lutz

August 21, 2001

Al

For you and others to copy the layout I'm pasting the HTML below.

Highlight and copy, then paste it into your contribution window. Just

make sure to swap my CAPS against your text leaving the "s untouched.

Make sure you uploaded your pictures to the internet FIRST to be able

to see if the links work. You may wish to test your posts here:

<A HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=

005uhi">HTML PLAYGROUND</A> If they work, go BACK with your browser,

highlight and copy your whole contribution and paste it into the right

thread.

<<CENTER>SWAP THIS AGAINST YOUR HEADLINE</CENTER>

<TR>

<CENTER><A HREF="SWAP THIS AGAINST THE INTERNET ADDRESS OF

YOUR FIRST PICTURE"><IMG

SRC="SWAP THIS AGAINST A THUMBNAIL (SMALLER SIZE, IDEALLY

150X100 PIXELS) OF YOUR FIRST PICTURE"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight BORDER=0

ALIGN=bottom></A></CENTER>

</TD><TD WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=150>

<CENTER><A HREF="SWAP THIS AGAINST THE INTERNET ADDRESS OF

YOUR SECOND PICTURE"><IMG

SRC="SWAP THIS AGAINST A THUMBNAIL (SMALLER SIZE, IDEALLY

150X100 PIXELS) OF YOUR SECOND PICTURE"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight BORDER=0

ALIGN=bottom></A></CENTER>

</TD></TR>

<TR>

<CENTER>SWAP THIS AGAINST THE FIRST LINE OF CAPTION OF YOUR

FIRST PICTURE

SWAP THIS AGAINST THE SECOND LINE OF CAPTION OF YOUR FIRST

PICTURE</CENTER>

</TD><TD WIDTH=150>

<CENTER>SWAP THIS AGAINST THE FIRST LINE OF CAPTION OF YOUR

SECOND PICTURE

SWAP THIS AGAINST THE SECOND LINE OF CAPTION OF YOUR SECOND

PICTURE</CENTER>

</TD></TR>

</TABLE></CENTER>>

August 21, 2001

Chen

Thanks for your nice comment. Yes, the Dutch masters in a way seem to

have anticipated available light leicagraphy... ;o)

For my taste, especially in portraits there is little to compete with

just one strong but soft light

source. In this case a lamp shade of 2 feet in diameter. As for the

color, the 60 watts bulb is too "warm" even for the tungsten type film,

resulting in that golden tone may-be reminding of those Dutch

candlelight scenes.

August 21, 2001

<CENTER>Something more like this, Andrew?</CENTER>

<TR>

<CENTER><A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//

scrabble.jpeg"><IMG

SRC="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//scrabble.tmb.jpeg"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight BORDER=0

ALIGN=bottom></A></CENTER>

</TD><TD WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=150>

<CENTER><A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//

kite.3.jpeg"><IMG

SRC="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//kite.3.tmb.jpeg"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight BORDER=0

ALIGN=bottom></A></CENTER>

</TD></TR>

<TR>

<CENTER>f 2.8 / 1/30th

on Kodakchrome EPJ 320T</CENTER>

</TD><TD WIDTH=150>

<CENTER>f 16 / 1/125th

on Kodachrome 200</CENTER>

<CENTER>(a SLING-shot, of course...;o)</CENTER>

</TD></TR>

</TABLE></CENTER>

<CENTER>© Lutz Konermann 2001</CENTER>

<CENTER>Cheers</CENTER>

August 21, 2001

As promised, here are my first impressions.

To spill the beans: I'm very happy with the purchase. It took QUITE a while to get the lens as Voigtländer is not being imported to Switzerland directly. So I had my Ultron ordered from Germany, which in turn took almost two months... (There seem to have been delays in production. In the US Voigtländer seems to be well represented though by the indefatiguable Steven Gandy @ http://cameraquest.com).

OK - Why am I happy?

- The lens is sharp.

- The lens is fast.

- It matches the Leica look quite nicely. (A chrome lens with its black hood on a black body might look even more stylish than my black version...!)

- It feels solid.

- It is much more compact than I read it was (applies to viewfinder obstruction as well).

- It cost me just $550 with M-Adapter.

So, at about 2/3 of the cost of a Konica 28 RF, 1/3 of the cost of an Elmarit 28 and almost just 1/4 of a Summicron 28 I got a FAST piece of glass that is fun to handle.

Where is the downside?

- Well, I DO miss that red knob telling me how to align the bayonet fast...

