Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,231   Posts: 1,532,887   Online: 1015
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Peak District, Derbyshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    263
    To make an LTM usable today, by which I mean it can integrate into other newer methods of attaching hoods and filters etc, then I would forget (regretfully) the early Elmars because you need to remove the filter to change aperture.

    So choose a more modern lens such as a Summitar or Summicron, and get any necessary adapters (like Michael has shown above), and use modern filters and hoods. This opens up your choices and you don't need to scour the internet for rare or expensive items. All to often older lenses can throw up hurdles that turn them into niche purchases and not everyday users.

    Steve
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/

    book
    wood, water, rock,
    landscape photographs in and around the Peak District National Park, UK.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by 250swb View Post
    To make an LTM usable today, by which I mean it can integrate into other newer methods of attaching hoods and filters etc, then I would forget (regretfully) the early Elmars because you need to remove the filter to change aperture.

    Steve
    Hi

    Well I use the aperture adjustment (link below) ring, then UV (or Y0) filter and then FISON hood on a coated '49 Elmar and a IIIc. To adjust the aperture you slacken the filter clamp-screw rotate the filter and tighten the screw. Not quick like a click stopped lens but no hazard of finger printing a lens. You don't have to use a filter it (the ring) will work ok with just a hood. If you need to change filter it is slow as the ring is sprung into the filter, other wise the solution is practical. If you use several filters get several rings...

    http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00O3IQ

    The VOOLA I have I got in photo shop 8 years ago and the Ch collectors seem to have bought all the others as it is now astro for a bit of chromed brass, last one I say was 50 GBP...

    I stick on a generic plastic 36mm cap on front of the fison, ..., lens assembly in collapsed or extended state and throw into Hadley digital...

    The LTM Elmars are very different year on year I'd get a red dial (i.e. late one) as they are better then the later f/2.8 post '57 LTM ones. They are collectors and way over priced for the optical performance you get. You are paying for the name plate.

    With a cron or tar I use a leitz filter and a barn door hood, the barn doors are still cheap today...

    Noel
    P.S. the filter adjustment ring is only meant for the clamp on 36mm filters thn slip on early collectible ones are much less convenient.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    654
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by 250swb View Post
    ...All to often older lenses can throw up hurdles that turn them into niche purchases and not everyday users.

    Steve
    Yep, for amateur photographers the old Leica lenses are not good enough.
    What was Max Berek thinking when designed the Elmar - sharp, beautiful, compact..
    The perfect lens is supposed to be big, black, ugly, soft and say Nikon or Canon
    Regards,
    Georg

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Peak District, Derbyshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    Yep, for amateur photographers the old Leica lenses are not good enough.
    What was Max Berek thinking when designed the Elmar - sharp, beautiful, compact..
    The perfect lens is supposed to be big, black, ugly, soft and say Nikon or Canon
    Yes, very funny.

    I was thinking of my drawer full of Leica bits and pieces that have been accumulated over the years purely to make LTM's work. And having grown up (a long time ago actually),I realised I'm not one of the people who relish talking about part numbers and barn door's and slip on this or that's. If I use 39mm filters with my other lenses it makes sense to unify the kit and carry less around. For me the photograph isn't so much about demonstrating a particular lens, it is about the subject of the photograph and if a big black lens on the day is more efficient than a 5cm Elmar I'm not going to beat myself up about it. That said, I would have to go out and buy a Canon or a Nikon to make it happen.

    Steve
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/

    book
    wood, water, rock,
    landscape photographs in and around the Peak District National Park, UK.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    Yep, for amateur photographers the old Leica lenses are not good enough.
    It is certainty very rare to see a pre M leica (or any Contax) in the streets being used, and the ones Ive seen have all been amateurs no pros.....
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    What was Max Berek thinking when designed the Elmar - sharp, beautiful, compact..
    He did not have a computer to do a more complete optimization and he had a more limiting glass catalog, modern lenses are smaller, better, cheaper
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    The perfect lens is supposed to be big, black, ugly, soft and say Nikon or Canon
    agreed polycarbonate and high refractive index, all the pros have them, soft is questionable

    Noel

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    654
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    It is certainty very rare to see a pre M leica (or any Contax) in the streets being used, and the ones Ive seen have all been amateurs no pros.....
    Yep, today's pros rely on Photoshop

