What's the "leica look"?

Lewis Lang wrote:

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...

Okay, that would explain the distortion. Was there some reason you sold the old
Nikkor? Just to get into Contax gear?

Ciao!

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

Subject: What's the "leica look"?
From: Gordon Moat
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 2004 6:23 PM
Message-id:

Lewis Lang wrote:

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...

Okay, that would explain the distortion. Was there some reason you sold
the old
Nikkor? Just to get into Contax gear?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

Actually I traded my Nikon F3 gear towards a Leica R system (if memory serves &
it may not after all this time). The 16mm Nikon fisheye for YA #5 was a rental
from Del's camera in Santa Barbara which is unfortunately no longer in business
I believe.

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. :-) ***

ospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:

Good post, Tony.

Thanks, Lewis. I was upset to see someone having to give up using a
chosen brand of equipment because of a problem that might be solvable.

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... ;-).

There are several other brands of high index glass; Hoya and Nikon to
name just two. I chose Rodenstock because their AR (anti-reflection)
coating is so much better than Hoya's. The AR coating is vital
because high index glass reflects so much more than normal glass.

Previously I used Zeiss lenses for many years, but they seem to have
reduced their optical range, at least here in the UK.

Another point: It is important for photographers to use glass lenses
in their (eye)glasses. The greater thickness and slight opacity of
optical plastic can play havoc with the view through the finder.

Roger wrote:
I too have found that high index materials help considerably in
reducing the weight and thickness. One difficulty seems to be the
placement of my nose :-).

I have that problem too, but careful choice of frames means I get my
lenses closer to my eyes. I do photography for a living so this is
very important to me.

I do get less RF flare if I take my glasses
off, but I can't see anything. I did research the "lasik" surgery to
correct my vision so I don't need glasses, but my correction is
outside the parameters allowed for the surgery.

Laser surgery degrades sight to an extent and there are particular
problems reported that might be described as "flare". I don't think
laser surgery is a good option for a photographer, unless the eyesight
is so bad that wearing glasses is impracticable. However, such cases
are almost always outside the limits of laser surgery.

I did have my optometrist work with me on this one and he made a
mockup. We duck taped it to my camera but I found that this restricted
me to one orientation due to the astigmatism. Rotating from horizontal
to vertical format put the whole image out of whack. I know from
experience that if my eye pieces aren't very tightly affixed to my
camera that they will vibrate out.

OK, accepted. With my Nikon FM2/FA/FE2/FM3A it was possible to rotate
the eyepiece through 90 degrees for shooting in portrait orientation.
That isn't so easy with a Leica, which is probably the reason why I
shoot with my glasses on.

I've seen two models of the .58x M7 that have significantly different
RF flare attributes. I suspect that they made the VF correction to
suppress the flare sometime during the M7 run. The samples I have seen
of the .58x MP are much better. Initially the .58x MP was offered only
in chrome. I quite looking for a while, but recently I saw one offered
in black (my preference). I'll have to look into that one more time.

OK, noted.

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.

Thanks for your help. I do think the .58 MP might be a possibility,
but I figure that it is going to cost me $1000 to $1500 to trade up
and I'll need a 28 and 90mm lens to round out my kit for broader use.
That's a bit steep to still have to fuss with even an improved finder.
I've had 30 good years of using a Leica, maybe this is the time to
move on.

That would be sad. To keep costs down, you might consider the
Voigtländer 28mm f/1.9 lens which is a very sharp performer at a
fraction of the price of a Leica 28mm. There are a great many used
90mm Summicrons available at great prices, and a real bargain comes in
the form of the 90mm f/4 Elmar C or Minolta M-Rokkor equivalent.

You might also consider the Konica Hexar AF which has a 0.6X finder
and aperture priority AE. A cheap alternative to the M7, it also has
a higher viewfinder eyepoint and no rangefinder flare. Contrary to
misleading propaganda when it was introduced, it focuses Leica lenses
with perfect accuracy. It also has a built-in film winder.

