alan_ball1

Only good thoughts: transforms horrible snapshot harsh light into

very useable light. Especially useful at head and shoulder framing

distances.

Funnily enough, I spent long hours last afternoon and through

the night going through my last 5 years of slides and filing a

selection of them in new archival sheets.

<p>

Last 2 years, all my slides were shot through Leica. R and M.

With a only couple of series shot through GR1 and Minox 35 (I

feed these mostly with b/w). Some good pics, many disposable

ones.

<p>

But going through older slides (mostly Velvia), I noted amusingly

that not only some long forgotten series were technically *very*

flattering, but that i was honestly incapable of determining what

hardware was used on most of them.

<p>

Oh yes, I could trace the month/year when I bought my M6 and

1st M lens, and check the date on the slide frame if the Mandler

spirit could explain certain "glows". But that setup was used for a

long period of time in parallel with a full Nikon system, and a

small Contax system (50/85), so date alone is not enough.

<p>

So, would resolution and other imaging qualities give away what

were Leica and what were N or C? Well no! Memories of the

circumstances would be the only reliable clues: "oh yes, I

remember carrying the F90 on that trip", or "oh yes, I did do that

session with the 85 f1.4 planar", or, "no, I did not yet have the 90

elmarit at that date"...

<p>

From a techie point of view (resolution, contrast, colours, tonal

gradation, etc), the good pictures of the time seem to me just as

good as today's keepers, and the mediocre ones just as bad

(the disastrous ones had already been eliminated back then).

Maybe the infamous bokeh is a give away on some: the Nikkor

105mm f2.5 does often provoke doubling of patterns in the

background, but that is just about all !

<p>

A series in particular left me really puzzled: beautiful portraits,

smooth and sharp at once, but no idea what was used. Certainly

not Leica, because I did not own Leica then. Very narrow DoF

and superb creamy background: would that be the 85 planar?

The 105 wide open on a homogeneous backdrop? The 90

Tamron? Or was it that 85 f1.4 Nikkor that I had borrowed during

a few weeks that year ? I just do not know.

<p>

I am no optical engineer, but I believe I have a trained eye. By all

means, I cannot agree with the post that triggered this thread:

lens signatures are really much more subtle than what is

suggested !

<p>

Oh, BTW, emptied the bank account and just bought the 75 'lux,

and am delighted by the results. First series are just as

beautiful, creamy , natural and sharp as that unidentified portrait

series of 4 years ago shot through a lens of 1/4 of the cost or

less....

<p>

So, why spend all that money? Because Leica is excellent and

beautifully engineered. For M, it is also more fun, smaller and

more practical !

The current 90mm Elmarit is completely superb, in terms of absolute

performance, in terms of convenience/weight/size and in terms of

price/quality ratio: one of the very best buys in the Leica range.

For me the best tele for "normal" 0.72 M usage.

<p>

As Ray, I also use what was the latest R version, and completely

agree with his assessment on useability wide open.

<p>

I am lucky enough to also own the 100mm f2.8 apo-macro-elmarit, and,

for all non-macro purposes, find the 90mm elmarit every bit as

excellent. Since it is much lighter and compact, I use it much more

frequently. And, as it is only available 2nd hand, it costs 1/4th of

the price !!!!

Salut Lucien !

<p>

Any idea where the projected new 90mm summicron-R has disappeared?

Was supposed to come out at the same time as those two...

<p>

Alan

Ken,

<p>

Optical performance of both lenses is equal. I use the elmarit, and

find it irreproachable. I use the classic 0.72 M, and can live with

the small 90mm frame and feel quite comforable at focusing, evening

at close range.

<p>

Undoubtly, in low light situations, having the ability to shoot a

scene twice as fast by accessing f2 is an important asset. The faster

the lens the more pictures you are likely to capture and the less

rejects due to movement blur. That extra stop is even more of a bonus

on longer focal lengths than it is on a wide angle.

<p>

However, the few inches loss on DoF when opening from f2.8 to f2

might be pushing ease of focus beyond the limits. That is why I do

not really feel apo-asph lust and kind of wait for such a lens for

the R. Though the new 1.25 magnifier might be exactly what is needed

to encourage such lust even for M users... ;-)

<p>

Oh yes, weight and volume: the difference is marginal for all

practical purposes. But price is certainly a real differenciator.

