What's the "leica look"?

TP wrote:

"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!

A simple statement such as "f/2.8 is not considered wide at that
FL" would have been both polite and informative.

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".

Hint: the poster said "...it makes the whole package very small
and easy to put into my jacket pocket."

The lens in question is very compact lengthwise, a compromise
resulting in less available aperture. For the posters use, that
is perhaps more important than the wide aperture available on a
bulkier f/1.4.




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!

Just point it out without the shrill protesting tone TP.



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?

Is there any end to your pompous attitude?



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.

You're so pompous. Just post your opinion, advice and comments
without trying to step on peoples backs and it would be welcome.

--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

TP wrote:
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.



I used to think that very fast lenses were bad choices, and also advised
many people against them; but this one (and, yes the 85 f/1.4) converted
me. I found it used (Rolleiflex mount) in a shop for a ridiculously low
price, so I bought just it to try it and then sell at a profit...
It even has a triangular diaphragm (and, no, I don't see triangular Bokeh).

I suppose the good old arguments against most ultra-fast lenses still
stand, but this one of the rules which proves the exception (or
something like that)!

Chris

Chris Loffredo writes:

I suppose the good old arguments against most ultra-fast lenses still
stand ...

What are the arguments against them, apart from price?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Chris Loffredo writes:


I suppose the good old arguments against most ultra-fast lenses still
stand ...


What are the arguments against them, apart from price?



And size and weight...

The classic arguments are that fast lenses need to make more compromises
in order to reach their maximum aperture; they are (generally) less
sharp and more prone to vignetting & distortion than a "slower" lens at
equal aperture. They are usually advisable for those who really need to
use them at full aperture, otherwise a slower lens will give better
performance.

In my experience that tends to hold true with a few notable exceptions.

The Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 is one of the few I've used which are at the same
time excellent in all the usual parameters (sharpeness, distortion,
vignetting) as well as having a very particular "look" which I find
unbeatable. For example, I also have the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8, which is at
least the equal of the 1.4 in the "usual parameters", but lacks the
special "look", so carries out the role of my "travel" lens due to its
much smaller size, weight & value...

Chris

Chris Loffredo writes:

The classic arguments are that fast lenses need to make more compromises
in order to reach their maximum aperture; they are (generally) less
sharp and more prone to vignetting & distortion than a "slower" lens at
equal aperture.

I don't believe that's actually true. They may not perform well wide
open, but slower lenses don't open that far at all. And there is no
reason why they can't match slower lenses at smaller apertures.

They are usually advisable for those who really need to
use them at full aperture, otherwise a slower lens will give better
performance.

I don't know. Leica lenses perform superbly at full aperture _and_
stopped down.

A Noctilux does show some problems at f/1, but since no other lens opens
to f/1 at all, it's still better than nothing. And when it is stopped
down to the max apertures of other lenses it looks fine.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Subject: What's the "leica look"?
From: (Roger)
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 2004 6:34 AM
Message-id:

(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






Thanks for explaining things, Rodger. Would be a shame to give up the M system
but at least I understand mostly where your coming from here. Is the flare
mostly coming from the back where your glasses are or the front? If the back
I'd doubt (though I could be wrong) swithching to a differnt Leica M camera
would help you. If from the front then the MP? or M7? is supposed to have a bit
more flare control and with a .58x finder for your eyeglasses just might be
worth it. Lenses can be expanded with some of the less expensive Voigtlander
(especially used, where/if available) without breaking your bank/wallet. If you
could go to a store to try or rent an MP or M7 it might be worth it (so you can
test flare/focusing etc. with a strong light source both in front of the camera
then behind the camera to check out flare from both ends. Then maybe on ebay or
keh.com or somewhere else you can get an MP or M7 used when/if available. Also
consider the Hexar RF (new or used) which also has a .58x mag VF ( go to
www.photographyreview.com or www.camerareview.com to check on posters/users
comments then contact the users themselves by email to ask about flare vs.
certain Leica M cameras/easiness to see/focus with glasses, etc.) Its your
decision but it would be a shame to give up on the M system if it can be
avoided. A middle compromise would be an Aria (or RX II if you want to go
slightly/a bit more larger) which should have a large bright easy to see (and
hopefully to focus too) VF without flare - you'd have the best of both worlds -
lenses that have better /more saturated color, sizzling contrast, tonality,
etc. than many Nikon lenses and not much difference in price than Leica M in
the slower apertured 28-135mm range (the range covered by the insides of most
recent M camera's VF's framelines. Zeiss lenses and VF are quite excellent with
their coatings (at least the lenses have T* coatings) and you may have little
to no trouble with any flare (because of their excellent coatings) in the VF
but check this out both by users on the internet/googling this group and
photo.net and the review sites I mentioned). Also, if it was you that was going
to meet Rico (my memory is fading fast here on this issue) definitely try to
use his Aria/lenses outside in flary conditions with the sun behind/in front of
you and see how easy or not and how fast or not the Aria/lenses are to
focus/use. If you decide to make the jump in that direction you could probably
easily finance an Aria new or used and some new? or used lenses and have quite
a bit left over for film and developing ;-). Or you can just stick to your
Nikon system... choices, choices choices... time for more research/agonizing
;-).

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Subject: What's the "leica look"?
From: TP
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 2004 7:46 AM
Message-id:

(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




Good post, Tony. If I didn't just get a relatively new pair of glasses I am
tempted by those Rodenstock ones you mentioned. My new glasses sit closer to my
face so its easier to see enough to see the edges of the VF of my Contax167MT
that I now use a rubber eyecup with it with little problem - a luxury to
prevent possible scrathcing from a naked ocular/eyepiece. The Nikon EM I use is
now very usable (with the camera held in vertical position) and somewhat usable
(with the camera held horizontally), just wish it had a long enough eyepoint to
use an eyecup with it as I hate viewing through eyepieces without the comfort
and non-scratching surface of a rubber eyecup. The F3 would be a dream (so
would an MZ-S) but my expenses don't allow for that right now... ;-).

