paul_chefurka

I think the .58 has the best finder for 35mm lenses of any M6 out

there today, due to both the size of the frame lines and the fact

that they're not paired with another focal length. I use a .58 for

my 28, 35 and Tri-Elmar. The .85 gets the 75, 90 and 135.

 

<p>

 

The .72 stays home a lot. I use it in two situations - if I want to

shoot with just a 50, or if I want to shoot with a 35 and a 90, and

only want to use one body.

 

<p>

 

For a 28 or a 35, the .58 finder rocks!

Hmmm - that could be. I'll ask him - when I get the catalog number

we'll know for sure.

I just found out from my dealer that Lisle-Kelco has them in stock

in Canada. Available in black or chrome. They are $500 CND, so that

would make them about $300 to $350 USD. Too rich for my blood at the

moment...

Oops! I just noticed that Simon wong beat me to the punch with an

earlier post about this item.

 

<p>

 

<Emily Latella>

Never mind!

</Emily Latella>

I now wear glasses full-time, and the .58 has become my preferred

finder. I have used the 90 on it, but not wide-open, so I can't

comment on its ultimate accuracy with that lens. For 28, 35 or 50mm

lenses of any speed the .58 is the cat's pyjamas. I prefer the .85

finder for 75, 90 and 135 lenses, and my .72 sees very little use any

more.

Here's an interesting tidbit for 135 users. Erwin Puts, in his latest email newsletter, indicates that Leica has produced a 1.25x add-on viewfinder magnifier for the M6, that he says works like a charm for to increase the focus accuracy and subject visibility with 75, 90 and 135 lenses. This gizmo would make a .58 into a .72, the .72 finder would be the equivalent of the M3 (0.9x), and the .85 finder stretches to 1.06x! He gave no indication of when it will be available, but it's probably worth a look for long-lens users.

The only time I've been taken to task is when I was shooting kids in

a playground. In retrospect it was a very bad idea, and I understand

the concerns of the father who confronted me. I was able to defuse

the situation by going back the next day armed with a camera club

membership card, and a small portfolio of the essay I was working

on. I found him, and we arrived at a mutual understanding - he of

the fact that I was "legit", and I of his concerns.

 

<p>

 

I found out that if you're in a dodgy situation, having evidence of

legitimacy (membership in a photographically-related organization)

and 4x6 samples of some good work tucked into your camera bag goes a

long way in public relations.

Over the years I've owned two M4's, an M3 and three M6's. Only the

M3 has had to go in for repairs, for focussing problems (it focussed

about a foot too close at 10 feet) and a stripped gear tooth in the

film transport. The body went in to Gerry Smith (Kinermann's Leica

God in Canada) who fixed it up within two weeks for around $100

IIRC. The other bodies have all been fine, except that I noticed the

other day that the film counter in my M6 .72 isn't moving...

 

<p>

 

Of the 18 Leica lenses I've owned since the 70's, only one has had a

problem. A couple of months after purchase my first Tri-Elmar (new

version) developed a problem with the aperture detent, where the

click-stops wouldn't (click or stop, that is). It went back to Lisle-

Kelco, and after a couple of weeks they opted to replace it. The new

lens had a problem with the focus selector ring, where the click-

stops again wouldn't. That lens was in turn replaced by the dealer

without a murmur, and the new one is perfect in all respects. BTW -

this is a testimony to the value of dealing with a good local camera

store whenever possible. Getting this problem sorted out for a mail-

order grey-market purchase would have been a nightmare.

 

<p>

 

All the other lenses I've owned have been perfect.

Well, I've gone back and looked at those test images again after

letting them sit for a while, hoping to give them a more objective

analysis.

 

<p>

 

The following things struck me:

 

<p>

 

1. Most of the shots (especially at 4.0 and 8.0 are essentially

indistinguishable.

 

<p>

 

2. Even the shots at 2.0 are pretty similar with some notable

exceptions. The Nikkors 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and the Leica 28/2.0

all look worse than any of the other lenses at 2.0. I find it hard

to believe that the Leica is as bad as it looks :-/

 

<p>

 

3. Most of the small differences seem to be caused by focus

variations. It could easily be the case focus problems contributed

to some degree to the big differences as well.

 

<p>

 

My final conclusion is that it is virtually impossible to

conclusively demonstrate minor resolution differences between lenses

using images on the net.

 

<p>

 

The biggest limiting factor for this (IMO) is the lowered sensitivity

of the test due to the scanning step. The LS-4000 I used has an

effective resolution (measured by Pop Photo) of 60 lp/mm. Given the

additional processing required (sharpening and reduction to JPEG) and

monitor resolution limitations, the final resolution is inevitably

less than that (<50?). This means that pretty much any lens will

meet or exceed the resolution of the test, except when the lens is at

its most severely compromised.