Marke,

<p>

Almost a month later here, but still want to confuse you further: the

75mm f1.4 is one of the very best tools available, all brands and

architectures considered, to perform critical available light tasks

that forbid flash, require silence, require high quality performance

at widest apertures (and that 'lux brings such quality) and require a

little distance between photographer and subject. One thinks of stage

shots, in situ portraits, wedding photography (unbeatable in church)

and general reporting. Combined with the 35 f1.4 asph, you have the

definitive sleath combo.

<p>

There are reasons to want f1.4. The main one is a faster shutter

speed, which is THE critical asset in low light, especially with

longer focal lengths. The f2 90mm apo-asph *might* yield a marginally

better lab MTF graph, but it halves the speed at which you can shoot.

The f2.8 90mm makes things four times worse...

<p>

BTW, I do not own that lens. I use the 90mm elmarit. But I am amazed

when I count the number of shots that I was not allowed to take, and

that could have been taken with the 75mm at f1.4....

<p>

In most applications, you are not shooting at minimum distance. So

the blah on critical focusing at f1.4 for head/shoulder is not really

as meaningful as might seem at first...

<p>

Kind regards,

<p>

Alan

Dear Mr Park,

<p>

The Tamron 90mm macro is a fantastic lens, and will serve as a very

high quality "portrait" lens, w/great smooth bokeh, as well as an

extremely able macro lens.

<p>

I personally favour the 2nd generation Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 adaptall-

2: it needs a tube to go down to 1:1 (1:2 without tube) but it is

lighter and smoother in usage (and slightly improved in optical

design) compared with the 1st generation. The tube may be the Tamron

one (fits between lens and adaptall mount) or any tube that fits your

body's bayonet. Filter ring is 55mm. The lens comes with a sturdy

bayonet fix shade, and is highly flare resistant.

<p>

The latest generation Tamron macro is a f2.8 lens that goes down to

1:1 unaided, but it is larger and more "plasticky". Less fun to use,

in my opinion.

<p>

That 2nd generation Tamron will follow you as you change body

systems, and never put any of these systems to shame. It balances

very well on a R4/5/6 body (a bit like the 90 elmarit, albeit not as

luxurious), and, for any practical purposes (beyond onanist MTF

benchmarking), will provide you w/images every bit as good as those

provided by equivalent focal length Leica lenses.

<p>

A great great lens that deserves to be much more expensive !

Tony,

<p>

The 100mm f4 macro-elmar was never considered as a good Leica lens.

It does not do well as a general purpose lens (mediocre maximum

aperture), and does not do well as a macro lens (not even half life

size).

<p>

The 60mm macro-elmarit has always been considered as a gem, both as a

general purpose lens and as a macro lens. However, if this is to be

your only "standard" focal length lens, f2.8 can be frustrating, and

a much cheaper 50mm f2 would play that role at least just as well.

<p>

So you might consider a 3d option, a sacrilege of sorts, with a 2nd

hand Tamron 90mm f2.5 adaptall-2 lens (2nd generation): fantastic

portraits, and great macro performances. Unjustifiably low price.

Only tricky thing is to trace an adaptall-2 ring suited for the SL2...

<p>

Alan

Claudiu,

You mention your veneration for Salgado as part of what draws you

towards RF photography. You might like to know that Salgado routinely

uses SLRs for his people work (in his case, Leica R6, often mounted

with a 60mm macro, but it might just as well be a Dynax or anything

else, just a question of personal taste and habit).

<p>

I am a great fan of Leica M, and perfectly understand your wish to

try the style of photography that people associate with Leica M.

<p>

But, as I already wrote in an earlier post, it would be a scandal if

you deprived yourself from the hard earned tools that have helped you

create such a wonderful portfolio, and if you deprived yourself of

the means of eventually returning to your landscapes/nature

inclinations.

<p>

Money does not come easy for everyone, and there has been a lot of

hard earned money wasted on myths propagated in the photoworld. Also,

do not believe that you will be able to resell *new* standard Leica M

gear for a price even remotely near what you will have forked out

(2nd hand items are a different matter, but you mentioned you wanted

new). You'd have to wait 10 years for that, and, by 2010, I am not so

sure the market will be that keen on 35mm film technology at all.