- There is a tiny focussing tab that is not as ergonomic as a Leica's - but at least you can easily unscrew it. (Anyway, it helps the focussing, which overall is very smooth.)

- The lens hood is fastened by means of a screw clamp. As the hood has cutouts for the image angles but doesn't "snap to grid" I found myself controlling the right position every once and again, which was slightly irritating.

- The typo and color of the hyperfocal scales is different from Leica lenses'. Just a slight difference, but it does remind you that there is a "guest at your table"...;o)

I can't give any ultimate judgement on the built. It feels solid, but time and use will tell the rest of the story. Anyway, I'm not part of the fence hopper fraction, so I'm more than optimistic.

I bought the Voigtländer to test ride not only the brand but the focal length as well. I had been using a 28 with my SLRs on and off and wasn't sure, whether I really needed one, if I "saw" enough 28 shots to justify the expense. After my first short experience with the Ultron I'm more than convinced that it's a perfect lens for the RF Leica. Especially along with a 0.72 or even 0.58 viewfinder. I'll stick to the 28 and for now I see no reason to "upgrade" to whichever costlier brand.

I'm adding a couple of shots. The scans (from slides) aren't too good, but they do give an impression. What most amazes me is the detail in fine grain slides and the absence (or almost) of flare even with strong light sources within the frame. I'm posting one of the few shots I did wide open - a lot of detail still, no flare, no visible distortion.

(Then again, a thought on resolution issues, "wide open": How often will I use f 1.9 on a low speed, fine grain film? Me, most seldom. Before I open to 1.9 on a 28 I will most probably step up speed to 1/15. What situations do I find myself in at 2.8 and 1/15? Available light indoors and night outdoors, most probably. What kind of film will I be using there? High speed, most probably. So I'm pretty sure that as far as resolution is concerned, in 99% of real life situations the film will be weaker than the lens...?!)

Enjoy

<CENTER>Some of my first shots taken with the Voigtländer

Ultron 1.9/28mm on a Leica M6</CENTER>

<TR>

<CENTER><A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//salotto.jpeg"><IMG

SRC="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//salotto.tmb.jpeg"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight BORDER=0

ALIGN=bottom></A></CENTER>

</TD><TD WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=150>

<CENTER><A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//kite.2.jpeg"><IMG

SRC="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//kite.2.tmb.jpeg"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight BORDER=0

ALIGN=bottom></A></CENTER>

</TD></TR>

<TR>

<CENTER>wide open / 1/15th

on Kodakchrome EPJ 320T</CENTER>

</TD><TD WIDTH=150>

<CENTER>f 8 / 1/500th

on Kodachrome 200</CENTER>

</TD></TR>

<TR>

<CENTER><A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//waiting.for.the.guests.jpeg"><IMG

SRC="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//waiting.for.the.guests.tmb.jpeg"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight BORDER=0

ALIGN=bottom></A></CENTER>

</TD><TD WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=150>

<CENTER><A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//macglobal.jpeg"><IMG

SRC="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//macglobal.tmb.jpeg"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight BORDER=0

ALIGN=bottom></A></CENTER>

</TD></TR>

<TR>

<CENTER>f 11 / 1 sec

on Kodachrome 64</CENTER>

</TD><TD WIDTH=150>

<CENTER>f 8 / 1/60 th

on Kodachrome 200</CENTER>

</TD></TR>

</TABLE></CENTER>

<CENTER>© Lutz Konermann 2001</CENTER>

August 21, 2001

<CENTER>Some of my first shots taken with the Voigtländer

Ultron 1.9/28mm on a Leica M6</CENTER>

<TR>

<CENTER><A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//

salotto.jpeg"><IMG

SRC="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//salotto.tmb.jpeg"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight BORDER=0

ALIGN=bottom></A></CENTER>

</TD><TD WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=150>

<CENTER><A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//

kite.2.jpeg"><IMG

SRC="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//kite.2.tmb.jpeg"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight BORDER=0

ALIGN=bottom></A></CENTER>

</TD></TR>

<TR>

<CENTER>wide open / 1/15th

on Kodakchrome EPJ 320T</CENTER>

</TD><TD WIDTH=150>

<CENTER>f 8 / 1/500th

on Kodachrome 200</CENTER>

</TD></TR>

<TR>

<CENTER><A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//

waiting.for.the.guests.jpeg"><IMG

SRC="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//

waiting.for.the.guests.tmb.jpeg"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight BORDER=0

ALIGN=bottom></A></CENTER>

</TD><TD WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=150>

<CENTER><A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//

macglobal.jpeg"><IMG

SRC="http://www.konermann.net/ultron//macglobal.tmb.jpeg"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight BORDER=0

ALIGN=bottom></A></CENTER>

</TD></TR>

<TR>

<CENTER>f 11 / 1 sec

on Kodachrome 64</CENTER>

</TD><TD WIDTH=150>

<CENTER>f 8 / 1/60 th

on Kodachrome 200</CENTER>

</TD></TR>

</TABLE></CENTER>

<CENTER>© Lutz Konermann 2001</CENTER>

August 20, 2001

Funny how the nostalgic threads keep being the winners.