 

<p>

 

One other obvious limiting factor is focus accuracy, especially with

closeup shots.

 

<p>

 

So there you go. It was an interesting exercise. It taught me a lot

about what can and can't be shown on the net, as well as what the

scanner is doing to my slides. Luckily some other aspects of Leica

quality (flare resistance etc.) will come through on a scanner, and

there are enough other reasons to pursue the digital darkroom

approach. Ultimate resolution just isn't one of them.

I haven't used one of the older Summicrons since the 70's, so my

prediction is based on use of the thin Tele-Elmarit, the current

Elmarit-M and the AA. I think what you'll get with the AA is a lens

that has higher contrast overall, has better flare resistance, is

noticeably sharper at 2.0 and 2.8, and is a bit sharper at 4.0.

 

<p>

 

I think its worth to you will depend on how much you use the wide

apertures and also depends on what you usually use the lens for. I

think the AA is a very "incisive" lens. It's a remarkable general-

purpose tele, with uncompromising clarity. Pics that I have from my

old Summicron and Tele-Elmarit show a much more gentle character

(basically composed of lower contrast, maybe a touch of flare and a

bit less sharpness) that is very appealing, especially in portraits.

I had a Summicron ASPH, and sold it when I succumbed to the siren

song of the Summilux ASPH. My take on the two lenses is:

 

<p>

 

In terms of sharpness, colour rendition and flare resistance there

isn't much to choose between them. I think (though I can't prove)

that the lux is a tiny bit sharper/contrastier in the center at in

the 2.0-4.0 range; but it's nothing to get bent out of shape over.

the performance of the Summicron at 2.0 will take your breath away.

 

<p>

 

Weight and size for me is pretty much a wash. Yes, the Summilux is a

bit bigger and heavier, but again not so much as to make any real

difference to me. The shade on the Summicron is a real treat, and

yes, it doesn't block the VF as much as the one on the Summilux.

However, the shade cap on the Summilux is miles ahead of the one on

the Summicron (which popped off and I lost it).

 

<p>

 

The bokeh is a bit different between the two lenses. I found that

the Summicron s tended to be a bit smoother, the Summilux is a bit

rougher, but again, not enough for me to base any buying decisions on.

 

<p>

 

For me it all comes down to the extra f-stop. Once you've taken a

photo at 1.4 and seen the utterly unbeatable image quality, you may

be sold. The reason pros use it is indeed that extra f-stop. If you

need it, and can justify the cost, get the Summilux. Otherwise

you'll be very happy with the Summicron. Until, of course, the first

day you need to shoot some available light action and that extra f-

stop would have made the difference between 1/15 and 1/30...

???????????

Well, my wife once discovered a 135/3.4 I hadn't told her about.

When she was through, the lens barrel had acquired a substantial

curvature. Maybe that's what this was about. Fortunately I had full

passport coverage, because I needed it to go and live in another

country till she cooled down...

About distinguishing the bodies - I use a black Softie on the .58,

and a silver one on the .85. I suppose I could use Dymo tape on the

top plate instead, though...

The diodes are visible to eyeglass wearers in all finders. I wear

glasses, and have no trouble with the 50mm frame in the .85, though I

can't use the 35mm frame without working at it.

 

<p>

 

I think the .58 and .85 make a dynamite two-body combo. I use the 3E

or primes up to 50mm on the .58, and anything 50 or over on the .85.

I find both bodies acceptable for use with the 50, though they give

very different impressions. On the .58 a 50 feels like a short tele,

while on the .85 it feels mildly wide.

 

<p>

 

I think the .58 is the best viewfinder for a 35mm lens since the M2.

The only time I use my .72 any more is when I know I'll need both a

35 and a 90, and only want to carry one body.

"People talk a lot about how you see outside the frame of your image

in an RF. This really seems to make a lot of difference. By viewing

the image in its context, and then viewing what you 'propose' to make

as an image, I think you have a much better handle on your

composition. It makes explicit what you're cropping out of the image"

 

<p>

 

This is one of the things I like best about the RF viewing

experience. It reminds me a bit of Michaelangelo's comment about

chipping away the marble to find the statue within. It's as though

the whole frame is the block of marble, and you can hunt around

inside it to find the best statue. It's a lot easier to see what part

of that marble block to throw away.

Erwin Puts has some experience with Gigabitfilm (it's basically

document microfilm in a special developer). Look at

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/highres.html for a detailed

Erwinesque discussion of high-resolution issues, including high-res

film.

 

<p>

 

My take from his analysis is that film resolution alone doesn't buy

you much (if anything), and TMX will get you most of the way there

with much less hassle.

Russell's complaint about people taking too much equipement with them

really struck a chord with me.