<p>

So, again, if you must flirt with RF, give a try to the Hexar. You

could finance that with the 28-70, without creating too much of a

void in your current capabilities....

Separate viewfinder framing is by definition inaccurate, whatever the

brand, whatever the model. A hit or miss business forcing you to

recrop at printing/scanning stage. That is if you have not scalped

your subjects at shooting stage....

<p>

You will learn to reduce damage, but you will never be sure enough.

Only way out, is frame larger (much larger at times) and crop later.

Very frustrating when you shoot slides of course!

<p>

Strange to read all those endless arguments about "needing" perfect

100% vision with SLRs and then reading recommendations to "frame with

the mind" on RFs. Who needs parallax corrected integrated viewfinders

if "framing with the mind" is an option?

<p>

I am not that competent, my mind is not that developped, and I humbly

suggest to those of us as mentally challenged as myself, and who do

not like to crop their negs/slides, to avoid separate viewfinder

systems at all costs. Anything under 28mm ought to be attached to a

SLR.

Claudiu,

<p>

Absolutely GORGEOUS images on your site. It would be a pity to leave

your proven travel/landscape/nature capabilities behind, and such

images do often require tripod anyway, as well as different focal

length options for optimal perspective effects.

<p>

I agree with Thomas that you might squeeze even more quality for that

style of photography out of a larger format setup (which is something

you perhaps do not want to hear). But on the web, those Dynax pics

are simply fabulous. How large to you print them?

<p>

You now want to have the option of also pursuing images of people,

and feel that the SLR setup is too cumbersome for such an activity.

You might be right, but not necessarily.

<p>

Judging by your budgetary constraints, I would advise you to keep

your options open, and go for the very competitive Konica Hexar. This

way you will not have to get rid of any items of your Dynax system. I

would maybe even suggest you add to the Dynax a 2nd hand 100mm

f2, 'cause that zoom is really heavy.

<p>

Do short distance, indoors, street, with the Hexar, do more formal

portraits or longer distance pics with the Dynax+100. That double

setup will of course be larger and heavier than the 90mm Elmarit but

will be faster to boot than changing lenses. You will learn to walk

around with the Hexar and nothing else, anyway. Such an option will

prevent ruining your financial prospects for the coming 5

years.... . ;-)

<p>

And, most importantly, such a "compromise" will allow you to go back

to your current subjects whenever you feel like it, with a fully

functional well proven, rugged and efficient setup...

<p>

Alan

Robin is quite right, and this phenomenon is the price you pay for

the "sleathy" advantage of ultrawides in crowd shots. You do get the

unaware nearby people in the frame, while they think you are

photographing someone/something else.

<p>

But you are also at risk of inducing a "strangeness" in those

people's features, especially if those at the edge of the frame are

also those who are the nearest to the camera. That strangeness will

or will not spoil the image depending on the informational nature of

the shot: the viewer will gladly relate to the picture if this

information is interesting, rather than be distracted by esthetic

details. On the contrary, if the information content is low or banal,

then the viewer's eye will be attracted by the esthetical "defects"

(in this case unusual perspective phenomenae).

<p>

That is probably why the ultra-wide is a favourite with

photojournalists covering crowd events (immense depth of field, view

from within the action, etc) but not in most other circumstances

involving people (except of course if you NEED such a "strangeness"

to attract the viewer's attention to your picture).

<p>

Again, I cannot see why RF wide angles would be a protection against

such perspective phenomenae. They do not in my experience (21mm Apo,

28mm Ricoh). But I am ready to be convinced I am wrong by any solid

argument of course.

Andrew,

<p>

I've experienced that phenomenon with extremely well corrected wide

angles on rangefinders as well as on SLRs.

<p>

I'm therefore also quite convinced that this type of "elongation" on

sides and corners is strictly a perspective issue, and not a

distortion/correction issue. It does not appear at all distances with

all subjects: you will notice it more often in close-ups, while

shooting 3 dimensional subjects.

<p>

The way you hold the camera (strictly parallel to subject plane or

not) also influences the phenomenon. Very noticeable with people

(crowd shoots), and more visible the closer and the wider you go.

<p>

Try shooting a patterned flat subject(newspaper), with your film

plane parallel to subject plane, and I'm quite sure you will NOT see

that "stretching" of straight lines towards the corners. You will

notice that you have a very well corrected almost distortion free

lens.