My father was fond of photography. He owned an Exakta Varex said to be

one of the first SLRs. When I was 12 he bought me the smaller Exa,

waist level, times from 30 to 175 or odds... I soon started to feel the

limitations. The first camera chosen by myself was an Olympus OM1 back

in 1972 (!), soon after it had been released. I loved that small,

lightweight and somehow sexy camera. And after 30 years I still keep an

OM2n with a couple of lenses ready for shooting. When my daughter

turned 13 just recently I gave her the OM1...

August 16, 2001

Zacharie

Well, if you wish to use the built-in lightmeter (red diodes in the

viewfinder) it might help to set the correct speed... ;o)

Cheers

August 16, 2001

Wayne

Although you underline that you wish to get tough feedback - I'm sorry,

all I can say is: Great Pictures! You have an eye, for composition,

light, situation. You have technique as the tonal range and balance

testify. If you're not a pro yet I would say: Go for it! Or at least

sell your prints. "Walker" is a winner. You may contact me personally

since I'm investing the small change I get from selling my products in

prints from amateurs from all over the globe. Kind of exchange program

- technology for art...;o)

Cheers

August 13, 2001

Simon

I'm a bit late on the argument due to a short vacation. I'm not up to

having a last word on this after so many valid contributions but I

would like to add some of my personal experiences.

I owned the summilux 35 pre-asph twice. And twice I sold it again. The

first time along with my complete Leica M6 gear, after a short test

ride some 10 years ago. The second time it was the first lens I chose 2

years ago to build up a new equipment from scratch. When I had my first

wide-open shots devellopped I was shocked by the blur (or "glow", since

it is most apparent within highlights). And it was only then that I

remembered this same experience of 8 years before.

Looking at the effect superficially I thought it could easily be

obtained with soft-focus or halo filters, with white stockings for

instance and by that @ f-stops even different from wide-open (!). So

why spend much money on an effect that tends to dissapear completely as

soon as you step down? On the other hand, why spend more than necessary

on a fast lens, if it doesn't offer sharp images @ maximum aperture?

So I compared the lux and the pre-asph cron and found, that @ 2.0 the

cron is crisper but the luxes glow is already much contained. @ 2.8 I

couldn't tell a difference. I sold the lux, bought a cron and ever

since enjoy it. Another thing: the cron focusses from 0.7 meters, the

lux from 0.9, if I remember precisely.

Then again @ 1.4 and a half stop down (1.7) the lux has some magic in

handling light...

<A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/gallery/violinist.jpeg">http://

www.konermann.net/gallery/violinist.jpeg</A>

So... If you can afford a couple of bucks more than you need for buying

a cron... And you know that you will get a very special and strong

highlight glow @ 1.4, a more contained one @ 1.7 and an almost

neglectable one @ 2.0... And you know that you do not need to focus

closer than 0.9 meters... Than you might want to go for the lux.

Cheers,

Lutz

August 2, 2001

Thanks for sharing this great link, Ivan! You made your point and I'm

rushing to get my first Holga presto.

Cheers,

Lutz

July 29, 2001

On browsing thru threads I stumbled across Tom Bryant's "Again the HTML is screwed up. Is there a way to preview a submission on this site, like you can the ads?"

This is what I found out will work:

Just highlight and copy your submission (before submitting...;o), paste it into a blank text file (of any text editor) and save it as "whatever.htm". Then "open" that "page" thru the "file" menu of your browser. While the layout might still screw up, your links will be ready for verification.

As an alternative I propose to sacrifice THIS thread as a playground for tests before submitting to the correct thread...?! How's that? Just remember to save your submission (HTML and all included) at least on the clipboard of your computer before test-submitting. Otherwise "Kansas is going bye-bye..." ;o)

Finally, since Tom doesn't seem to have reproposed the correct link to his site, I'm going to do it:

Go there, folks, if you haven't so far! It is so full of advice, commonsense and a very subtle humour.

Cheers

July 28, 2001

Nice subject, Art!