Possibly thanks to the propaganda I mentioned, the Hexar AF is now
discontinued, but there are plenty of used examples at low prices. I
know it doesn't have the Leica badge, but it has many strengths and
might be the camera to keep you in 35mm rangefinder photography.

So why didn't I buy one? Because it doesn't have the Leica name on
it, I suppose. Instead, I bought an M4-P as my second body. The
heart says Leica, but maybe the head should be listened to as well!

;-)

Chris Loffredo wrote:

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)!


Both these lenses (35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4) are among the best
developed optics you will find today. The importance of these focal
lengths to photojournalists and portrait photographers means that
large amounts of time and money have been invested in their design,
and the lenses are simply superb.

It is a pity that Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 falls so far short of the
performance of the Carl Zeiss (and Leica) equivalent(s).

Subject: What's the "leica look"?
From: TP
Date: Thu, Jun 17, 2004 5:13 AM
Message-id:

(Lewis Lang) wrote:

Good post, Tony.

Thanks, Lewis. I was upset to see someone having to give up using a
chosen brand of equipment because of a problem that might be solvable.

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... ;-).

There are several other brands of high index glass; Hoya and Nikon to
name just two. I chose Rodenstock because their AR (anti-reflection)
coating is so much better than Hoya's. The AR coating is vital
because high index glass reflects so much more than normal glass.

Previously I used Zeiss lenses for many years, but they seem to have
reduced their optical range, at least here in the UK.

Another point: It is important for photographers to use glass lenses
in their (eye)glasses. The greater thickness and slight opacity of
optical plastic can play havoc with the view through the finder.


Thanks again for the tips, Tony :-).

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. :-) ***

TP wrote:

Chris Loffredo wrote:

Both these lenses (35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4) are among the best
developed optics you will find today. The importance of these focal
lengths to photojournalists and portrait photographers means that
large amounts of time and money have been invested in their design,
and the lenses are simply superb.

It is a pity that Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 falls so far short of the
performance of the Carl Zeiss (and Leica) equivalent(s).



You mention "developed": How are newer ones different from older ones?
Are there any particular moments when the design was changed?

AFAIK they were first made for the Contarex (late '50s early '60s) and
havn't changed significantly since.

Chris

Chris Loffredo wrote:

You mention "developed": How are newer ones different from older ones?
Are there any particular moments when the design was changed?

AFAIK they were first made for the Contarex (late '50s early '60s) and
havn't changed significantly since.


They have been around for much longer than that. The basic Zeiss
designs have been developed over the course of the last ~100 years.

TP wrote in message . ..
Chris Loffredo wrote:

You mention "developed": How are newer ones different from older ones?
Are there any particular moments when the design was changed?

AFAIK they were first made for the Contarex (late '50s early '60s) and
havn't changed significantly since.


They have been around for much longer than that. The basic Zeiss
designs have been developed over the course of the last ~100 years.

Vaguely true for the 85/1.4, but the 35/1.4 dates to design work done
by Glatzel in the 1970s (see U.S. Patents 3,915,558 and 4,136,931) and
bears no resemblence to any century-old designs. Also, I doubt that
these lenses were particularly expensive to design since it should not
have taken more than a few man-months to complete. Today it would be
possible to achieve equal or better results in a week or so.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

Alan Browne wrote in news:AXmzc.52016
:


http://www.pbase.com/image/21112529
http://www.pbase.com/image/21527561
http://www.pbase.com/image/21711441
http://www.pbase.com/image/22166131
http://www.pbase.com/image/23362147
http://www.pbase.com/image/23534028
http://www.pbase.com/image/23707346
http://www.pbase.com/image/25049065
http://www.pbase.com/image/27848866/original
http://www.pbase.com/image/25250889/original
http://www.pbase.com/image/28317361



Wow! I really like the steam and ice, girl in B&W and one of the best
shots I've ever seen of fireworks!!!


Barney