<p>

Alan

"Real"? I guess a Yashica Electro35 at 13. Nice lens, OK rangefinder,

real 35mm film, snazzy (and humming!) diodes on top of camera. Made a

real difference compared to the pathetic Instamatics and 110s

(yerk!) that ruled over family photography at the time... Used

nothing else for 5 years and learned with it most of what I still

need to know today.

Ken,

Congrats on the move. You will NOT regret it. Listen (a little) to

your spouse, and do not let yourself be tempted in extending that M

outfit too much. The 'natural' process is to believe you "need" a

full set of lenses: been there and remain stuck with the investment

(no, in the short term, new standard M gear does NOT resell for

anything near the price you paid for it).

<p>

Apart from your 35mm, you might consider a cheapo used 50 'cron, for

those closer up people shots. Keep your FM2 for ALL the rest, with

your most used teles and wides. You will be grateful for SLR vision

with anything longer than 50mm or wider than 35mm (despite what too

many of us Leica enthusiasts like to believe...).

<p>

The FM2 is a great little tool as well. Great value for money. Like

the M, always as good as you are. And, with a 105mmf2.5 or a

20mmf2.8, really not as 'phallic' or obnoxious as you seem to have

come to believe. Try EOS1/F5/9/R8 with f2.8 zooms for 'phallic'

presence... ;-)

<p>

Have fun,

<p>

Alan

Paul,

I use the 21mm Asph, and also use the R system.

<p>

The 21mm Asph is a fantastic lens, excellent at f2.8, and stellar

between f4 and f8. It is handy, relatively light and compact, and

precise focusing is extremely easy through the M's rangefinder (DoF

scale prefocusing being sometimes a little "gross" at f2.8).

<p>

However, if separate viewfinder framing is OK for fast and dirty

shooting (when you crop later at scanning or printing stage) or for

distant subjects, it can be a REAL nuisance for precise near/far

compositions. This is a major handicap when shooting landscapes for

example. It has also turned into a professional nightmare when I was

required to shoot the staging of modern art work for a gallery.

<p>

This is the reason why I would today certainly choose the 19mm R.

Following most of the reference tests, its performances are

comparable to the 21mm Asph, even at f2.8. But it allows you to focus

VERY near (an important asset for a superwide), and it is as WYSIWYG

as it gets. It is heavier and bigger though, and a R8+19mm is

certainly not as much fun to hike with as a M+21...

<p>

The conclusion is yours...

<p>

Alan

<p>

The M is better left with 28/35/50/75 lenses. Wider or longer are

MUCH more comfortable with a SLR.

Hi David,

<p>

From my personal experience, after having used the 180 f2.8 APO

intensively in all sorts of situations for over 8 months now, and the

100 APO for over 2 years, I find that they are certainly of

equivalent level of imaging quality. I was never disappointed by the

180.

<p>

I'm sure 1/250s is quite OK, if you make sure you are reasonably

stable. I even shoot handheld at 1/125s routinely with that lens with

satisfying success rates, due to the great balance of the R8/180

combo (at 1/60s it is really hit or miss). Just make sure you are

perfectly stable and that you hold the camera properly..

<p>

I'd also be suprised if your lens was to blame. That is easy to check

with a short tripod session, using the 100 as benchmark and move the

tripod to positions insuring same reproduction ratio for both lenses.

If you do these trials outdoors on still life 3D subjects (trees,

flowers, etc), make sure that there is not the slightest trace of

breeze that day and no change of light when you switch lenses. No

filters on either, of course.

<p>

Preferably use high res slide film for those trials in order to

eliminate any risk of lab print focusing incidents.

<p>

Once you have made sure your particular specimen is not to blame, you

might want to consider your shooting technique: with moving subjects

(humans, animals, plants in the breeze, etc), focusing at shorter

distances at wide apertures is pretty tricky as very limited

subject/operator movements will push subject before or beyond the

plane of focus without you necessarily noticing it. That is enough to

render softly instead of super duper sharp. This is true for any fast

telelens of course.

<p>

Take a little more time with it and put it through the motions.

<p>

In the 180-200 range, I have intensively used Nikkor ED and CZ

Sonnar, and, from personal experience, I can promise you those highly

competent lenses do not come anywhere near the "ooomph" delivered by

the APO-Elmarit...