And I really DO like the picture that you evoke before my INNER eye

with your description... ;o)

Lately, I find myself carrying a Leica around more often - and getting

home without any picture taken. I started to do this kind of gymnastics

after missing some once-in-a-$!%©?x§!!-lifetime-shots. But I think they

get to you rather than you get to them.

Anyway, I think you have to be prepared in more than one sense,

equipmentwise but also mentally, and I found that walking to work (I

gave up driving cars, which helps seeing anew, for starters), to

appointments and aims not necessarily clears my view. Strolling in

foreign places is a good platform - then again, the magical coincidence

of sight and seeing may occur, but it may as well not.

I was happy I had my Leica with me, though, when changing trains in the

capital of Switzerland as THIS sprang to my humble eyes and paid me off

for days of futile weight lifting... ;o)

<IMG

SRC="http://www.konermann.net/gallery/swan.small.jpeg"

X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeight ALIGN=bottom>

Cheers,

Lutz

July 26, 2001

Good eye, Gerry! I really like your shots. Thank you for sharing. Enjoy

the XP-2 and prepare for an amazing experience when printing it on a

dedicated b&w baryth paper.

Cheers, Lutz

July 26, 2001

Simon

I'm happy with my M6 and up to even 2 lenses hanging from one lug. I

even use a <A HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-

msg.tcl?msg_id=005HY9">key chain style quick release</A> which easily

solves the torsion problem mentioned above. I absolutely trust the M6

lug to cope with that load - unless you intend to play yo-yo with it or

jump fences. ;-)

Then again, shit happens.

But how can you be optimistic with a misty optic...?

Cheers,

Lutz

July 26, 2001

Jeff

I'm with Bill. I obsessed over a similar observation with my 75

Summilux and it turned out to be the rangefinder which was adjusted in

a snap. If your gear is in warranty there'll be nothing to argue about

with Leica. They'll replace whatever is defective.

While waiting for you equipment to be returned you might read the

following few lines, for the record...;-)

- the DOF in the first shot (1.4) appears to be in the grain region. It

is so shallow that you can't really make out the precise focus unless

you use a less grainy film.

- by judging from the second shot the focus appears to sit around 16.7

mm on the ruler (rule of thumb - no pun intended - 1/3 of DOF before

and 2/3 of DOF behind focus).

- IMHO non-macro lenses aren't optimized for minimum distances but for

infinity. So you better don't obsess too much about lack of bite @ 0.7

meters @ 1.4. besides, I think there are reasons for Leica to restrict

minimum focus to 0.7 meters - and focus optimization might be one among

them. Blame me if I'm wrong.

Cheers,

Lutz

July 25, 2001

Wow, Alex. What more can be said? Great contribution - passionate AND

thoughtful.

Well, for the record and for those of you reading French, there is a

review of the Hexanon 35/2 in the July issue of "Réponses Photo" which

IMHO is the most informative photographic magazine I have come across

so far.

<A HREF="http://www.tipa.com/reponsesphfr.html">http://www.tipa.com/

reponsesphfr.html</A>

In short, the reviewer (Claude Tauleigne) praises it for built and

optical quality but blames it for lack of bite on the borders when full

open, for bulk and for it's high price. At the same tag he would rather

prefer a used pre-asph over a Hexanon - not for performance but for

handling.

So, it seems there's nothing but a personal test ride to be taken...

July 15, 2001

Started photographing 29 years ago, at age 14. Photography led me to

cinematography. Today I'm working as a film director and am teaching at

a major film academy in Germany, my country of origin. I have been

living in Italy and Switzerland, too, and just moved to Zürich with my

wife and daughter. Photography has stayed with me thru all the years as

a hobby, with more or less intense periods. Rediscovering the Leica M6

two years ago as a love on second sight has opened another chapter for

me. Thanx to all of you, for sharing your knowledge and passion here!

July 15, 2001

Andrew

I'm eager to know your judgement on the Konica lens. It has brilliant

reviews and looks quite compact and sturdy. I opted for a test ride on

the Voigtländer and am awaiting to get one these days. (There seems to

have been a supply shortage over here in Europe...) Will let you know

about my first impressions as soon as possible.

Cheers

July 15, 2001

Andrew

Great portrait. Nosed your photonet folder and really like your "Three

Young Girlfriends" a lot! Besides compositorial aspects the fact that

you decided for the moment when just one of them was looking at you

while the other two seem distracted. Spot on.

