RF glass on M9 (or 8)

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

so many, so vivid, crispy shoots! I like them a lot.

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

I 'only' have an M8 with its 1.3x crop factor, but that's really good if you like narrower fields of view. Which I do.

I'm looking at the forum in my lunch time here in my office, but by some accident I have this on my computer: shot with my Voigtlander 2.5/75, taken pretty much wide open. I like the gently diffused out-of-focus effect you get with this lens.

I think if you click on the image, what then appears looks a bit sharper. At least on my screen, anyway.

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

TY for kind words Attila Smile

@scsambrook

I am big fan of the M8, which as you know is capable of astounding sharpness.

very nice shot, I hope you will post more Smile

28 summicron on M9:

L1001358 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1001370-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

L1001468 by unoh7, on Flickr
cv 75/2.5

L1001522 by unoh7, on Flickr
cv 35/1.4 mc

L1001474 by unoh7, on Flickr
cv 75/2.5

L1001545 by unoh7, on Flickr

cv 35/1.4 mc

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

The CV 35/1.4MC (which many have said is not so great) wide open on M9:

L1001451 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1001442 by unoh7, on Flickr

This lens is also good on both Sony A7s. I think the lesson here is that the sensors are prime factors, and the RD-1 did not have a great sensor--which is where the "soft" complaints started, then on the nex-5, the corners never came in. Distortion was also a complaint

L1000923 by unoh7, on Flickr
I think you can see some on the left of the house here, but so far it's not been distracting me. I'll shoot some buildings some day and put vertical lines on an edge.

That last shot is at f/8 here is original:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5518/11972867574_fd55223e6e_o.jpg
does not appear terribly soft to me.

This is a tiny and very fast 35mm, so the handling is really superb. It's not wildly expensive either, worth about 550USD.

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

One of the very first RF lenses I bought, back in 2010, the Canon LTM 50/1.4 aka "japanese summilux", for which I paid 275USD, for use with my original Nex-5.

L1001734 by unoh7, on Flickr

Below, is f/1.4

L1001767 by unoh7, on Flickr

F/8:

L1001682 by unoh7, on Flickr

F/2ish

L1001730 by unoh7, on Flickr

Seems very good on the M9 Smile

Especially good at this range:

L1001696 by unoh7, on Flickr

This is far superior performance to my tests with this lens on the A7s.

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

here a few with the 50 cron v4

L1001884 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1001903 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1001913 by unoh7, on Flickr

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

[quote="uhoh7"]One of the very first RF lenses I bought, back in 2010, the Canon LTM 50/1.4 aka "japanese summilux", for which I paid 275USD, for use with my original Nex-5.

I'm envious. This is certainly the 50mm lens I most regret selling. Maybe not the most stupid mistake of my life, but well up towards the top of the list:)
Kodachromes had the sort of vibrance that made you drool in delight. I see you feel it's particularly good at short to middle distances which fits in with the 'received wisdom' of the 1960s that the Canon standard and wide angle lenses were designed to work best at between 5 and 50 feet. Not sure if there was any official authority for that notion, but given the nature of the rangefinder camera it seems to make sense. Several year later, I got a 'Mk 2' 50mm Summilux which was just a touch warmer than the Canon on slides but didn't seem even a tiny bit sharper.

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

[quote="scsambrook"]

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

Uhoh wrote also been thinking 135, which is crucial for me in the backcountry, since it's the longest you can use on the M9--without contortion.

I may end up with a 135/3.4 apo if I can find one at a reasonable price, but that's not easy. Meanwhile I'm debating wether to go for a tele-elmar at around 310USD for a user to hold me over.

I have a very clean, black, Canon LTM 135/3.5, which I used today to see how it did:

I had a 135 Tele Elmar in the 1970s, the first version. I used it both as a rangefinder lens on my M2 with a bright line finder and on the Visoflex. It was very, very good and focusing was no problem with the M2 rangefinder. Kodachromes had a wonderful brilliance. The Canon 135 is also a nice lens - I recently sold mine because I didn't find the focal length useful on the M8 - but it's not in the same league as the Tele Elmar.