 

<p>

 

When I went to Belize in February, I took my entire Leica kit, on the

assumption that I didn't know what kind of photo opportunities I'd

find there. This turned out to be a bass-ackwards way of looking at

the problem. I took the same kinds of pictures there that I would

take at home, and the equipment I usually used at home was what I

used there. In fact I used less gear there than I use at home,

because part of the point was the travel, not the photography.

 

<p>

 

As a result the majority of the gear that I took along just

languished in the hotel room, waiting for the maid to realize what it

was worth. I carried the Hexar and the 3E most of the time.

 

<p>

 

For me, the lesson is this: first figure out what it is you usually

take with you when you just go our cruising for snaps at home. Take

that. Take a wide-aperture lens for available light shots. Take the

lightest short tele you can live with. If any of these categories

overlap, so much the better, you get to leave stuff at home. Take

one trustworthy body (or two if they're a dodgy marque like Konica :-

) If there's one really cool piece of gear that's essential to your

personal style (Holga, pano etc.) take that. Then fill the rest of

the bag with film, and stop packing.

Hey Mike,

 

<p>

 

Don't worry, your attitude won't start any trouble with me. This was

the first time in over two years that I've put a camera on a tripod.

Like you, I'm a pure hand-held available-light shooter.

 

<p>

 

One of the pics that convinced me of the quality of the 90AA was a

pin-sharp performance shot of a cabaret singer taken wide-open, hand-

held at 1/60. That's what I buy Leica M cameras and lenses for, not

this kind of stuff. If I were to put a camera on a tripod, it would

be a camera that *needs* a tripod - like an RB67 or something.

Leicas belong in the hand.

 

<p>

 

These tests were done essentially out of idle curiosity. The results

were interesting and anomalous enough that I'm going to redo some of

them this weekend with even a bit more rigour. This time I'll look

at f/2.0 as well, which should give people even more to talk about.

 

<p>

 

Then I'll be done with lens testing for life. There isn't enough

money in the world to make me do this full time :-)

Two M6 bodies: an .58 and a .85. Four lenses: a 35 Summilux ASPH, a

Tri-Elmar, a 90 and a 135/3.4.

 

<p>

 

What 90? Given that it's a travel kit, one lens I might favor in this

role is the new CV APO-Lanthar. It's very small and light, and it

may be better close up than the old thin Tele-Elmarit. For a Leica

solution, I'd go with the 90 Elmarit-M. I'd leave the 90AA at home -

it's too heavy, and I rarely need a fast tele when I'm travelling.

 

<p>

 

I'd throw the Hexar into a suitcase as a backup body or for use with

the Tri-Elmar as has been suggested. I wouldn't take a superwide

because I never use 'em. I wouldn't take a P&S because if I'm going

to spend real money travelling, I want to bring back real photos made

with real cameras ;-)

The shutter speeds were 1/250 and 1/1000.

BTW, in the true spirit of the scientific method, anyone who

disagrees with my methodology or conclusions should feel free to

rerun the experiment and post their results. The more data points we

get, the more reliable the curve fit becomes.

 

<p>

 

Any takers?

There's no pleasing everyone, I guess. At least I used a tripod :-)

The criticisms of using a moving subject are valid. And yes, I may

have misfocussed that Nikkor 50/1.8.

 

<p>

 

In order to satisfy myself and to calm the carps, I'll be doing

another test series in a week or so. The lenses will include the 35

Summilux ASPH, a 35/2.0 Nikkor, the 50 Summicron and Nikkor, and the

90 AA and the 85/2.0 Nikkor. Test film will be Velvia. I will use a

stationary subject (probably a street scene) and I'll lock up the

mirror on the F3. I'll try to focus the lenses before I take the

pictures :-)

 

<p>

 

My main motivation for doing these tests was all the bleat on the net

about how you just can't tell a Nikkor from a Leica lens at "normal"

apertures. At least the 50mm test showed this (the 55 Micro example

at least, even if the shots with the 50 were suspect), though the

90mm test was a bit of a shock. If anything, doing this has made me

a lot more skeptical about anybody's lens performance claims.

 

<p>

 

The other thing that came through loud and clear to me is how little

resolution degradation is required to eliminate the superiority of

really good glass. It's one thing to hear it, but it's another thing

to see how close the 3E is to Summicron/Summilux performance.

I haven't heard even a rumour of plans for a 21/24/28 lens. Seems to

me that even at f/4.0 it would be quite a bear of a lens.

Here's another vote for the Summilux ASPH. I bought the Summicron

ASPH first (because it's all you really need, right?), then got

the 'lux. Six months later the Summicron went on the block. Like

many others here, it's my primary lens. I team it with a 3E and a 90

AA for most of my shooting.

 

<p>

 

I don't find it much heavier than the Summicron, and that extra stop

is sooo useful.

 

<p>

 

It's a wonderful lens, pin-sharp at every stop, quite resistant to

flare, fantastic colour rendition - a true general-purpose lens.