    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    ...
    He did not have a computer to do a more complete optimization and he had a more limiting glass catalog, modern lenses are smaller, better, cheaper...l
    You are wild guessing here, there are a only few people who are aware what types of glass Leitz used back then and even today.
    Elmar they say is based on Zeiss Tessar, You don't need a computer for such simple lens formula.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    ...
    agreed polycarbonate and high refractive index, all the pros have them, soft is questionable...
    Todays pros shoting Nikon or Canon are blind for everything beyond 100 lp/mm (Nikon D800E physical resolution limit is ~ 100 lp/mm, Nyquist frequency)

    The shots they get today, using "modern" black, plastic, ugly dSLR lenses are much softer (and distorted) than what You can get with ltm Elmar 3,5/50 (or any decent prime made for RF film cameras) and films like Kodak t-max, Agfa Copex-rapid or some of the still available color negative or slide films.

    With ltm Elmar You get distortion free photo, since this design is nearly symmetrical and resolving power great up to ƒ 5,6.

    The above been confirmed true several times already by authorities like Carl Zeiss AG Camera Lens Division in lens test conducted by Dr. Hubert Nasse, senior scientist at Zeiss and chief optical designer.
    Regards,
    Georg

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    Yep, today's pros rely on Photoshop
    photo shop is verbotem for photo journos, e.g. stitching two shots together for a pano is dismissible, too many people have been naughty...
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    You are wild guessing here, there are a only few people who are aware what types of glass Leitz used back then and even today.
    Elmar they say is based on Zeiss Tessar, You don't need a computer for such simple lens formula.
    Leitz have published some of the glass types for some of their lenses e.g. in the quarterly magazine they used to send to every one who registered a passport, including a set of Elmars glasses, but Elmars have gone through lots of sets. This is hardly 'only a few' people. Elmars are thin lens triplets like Tessars and the computer software will indeed converge to either design. given minimal constraint, and you do need the computer to reduce the manufacturing cost to the minimum, manufacturing cost is profit, not performance, and profit is important _ expansive marketing statements can skirt around performance issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    Todays pros shoting Nikon or Canon are blind for everything beyond 100 lp/mm (Nikon D800E physical resolution limit is ~ 100 lp/mm, Nyquist frequency)
    the pro D4 only does about 68 LPM at Nyquist, but that can be in the dark when you need a flashlight to see your nose... 35mm was never about quality.
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    The shots they get today, using "modern" black, plastic, ugly dSLR lenses are much softer (and distorted) than what You can get with ltm Elmar 3,5/50 (or any decent prime made for RF film cameras) and films like Kodak t-max, Agfa Copex-rapid or some of the still available color negative or slide films.
    the Nikon 5cm f/1.4 is a superb lens high resolution and low distortion it is an enhanced double Gauss - a near symmetric design ,and what ISO do the films have?
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    With ltm Elmar You get distortion free photo, since this design is nearly symmetrical and resolving power great up to ƒ 5,6.
    I thought it was an asymmetric triplet, (is three and even number?) and even at /5.6 it softens into the corners, the post '94 M Elmar is a much better performer, there are published MTF diagrams for both lenses. - but I suppose great is subjective marketing speak?
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    The above been confirmed true several times already by authorities like Carl Zeiss AG Camera Lens Division in lens test conducted by Dr. Hubert Nasse, senior scientist at Zeiss and chief optical designer.
    So Zeiss are marketing Leica LTM lenses as well as having Cosina manufacture most of their own ZM lenses, that does sound strange?

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,121
    Images
    102
    I wouldn't count out some of the Soviet lenses if you can use them.

    They can be found in good shape rather easily, I've been delving into a full FED-2 system recently and some of the lenses can produce excellent results.

    I've heard great things about the Industar 26m, but if I had the cash for Leica glass it would be a no-brainer.
    5x7 Eastman-Kodak kit / B+M 135mm Zeiss Tessar + Compur Deckel
    RB67 Pro S /50 4.5 / 90 3.8 / 180 4.5 / WLF / prism finder / polaback
    FED-2 / 50 2.8 Industar 26m / 85 f2 Jupiter-9
    Canon 300v / A2

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin