What's the "leica look"?

"Roger" wrote
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:27:54 +0200, "ink" wrote:

The 45mm 2.8P is a very fine lens - I own one which is mostly on my FM2n,
but occasionally I put it on the F100 and it looks really silly there ;-)
but takes fine pictures.

Cheers,
ink

What are the qualities you like about the 45mm f2.8P lens? I'm having
difficulty finding one to look at, but I'm sure it does look odd on
the F100 - I imagine it would really look out of place on my F5. One
of the aspects of using it on the F100/F5 is that it will interface
with the matrix metering. I'm finding the handgrip on the F100/F5 is
very comfortable and stable in my rather large hands and I'm really
needing the HP viewfinder these days.

Roger,

I got the 45mm f2.8P primarily to use it as a manual focus lens
on my FM2n - it makes the whole package very small and easy
to put into my jacket pocket. The lens is tack-sharp, the wide
constant aperture makes it a nice lens for low light work.
I also picked it because it will meter in matrix mode on the
F100 when its the only camera I have with me.

The F100 is ergonomically a gem - great grip, feels very
solid and easy to operate. I can (slightly) relate to your
need of a HP viewfinder, I find the finder of the F100 bright
and easy to use (compared to the FM2n finder or the F65
I use as backup). I've ordered a D70 to complement my
equipment with a decent digital camera, and I'm kinda
wondering how I will get along with that finder (I wear strong
glasses, so...)

Anyway, the lens is a fine one and I can only recommend it.

Cheers,
ink

"ink" wrote in message
...

The F100 is ergonomically a gem - great grip, feels very
solid and easy to operate. I can (slightly) relate to your
need of a HP viewfinder, I find the finder of the F100 bright
and easy to use (compared to the FM2n finder or the F65
I use as backup). I've ordered a D70 to complement my
equipment with a decent digital camera, and I'm kinda
wondering how I will get along with that finder (I wear strong
glasses, so...)

I'll second the "F100 is great with strong glasses". With my glasses (-8.75
diopters), it's _far_ better than anything Canon makes. A real joy.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"ink" wrote:

I got the 45mm f2.8P primarily to use it as a manual focus lens
on my FM2n - it makes the whole package very small and easy
to put into my jacket pocket. The lens is tack-sharp, the wide
constant aperture makes it a nice lens for low light work.

The wide constant aperture? What nonsense!

f/2.8 is hardly wide for a standard/normal lens, when apertures of
f/1.4 and even f/1.2 are easily available. f/1.4 is two stops faster
than f/2.8, so the 45mm f/2.8 AI-P is hardly "wide".

Constant aperture? Are we talking about a zoom lens here? Of course
we aren't! And of course it has a constant maximum aperture at all
focal lengths ... from 45mm to 45mm!

Tell us, how is the distortion at the wide end (45mm)? Is there any
vignetting at the tele end (45mm)?

Is there any end to your BS?

Anyway, the lens is a fine one and I can only recommend it.

The best fast constant aperture zoom lens you ever bought??

No doubt about it.

Lewis Lang wrote:

though I
find the helicoid/barrel of my Nikon Series E 50/1.8 much quicker to
rotate/focus than my much slower moving but more beautifully built 28/2.8 Zeiss
Distagon (don't remeber how fast or slow the barrel of the 50/1.4 focused).

You should try the Distagon 35 f/1.4 : Very short focus throw (infinity
to 30cm in about 100 degrees), very bright viewfinder image (could 1.4
have anything to do with that? ; ) ) and beautiful imaging...

Definitely my favorite lens!

Chris

Chris Loffredo wrote:

You should try the Distagon 35 f/1.4 : Very short focus throw (infinity
to 30cm in about 100 degrees), very bright viewfinder image (could 1.4
have anything to do with that? ; ) ) and beautiful imaging...

Definitely my favorite lens!


Yes, it's a gorgeous lens. When I was still using Nikon gear, and
looking at several possible brands to change to, I compared this
"Superb Zeiss Optic" with my 35mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor.

Wow! What a difference! Stunning sharpness, low distortion, excellent
bokeh, no optical quirks of any kind. The Nikkor fell well short.

The only reason I didn't choose Contax/Zeiss was that the service
back-up here in the UK is inadequate for a working photographer. I
chose Pentax instead, and have been very happy with the 24-48 hour
turnaround from two service centres.

But that Zeiss lens is a gem. No doubt about it!

I was also deeply impressed with the 50mm f/1.7 and 85mm f/1.4.

In article ,
says...
"ink" wrote:

I got the 45mm f2.8P primarily to use it as a manual focus lens
on my FM2n - it makes the whole package very small and easy
to put into my jacket pocket. The lens is tack-sharp, the wide
constant aperture makes it a nice lens for low light work.

The wide constant aperture? What nonsense!

f/2.8 is hardly wide for a standard/normal lens, when apertures of
f/1.4 and even f/1.2 are easily available. f/1.4 is two stops faster
than f/2.8, so the 45mm f/2.8 AI-P is hardly "wide".

Constant aperture? Are we talking about a zoom lens here? Of course
we aren't! And of course it has a constant maximum aperture at all
focal lengths ... from 45mm to 45mm!

Tell us, how is the distortion at the wide end (45mm)? Is there any
vignetting at the tele end (45mm)?

Is there any end to your BS?

Anyway, the lens is a fine one and I can only recommend it.

The best fast constant aperture zoom lens you ever bought??

No doubt about it.

OK TP but you might cut the OP a bit of slack. I interpreted his
somewhat loosely worded comments as saying that (compared to his zoom
lenses - unstated) the lens was wider allowing for some low light work
and had a aperture which he could read from the ring. These are all good
points which he mentioned in addition to the primary reason for purchase
- making an FMx jacketable.

ospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in message ...
Why/how are the HP SLR VFs more convenient? Is your problem with not being able
to see the edges/corners of the VF due to thick? lenses that keep your eyes
further away than normal from the viewfinder, inability to focus properly (for
what reason(s)?) using the Leica (though Leica RFs are supposed to be easier to
precisely focus at focal lengths from normal to wide angle (though I do realise
that the .58x mag might affect the ability to focus more than the .72x mag VF),
a combination of both, something else, I really do not feel I am understanding
your problem/reasoning here. Please fill me in deeper on your
motivations/preferences for the HP SLR. To me, the .58x VF on the Leica M is
like a RFHP equivalent to the HP SLR since it shows (or at least should show)
all of the framelines/corners for a particular focal length at once with out
having to do "poolballing" of your eye from corner to corner/edge to get an
idea/see the whole image within the framelines at once.

Lewis,

I'm using a 0.72x M6 Classic. I have a great deal of astigmatism in my
dominant eye and more limited vision in the other eye. My lenses are
thick and sit a good distance from my face. I cannot use a diopter
correction lens. I get a great deal of rangefinder patch flare in the
Leica viewfinder. My eye position with the Leica VF and must be dead
center to prevent the RF flare. This means that I loose the RF picture
when I search the corners/edges of the frame. I think this is
partially due to the thickness of my lens, and the backlighting that I
get in the viewfinder from my high eye relief.

There is a lot of controversy among Leica users on the RF flare and it
seems dependent on model (and maybe production run) with the later M6
TTL, M7s and MPs being better than my earlier M6 classic. I know the
flare was not this bad with my M3. I've tried later M7/MP .58 finders
and still find some flare. For me the cost and useability risks of
upgrading/changing outweighs my desire to stay with the M system. The
lens costs are so high that I just can't justify the expense of
expanding the system around my problematic vision.

So my problem is due in part to my particular camera model,
exacerbated by my glasses geometry.

My difficulty of using a camera viewfinder is not limited to the
Leica. However, I have fewer problems with an AF HP viewfinder and
have more choices with a SLR system. I still have to shield a SLR VF
to prevent light entry that sometimes interferes with proper metering.
My F3HP is a very usable finder for framing although I find my
focusing accuracy improves with the standard finder. The electronic
focusing/assist with the F100 and F5 aids me a great deal with MF
lenses, although I find manual hunting for focus in the F100 to be
very fast and accurate - I guess my eye does respond well to the
ground glass in that finder.

Regards,
Roger

ospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in message ...
Why/how are the HP SLR VFs more convenient? Is your problem with not being able
to see the edges/corners of the VF due to thick? lenses that keep your eyes
further away than normal from the viewfinder, inability to focus properly (for
what reason(s)?) using the Leica (though Leica RFs are supposed to be easier to
precisely focus at focal lengths from normal to wide angle (though I do realise
that the .58x mag might affect the ability to focus more than the .72x mag VF),
a combination of both, something else, I really do not feel I am understanding
your problem/reasoning here. Please fill me in deeper on your
motivations/preferences for the HP SLR. To me, the .58x VF on the Leica M is
like a RFHP equivalent to the HP SLR since it shows (or at least should show)
all of the framelines/corners for a particular focal length at once with out
having to do "poolballing" of your eye from corner to corner/edge to get an
idea/see the whole image within the framelines at once.

Lewis,

I'm using a 0.72x M6 Classic. I have a great deal of astigmatism in my
dominant eye and more limited vision in the other eye. My lenses are
thick and sit a good distance from my face. I cannot use a diopter
correction lens. I get a great deal of rangefinder patch flare in the
Leica viewfinder. My eye position with the Leica VF and must be dead
center to prevent the RF flare. This means that I loose the RF picture
when I search the corners/edges of the frame. I think this is
partially due to the thickness of my lens, and the backlighting that I
get in the viewfinder from my high eye relief.

There is a lot of controversy among Leica users on the RF flare and it
seems dependent on model (and maybe production run) with the later M6
TTL, M7s and MPs being better than my earlier M6 classic. I know the
flare was not this bad with my M3. I've tried later M7/MP .58 finders
and still find some flare. For me the cost and useability risks of
upgrading/changing outweighs my desire to stay with the M system. The
lens costs are so high that I just can't justify the expense of
expanding the system around my problematic vision.

So my problem is due in part to my particular camera model,
exacerbated by my glasses geometry.

My difficulty of using a camera viewfinder is not limited to the
Leica. However, I have fewer problems with an AF HP viewfinder and
have more choices with a SLR system. I still have to shield a SLR VF
to prevent light entry that sometimes interferes with proper metering.
My F3HP is a very usable finder for framing although I find my
focusing accuracy improves with the standard finder. The electronic
focusing/assist with the F100 and F5 aids me a great deal with MF
lenses, although I find manual hunting for focus in the F100 to be
very fast and accurate - I guess my eye does respond well to the
ground glass in that finder.

Regards,
Roger

(Roger) wrote:

I'm using a 0.72x M6 Classic. I have a great deal of astigmatism in my
dominant eye and more limited vision in the other eye. My lenses are
thick and sit a good distance from my face. I cannot use a diopter
correction lens. I get a great deal of rangefinder patch flare in the
Leica viewfinder. My eye position with the Leica VF and must be dead
center to prevent the RF flare. This means that I loose the RF picture
when I search the corners/edges of the frame. I think this is
partially due to the thickness of my lens, and the backlighting that I
get in the viewfinder from my high eye relief.

There is a lot of controversy among Leica users on the RF flare and it
seems dependent on model (and maybe production run) with the later M6
TTL, M7s and MPs being better than my earlier M6 classic. I know the
flare was not this bad with my M3. I've tried later M7/MP .58 finders
and still find some flare. For me the cost and useability risks of
upgrading/changing outweighs my desire to stay with the M system. The
lens costs are so high that I just can't justify the expense of
expanding the system around my problematic vision.

So my problem is due in part to my particular camera model,
exacerbated by my glasses geometry.


Roger,

After reading the above, I have no doubt that you have thoroughly
researched your options. However I also suffer from moderate to
severe astigmatism and use Leica equipment and I think there may be
other options you haven't considered. There are so many benefits to
Leica M equipment and it would be sad if you had to change system for
non-photographic reasons.

First, are you wearing glasses that use high index glass? Even those
of us who need strong lenses can obtain thin lenses by using high
index glass available from a number of sources, including the makers
of some well known brands of camera lenses.

For several years now I have used Rodenstock high index glass and
taken care to ensure that I choose frames which sit close to my eyes.
There are great benefits to this outside photography, but when using a
Leica camera with relatively low eyepoint it makes a significant
difference.

Second, when I used Nikon equipment I had eyepiece correction lenses
specially made by an optometrist. These lenses fully corrected my
astigmatism and allowed me to use my non-HP Nikons (FM2, FA, FE2,
FM3A) without needing to wear my glasses. You should be able to get
your optometrist to do the same for your Leicas.

I haven't needed to do this myself because my glasses work well enough
with the 0.58X finder of my M7 and the 0.72X of my M4-P. The M4-P
finder has a slightly higher eyepoint than the 0.72X finder of the M6
Classic and M6TTL which I do find difficult to use with glasses on.
With either M6, I am unable to see the 28mm frame lines and, more
important, the outer edges of the viewfinder which I employ for
framing the 24mm lens that I use very often.

The answer to the problem may lie in the 0.58X finder which has a
significantly higher eyepoint, although you may already have rejected
this for other reasons.

As for the viewfinder RF flare, it is a significant problem with the
M6 and much less of a problem with the M7 and MP. However, I find it
is also less of a problem with the M4-P. If you can tolerate having
to use a separate light meter, a used M4-P may be a good alternative.

I hope you don't give up on Leica without first looking at some of
these alternatives.

Tony

"Bruce Graham" wrote
In article ,
says...
"ink" wrote:

I got the 45mm f2.8P primarily to use it as a manual focus lens
on my FM2n - it makes the whole package very small and easy
to put into my jacket pocket. The lens is tack-sharp, the wide
constant aperture makes it a nice lens for low light work.

The wide constant aperture? What nonsense!

f/2.8 is hardly wide for a standard/normal lens, when apertures of
f/1.4 and even f/1.2 are easily available. f/1.4 is two stops faster
than f/2.8, so the 45mm f/2.8 AI-P is hardly "wide".

Constant aperture? Are we talking about a zoom lens here? Of course
we aren't! And of course it has a constant maximum aperture at all
focal lengths ... from 45mm to 45mm!

Tell us, how is the distortion at the wide end (45mm)? Is there any
vignetting at the tele end (45mm)?

Is there any end to your BS?

Anyway, the lens is a fine one and I can only recommend it.

The best fast constant aperture zoom lens you ever bought??

No doubt about it.

OK TP but you might cut the OP a bit of slack. I interpreted his
somewhat loosely worded comments as saying that (compared to his zoom
lenses - unstated) the lens was wider allowing for some low light work
and had a aperture which he could read from the ring. These are all good
points which he mentioned in addition to the primary reason for purchase
- making an FMx jacketable.

That's right - there's TP for me, too... finally, I thought he'd never
notice.
Thank goodness he's been in my killfile for quite a while now.

Thanks for clarifying, Bruce!

Cheers
ink