapter and Sony body for you Leitz lens. My canon 35 mm lens is a very good lens but it produces a different image from my Leica 35 lux. My 5dii and 35 F1.4 produce great images but they are different from my M240 and 35 lux. My Contax G 35 F2 gets close to the Leica but is a rather limited system. I guess what I am saying is than the DSLRs from Canon and Nikon offer very good 35mm lenses but they produce a different look from Leica.

My m6 is the non TTL version and it is great. The viewfinder flare is not that bad - the main issue is seeing the exposure settings when shooting towards the sun. In general turning the camera vertically allows you to see the meter then you can turn it back and take the shot. You may not want to stretch to the TTL as I even keep my digital Leicas in "classic metering " mode (well the M240 which has this option. In terms of lenses the current 50 cron (not the expensive APO) is a very good lens.

Akiva. I suggest you try both lenses and also the 50 F2 Zeiss lens. Then you can see which one you like the best.

<p>Thanks Robin - I think it has come down to a decision between the 28 /2 or the new 21 F3.4. By the way I have just ordered the M R adapter and when I get chance will post some shots of the 35-70 F4 on the new M 240. I am looking forward to this and wonder if it gives a low cost (but bulky) alternative to the 28/35/50 MATE.</p>

<p>Canon did not make L versions of many FD lenses but lenses like the 135 F2 became an L lens when it went to EOS. If you have not shot the FD 135 F2 I suggest you try it as it is an amazingly good lens</p>

<p>Note these images were taken with the 50mm extension from about 1.7 meters (note the G1 is a 2x effective focal length). The image area is about 1.5 inches by 2.3 inches.</p>