As for the 135 - apart from weight and bulk, both mentioned already - I

have one and hardly use it at all on my M while I was using a 200 on my

SLR quite frequently. I think the anticipation of the final result is

just to approximate through a rangefinder for me. No control of DOF, no

precise foreground/background alignment. It may well work for classical

portraits as the one you propose or distant land- or townscape details,

but neither for spontaneous documentary shots nor for sophisticated

compositions. 75 is the limit for me to feel comfortable with the

guesswork inherent in a rangefinder camera, made tolerable by

experience.

I'm happy this shot here came out as expected. I was pushing for a

shallow DOF and precise foreground/background allignment was crucial -

both of which I had no indication of in the M viewfinder:

hereslookingatyou.jpeg</A>

I took it with the 75 @ f:2. I wouldn't have dared to try anything

similar with a 135 on the M.

Cheers

July 14, 2001

John

I have studied the problem for a while, since I was asked to do so by a

fellow Leicaist. The spot where to place the Slide is exactly above the

dial. I seldom change the setting - and if at all, only in between

rolls. I actually change the type of film seldom, but it is always

reassuring to tell from the outside which film is in which body. So,

for me, it is more of a helpful indicator than an impediment to fiddle

with. It's easy and it works.

Cheers

July 14, 2001

Mark

I'm planning to offer a memo holder for the M6 which allows you to set

the speed before you slide in the flap. I will call it the Slide (to go

along with my Sling and Shade). You can have a preview of a protoype

(#8):

Would you (or anybody else) be interested? Besides, I'm still

considering at what price I can (afford to) offer it to the

community...? Any suggestion? Since I have to buy the original holder

from Hama first anything below $10 would be close to charity. ;o)

July 11, 2001

Well, here comes the correct link to my b&w gallery:

<A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/gallery/gallery.html">http://

www.konermann.net/gallery/gallery.html</A>

Sorry for littering...:o)

July 11, 2001

Thanx for your feedback Ivan, and yes, I forgot to mention the

advantage of "objectivity" of a color slide vs. the "interpretation"

delivered by a print that you had no control over. If you do, though,

you can achieve more subtle tonal variations.

Ilford Delta Pro 400 is my favorite b&w film at the moment. You might

want to compare some results with XP2 shots @ the gallery I put up just

recently thanx to the encouragement from this site. I placed quite

small sized jpegs but they do offer a tonal impression. XP2 wins

detailwise while Delta 400 offers better edge sharpness and has more

tonal "character".

<A HREF="http://www.konermann.net/gallery.html">http://

www.konermann.net/gallery.html</A>

Compare the mountain view "Nebelmeer" b&w shot (second but last) to a

color slide I took of the same subject:

http://www.konermann.net/rigipix/nebelmeer.desktop.jpeg</A>

Feel free to use it as a desktop pic.

Have fun.

Lutz

(Hope the HTML will work...)

July 11, 2001

Ron

Here's my (very subjective and a bit provocative) answer. IMHO color

slide and b&w photography are two worlds. For each of them you will

either fall in love with either spontaneously or never. Still, there

might be second chances, if you meet again after a long absence...;o)

Try b&w with the Leica. They are a terrific match. Take a no-brainer

film like the Ilford XP2 (which you can have develloped in any 1-hour

color lab in the world, which offers a wide and forgiving latitude of

exposure, amazing details at a fast speed, 400 ASA) - just to start

flirting with the medium. You might start to enhance, crop and

experiment on your negs/prints with the help of computers. Then dig

deeper, devellop and print yourself - as for my personal experience

there is nothing in terms of creative satisfaction that can be compared

to the "birth" of a fine art print in the darkroom.

Try color slides with your Leica, too. Since there is little reason to

switch from color negs to slides if not the search for more details,

better rendition, in short optical qualities - go for the best lens.

If the results are appealling to you, try an SLR (I'm ducking, but

there are Leica Rs, are there?). Since you'll have no darkroom magic in

between shooting and showing you might wish to have at least the utmost

control over the result in the process of taking the picture, i.e. in

the viewfinder.

Have fun and show us what you fell for!

Lutz

While with the help of a computer you can mimic

May 31, 2001

>>Have I ever got a shot just because I have the winders? I'm not sure yet.<<

Well, Rob, I am. With the help of my Rapidwinder I managed to get some

front row shots of soloist musicians during concerts without anybody

noticing (neither by sound nor movement of my camera or head) that I

was happily shooting away a whole series of shots. Same applied to

children being portrayed at close range. I use the Rapidwinder every

now and then but I like to have it mounted all the time. Sold my

motorized winder. Too bulky, too heavy, way too noisy.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by lutz