<p>

Please come back to us when you have given it a little more time...

<p>

Good luck,

<p>

Alan

David,

<p>

You will find the 180mm f2.8 APO is a fantastic lens to use:

- weight and balance are ideal with the R8, inducing remarkable hand

held stability. The balance is further improved by the internal

focusing architecture;

<p>

- the focusing ring is the most comfortable and the smoothest I have

ever used (much smoother than the 100 macro), manageable with one

finger (for example your left hand thumb or index, with the camera

resting securely in the palm of your hand);

<p>

- results are irreproachable, and ALL test benchmarks concur on this;

<p>

- the 70-180 f2.8 zoom is way too heavy for handheld usage. Adding

the 180mm fixed focal to your 100mm macro is the way to go. There is

no problem using a tripod, either with the special ring mentioned by

Lucien or with the tripod attached to the camera.

<p>

Furthermore, sticking to the "leicaphile" discipline of fixed focal

lens usage (move around your subject and only change focal lengths

when you have to) is, in my experience, a recipe for more interesting

pictures. Leave such heavy zooms to situations were moving is

forbidden. I can only think of specific photojournalism situations

that might really require such zooms.

<p>

Alan

Hi Robert,

<p>

Perfectly sane mail, Robert, corroborated my the real life experience

of most people, I'm sure.

<p>

The mirror-up, sturdy tripod, 40x enlargement, super high res film

requirements set by some to allow perception of the "Leica glow" are

contradictory with what 35mm photography is all about. They are at

the opposite of the Leica philosophy of the origins.

<p>

Those requirements fit the bill for larger formats of film. They are

necessary for those very few users who need to produce originals that

will be blown up to extremely large proportions or that will need to

be absolutely flawless for high end glossy type publication.

<p>

In the 35mm world these days, the Leica R system does not enjoy any

objective competitive advantage.

<p>

The benchmarked optical superiority of the Leica R lenses serves no

other purpose than to reassure the user that any defect in an image

will solely be due to his/her technical choices.

<p>

I'm convinced that opting for Leica R is a choice in favour of a very

unique photograhic experience when it comes to the picture taking

process itself, more than when it comes to results.

<p>

It is a choice for mechanical over electronic, a choice of metal

construction over polycarbonates, a choice of manual operation with

automatism options against automatic operation with manual options, a

choice of specific tactile feedback against productivity oriented

handling, a choice of smoothness of operation against speed of use. I

personally feel it as a choice of human control against robot

perfection.

<p>

The real differenciators are not necessarily where the marketing hype

say they are.

<p>

Do they justify the price differential? The answer belongs to the

users, and, IMHO, it is much more affective than rational.

Personally, I feel they do. I cannot find the smallest ounce of

pleasure when having to handle any new generation high end SLR. But

using any Leica M or R systematically brings a happy grin to my

face...

I do not use R zooms (only fixed focal), but general agreement in the

Leica R user community is that the 35-70 f4 is the one to get. Leica

design, manufactured by Kyocera.

<p>

The 28-70 f3.5-f4.5 is an already old Sigma design, and, according to

most sources, not on par with current Leica designs.

<p>

The tele would be the current 80-200 f4, also produced by Kyocera.

Hi Sol,

<p>

I am a happy user of a 180mm f2.8 apo-elmarit. Very expensive and not

yet available 2nd hand, it is REALLY fantastic. Others have gone

pretty far to test the optical qualities of this lens and I do not

have the technical means or the time to perform such tests myself.

<p>

But I can say that it is certainly a very amazing piece of hardware to

use. Internal focusing and super-smooth focusing ring are 2 very big

advantages on previous generation 180's. Both these features help

provide perfect balance and fast reactivity in all circumstances. The

focusing ring can be gently operated with the thumb of the left hand

while holding the base of the camera (or with the tip of of the

fingers if you use a motordrive), with no friction whatsoever. This

allows you to maintain the camera in a stable position and shoot while

focusing. Almost as fast and convenient as AF but without the chasing

or the FUD that make AF so frustrating to control freaks such as

myself.

<p>

I recommend this investment to anyone often using such a focal length:

you KNOW performance is best-of-breed, and you USE a wonderful tool

leveraging top notch ergonomy.

<p>

The 280mm f4 apo also enjoys a great reputation. But it is not in my

busying list this