Bearing in mind the massive price difference between the Tele Elmar and the Apo, I'd go for the earlier lens if I had an M9. But then I'm notoriously niggardly Very Happy

$310 for a good one sounds reasonable to me.

The older 1960s 135 Elmar is reputedly not far behind the Tele Elmar in performance and usually a lot less costly. One went on eBay Uk last week for less than £90 / $140.

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

The CV 35/1.4 is just WOW Shocked

I migth get one for the a7 if it performs OK Shocked

The Rokkor 40/2 is pretty stunning as well, as is the Canon LTM 50/1.4. But you are a great photographer and have beautiful scenery too Wink

Now where can I get a cheap M9? Laughing

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

These were taken on the M8 with a 1955 vintage 90mm f4 Elmar - not a mint example by any means, plenty of "cleaning marks" (scratches!) and various bits of dust etc inside it. And maybe a little bit misty, but not badly so. The 90 Elmar often gets written off as a lens that lacks sharpness, but I really can't agree with that.

I did these when I got the lens over two years ago. When I click on the first two here they look a bit 'jaggy'. I thought they were DNG originals processed in Capture One, but I wonder now if i shot them as JPEGS; they do often look a bit jaggy. Anyway, they nicely show the 'bokeh' effect.

See how the contrast picks up - ! And it still retains the soft out of focus character.

This is cropped somwhat, distance about 1 meter (closest focus).

This one is a section from about half the original, taken f5.6, distance just over 1 meter. You can clearly see the flaking paint on the original.

The rangedfinder coupling is absolutely spot-on.

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

I just came a cross a few more 'old' ones.

#1 Canon Serenar 85mm f2 (made around 1952/53), about f5.6:

#2 Leitz 50mm Summicron, rigid, 7-element (early 1960s) f2:

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

Love those Elmar shots Smile

and the 85/2 shots are sweet!

L1002883 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1002832 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1002870 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1002811 by unoh7, on Flickr

I love the zm18--all from today Smile

Note flock of crows in last shot.

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

L1002927 by unoh7, on Flickr
cron 28 at f/11 (cheap bargin basement lens)

L1002932 by unoh7, on Flickr
m-rokkor 40/2 f/8 (i paid 365USD)

L1002944 by unoh7, on Flickr
CV 75/2.5 f/8 (i paid 275USD)

L1002979 by unoh7, on Flickr
CV 75 @ f/2.8

and.. my newest lens which arrived today

L1003067 by unoh7, on Flickr
m-hexanon 90/2.8 @2.8 (value about 475USD)

My M 90 till now has been the tele-elmarit "thin", of which I have a very good copy, which was great on the nex-5 and 5n. On the M9, however, it pales a bit compared to some of my other lenses. It's great advantage is the weight of only 241 grams, which means it can go into the backcountry easily.

There are various f/2 Leica 90s, all monsters, and I have plenty of fast 85s anyway.

Basically I have three serious options, and I'm starting with the cheapest. The Hex weighs 306 grams. It's ernostar--like a sonnar, with perhaps the best OOF rendering of all M 90s.

Next is the spectacular Elmarit-M 90 which costs more than double and weighs 395 grams. It is sharp everywhere right from 2.8 I almost got one.

But lurking is the real backcountry barracuda, the 6-bit Elmar-M macro 90 f/4 which wieghs 225 grams and is collapsable. Scalding sharp from f/4, they say. Cost: at least 2100USD.

These things are a bitch to focus on the M9, with it's 19th century RF patch focusing method, so I'll need a 1.25 or 1.45x magnifier, which cost more than many a good lens themselves. Ouch.

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

The M9 is considered not so great in low light. ISO 800 is already rough.

My answer? The CV 35/1.2 v1 Wink

L1003099-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1003102 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1003103 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1003106 by unoh7, on Flickr

The lens had to be redesigned to v2 because the v1 glass could no longer be sourced. So, actually v1 is the "one", but no one gets that, so they show up fairly often at 700USD. This is a truly superb lens, the fastest 35mm ever built, with some of the best OOF rendering on any 35. It is good on the A7R and very very good on the A7. Smile

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

This has been a fun thread to read,great images and a lovely location. You bought the camera and you are using it well!