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Subject: What's the "leica look"?
From: Gordon Moat
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 2004 2:38 AM
Message-id:

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).
I
only mention this becuase my style has "evolved" (hate that word since
I don't
believe in evolution, only natural selection) to include quick but
thoughtful
candids/portraits at full aperture with the 50mm lens and I find the
28mm/2.8
Zeiss much slower to both focus/turn the barrel (regardless of any
presetting)
than the 50/1.8 Series E Nikkor and my EM. Yes, the 1.8 aperture and bright
MF
screen is a boon here which allows quick precise focusing, but, part of
that
Series' E lenses "grace" (love to use that word since I am a Christian,
even
though I don't figure skate :-)) is its quick ability to turn the
barrel/focus.

It occurs to me from your comments that you might not like some of the Nikon
AI
series of lenses, since many of them have a fairly long focus throw. The
50 mm
f2.0 AI that I have spoken so well of in several postings has a very long
throw
(somewhere near 220º rotation). The change to AIS in many of the Nikon choices
also brought on a shorter focus throw in many of the designs.


Had the 50/2 AI (did "YOUNG AMERICANS #1" with it - the bare headed skin head
(yes, I'm being redundant here :-)) and certainly didn't find it lacking in any
way for focusing but my style (of focusing) was alot slower back then.



I am very precise with my focusing and prefer to shoot even candids at
or near
full aperture so I need to focus precisely and can't/won't do the
"hyperfocal
distance setting"/zone focusing as I intend to blow up my best images
large
where I _want_, regardless of other areas which may be less in focus or
even
out of focus, to have precise control/placement over the _exact_ focusing
point, not just some generalized zone focused and/or focus slop saved
by zone
focusing/stopped down aperture, or worse, even hyperfocal distance
shenanigans.
Your style may be different. And my style used to be the f/16 with a wide
angle
lens type. Now that the 50mm is becoming more and more my "main lens"
I am
compounding the focusing difficulty by both the longer focal length and
the
wider apertures I am shooting at so a great VF and easy to turn helicoid
are
essential for me.

I find the longer throw can be good for accuracy, though I sometimes prefer
the
shorter throw for quickness to a focus distance.


With the Series E 50/1.8 I really don't feel I'm lacking for accuracy, if
anything it is much more easier to focus both quickly and accurately than my
28mm f/2.8 Distagon, but this may be in part to Nikon's excellent, bright,
contrast mf VF on the EM.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I have only seen definite examples form
the new 45 Nikkor P lens in the Nikon catalog (and on the web/at some
kind of
Nikon seminar too?) so I can only tell you an impression from that far
removed
vantage point of quality that it is a superb lens. Maybe somebody (Helix
in
Chicago?) would have or know someone who has the new 45 P lens and let
your
sweet talk them into renting it (if they don't already have it available
as a
rental). Also try going to photo.net's Nikon forum and Yahoo's Nikon egroups
and you can get a lot of (very often biased but sometimes useful) opinions
from
people who've had actual focusing/quality/etc. experience with this lens.
Its
focusing rim is narrow, I believe so that may or may not be a factor in
your
ability to focus it quickly and its f/2.8 aperture may or may not be an
influence as to how accurately you can focus this lens verses the fast
1.8 and
1.4 "regular" (they eat their fiber ;-) or should I say more "normal",
normal
lenses.

I think another aspect to consider with the 45 mm f2.8 is that the focus
ring grip
area is very narrow. I have large hands, and did not like it that much,
though
this is something that each individual needs to test and determine.


Was thinking about this, I believe, but forgot to mention this, thanks for
bringing it up. I really can't remember if or how I handled the 45P, if it was
at a trade show I probably played with it for a few milliseconds before going
onto an FM3a and an F3HP with 50/1.2 lens... ahhhhhhhhhhhh :-) :-) :-)

The VF of the F100 and FM2/FM3a are superb/excellent to focus with.
Most other middle to high end Nikons have probably similar bright,
contrasty,
easy to focus quickly and accurate VFs - though I've also heard good things
about the Aria's VF (tried one out in a store years ago but not with the
intention of both fast and precise focusing). As Jimmy Hendrix said "get
experienced" and try out both these lenses/cameras. Both (Zeiss and Nikkor)
would do you well.

Nice review.


Thanks :-).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!









Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Make that I used the 50/2 AI for "YOUNG AMRICANS #_5_" (skin head jumping over
fire at Democratic convention). Don't know where my head was at, YA #1 was the
one with the fisheye lens in Goleta with the surfers, American flag and smiling
dog...

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Mxsmanic wrote:
Chris Loffredo writes:

The classic arguments are that fast lenses need to make more compromises
in order to reach their maximum aperture; they are (generally) less
sharp and more prone to vignetting & distortion than a "slower" lens at
equal aperture.

I don't believe that's actually true. They may not perform well wide
open, but slower lenses don't open that far at all. And there is no
reason why they can't match slower lenses at smaller apertures.

Did you read what I wrote? Anyway, if you look up lens tests and
reviews, about 80% (or even 90%) of slower lenses perform better AT
EQUAL APERTURE compared to faster lenses. That is also generally my
personal experience.

They are usually advisable for those who really need to
use them at full aperture, otherwise a slower lens will give better
performance.

I don't know. Leica lenses perform superbly at full aperture _and_
stopped down.

Did you see the "usually" I wrote? The "classical arguments" against
fast lenses don't hold in all cases (and certainly not in the case of
the Zeiss 35 f/1.4)...


Chris