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

I find the 75/2.5 is a little treasure, as is the 21/4. Be sure to keep them. Have you tried the 90/3.5 Apo Lanthar? When Erwin Puts did his 'optical bench' test of it he said it was better than any Leitz 90 before the final Elmarit M and scarcely behind that lens optically. But if you already have that, maybe no point in getting an Apo Lanthar. Very Happy

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

Hmm I had and tried quite a few Leica RF lenses... most of them I used on Leica M3 and Leica M5
Elmar 50/3.5 collapsible from 1936 - low contrast and comparably low resolution but it's was still astonishing what it can deliver, especially on B/W film.
Summicron 50/2 collapsible from the mid 50ies (very intersting classic lens, very sharp but gives a strong fingerprint with slightly swirly bokeh, I did like very much)
Leica Summicron-M 50/2 (from the 90ies) - The second best 50mm lens I've ever had (and I had many Wink

). I simply loved it! Sharpness, colors, haptics, bokeh. Only my new FE Sonnar 55/1.8 ("Mini Otus") is technically better and I don't need two 800€ lenses in my house at the same time so I swapped it, but time to time I do regret that.
Leica Summicron-C 40/2 - Very good and compact lens but I didn't like the bokeh
Leica Elmar-C 90/4 - Very good aswell but with nice bokeh this time Wink

Leica Elmarit-M 135/2.8 (elderly version) - Weights a ton an nothing special
Leica Summicron-M 90/2 (elderly version) - Same as 135/2.8 - nothing special aswell.
Minolta M-Rokkor 28/2.8 - very sharp and crispy, albeit my copy had some condensation inside
Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2 - I think identical (except maybe in coatings) to the Cron 40/2
Minolta M-Rokkor 90/4 - Very close to Elmar-C 90 but not identical. The M-Rokkor is a little tad better.
CV 15/4.5 - Damn high resolving and compact it is, the best CV I had so far I think.
CV 35/1.7 - I didn't like very much, many purple CAs wide open and I didn't like the colors
CV 35/1.4 - I wasn't able to enjoy it at all aswell (but your copy looks sharper in center wide open, I suspect quality spreading)
CV 50/1.1 - Not very good. It's decent wide open (with quite ugly bokeh) but doesn't get much better when stopping down. It's only a pure lowlight-lens.
Zeiss ZM Biogon 35/2 - Very good but I expected it to be crispier. I found the Zeiss FE 35/2.8 to work better on A7 so I sold it.
ZM Biogon 50/1.5 - Multitool 50mm - "Classic" look wide open but very sharp stopped down.
ZM Planar 50/2 - Damn sharp, poppy colors. Unfortunately I was only abe to test it for a few minutes.
Jupiter-8 50/2 - I don't know if I always had bad luck with my copies or if it's really that soft on low contrast wide open Wink

Also the rangefinder coupling of both of my two copies was inaccurate. Bokeh is quite classic smooth though
Jupiter-3 50/1.5 - On film I would prefer it over the ZM Biogon! Similar bokeh and feel, only less contrasty and softer, especially wide open, but I did really enjoy it, as it was always giving a pleasent fingerprint.
Jupiter-12 35/2.8 - A nice lens like all Biogons. Corner performance wide open is only so-so but except that I did really enjoy that lens.
Industar-22, Industar-61 L/D 52/2.8, Industar 26m 50/2.8 - for my taste the I-61 L/D was the worst (sweet spot F11, low acutance, visible distortion, crappy build, flare, low contrast, cold colors... one of the worst lenses I've every had. I think even my dusty Pre-War Elmar was better)
.... and I think I forgt a few on the list.

From many of these lenses I could easily post samples but only from NEX or from analog film as I never had an digital RF

uhoh7 · Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

I see nothing wrong with those samples,the landscapes are simply stunning.

Arctures · Joined: 10 Jul 2009 Posts: 295