Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M Lenses and Images

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 01-01-2017   #41
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,628
The "build quality" topic does not touch on my question, unless someone can credibly state that Konica or Minolta (or anyone else's) M-mount lens designs are built "with better quality" materials than their own counterpart SLR lens designs.

I think at this point all the relevant input is on the table, and we now can weigh it all for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

For myself, I am going to remain happy buying the SLR lenses to be adapted to my digital Fuji body. I personally am not convinced that the M-mount lenses - despite being more expensive - are going to make my images any better. (In fact, according to Godfrey, I think the longer flange distance - steeper incident angle - of SLR designs works better with a digital sensor.)
__________________
Dave


"Insults are pouring down on me as thick as hail." .... E. Manet
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #42
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleo View Post
The "build quality" topic does not touch on my question, unless someone can credibly state that Konica or Minolta (or anyone else's) M-mount lens designs are built "with better quality" materials than their own counterpart SLR lens designs.
Owning minolta SLR lenses, there is no doubt the M-rokkor build and materials are better. And if you know the history, you know they were under the german microscope when they made them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #43
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
People throw this term "build quality" around like it means something. Especially when it comes to Leicas. It's heavy and hard so it must have good build! Personally I find this non-scientific approach nauseating. This completely ignores everything that is going on inside the lens and it's intended purpose. The fact is Canon lenses probably fail at the same rate as Leica lenses, which is impressive considering they're much more complicated.
I'm mechanical engineer by my civil part of diploma and I have not just theoretical education from typical modern university on this.
Also I have cleaned, lubricated and collimated some German, Japanese and FSU lenses.
I have opened Canon 50L as well, this is how I discover, well, confirmed physically something which is known and available on the internet.

And really the glass makes difference. This is why I keep on trying different lenses, but often coming to same conclusion at the end. I'd rather pay more, have less, but get fresh Leica lens and have couple of FSU ones for fun. Leica has glass inside, which gives what I like on prints, Leica has build which I'm finding optimum for manual focus handling and FSU have interesting glass, easy to service, collimate build and if FSU RF lens is assembled, lubricated properly I like it over CV focusing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #44
johannielscom
Leica II is The One
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 6,996
A number of people trying to convince me that it's the build quality etc that makes for the higher prices.

But, if you factor out build quality and look at the prices for vintage lenses that left the factories decades ago you still see hight prices for Leica glass and not just in the collectable stuff but also in common lenses like the Elmar 50mm 3.5 or even the Summar 50mm 2.0.
It's easy to find lenses of the same vintage and the same characteristics but every time, the Leica glass commands higher prices.

Build quality might be an issue in new glass but it sure is no issue in vintage glass.
I recently sold a Komura 35mm 3.5 for a good price, but a Summaron 35mm 3.5 would have been double the amount... and those lenses weren't even M mount.

So M mount lenses are expensive because they fit M mount cameras and those are just so cool in the eyes of so many. That's it.
__________________
www.johanniels.com | flickr | instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #45
David Hughes
Registered User
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,977
Hi,

As I see it the problem is that we are not really, and can't easily, comparing like with like. These days we can only compare second-hand prices most of the time and that introduces a lot of vagueness into the thread/argument; as anyone who has bought a lens on ebay will know.

Perhaps we should compare like with like by looking at the prices when new of, f'instance, a Leica R and M lens when new, a new Zeiss pair and a new KMZ pair. Those are the only ones I can think of at present who made RF and SLR lenses at the same time. I'm sure there are others but those three will create enough problems at present. Who has the prices for example...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #46
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
A number of people trying to convince me that it's the build quality etc that makes for the higher prices.

But, if you factor out build quality and look at the prices for vintage lenses that left the factories decades ago you still see hight prices for Leica glass and not just in the collectable stuff but also in common lenses like the Elmar 50mm 3.5 or even the Summar 50mm 2.0.
It's easy to find lenses of the same vintage and the same characteristics but every time, the Leica glass commands higher prices.

Build quality might be an issue in new glass but it sure is no issue in vintage glass.
I recently sold a Komura 35mm 3.5 for a good price, but a Summaron 35mm 3.5 would have been double the amount... and those lenses weren't even M mount.

So M mount lenses are expensive because they fit M mount cameras and those are just so cool in the eyes of so many. That's it.
The pre-war Elmar 50/3.5 lens required a crazy tight tolerance to work well, far beyond the multi-element lenses we use today. That was a famous advantage of the D-Gauss lenses: they could be looser.

Of course the M mount is a selling point. Sure it's "cool". For good reason.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #47
nzhang
Registered User
 
nzhang is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 32
If you have chance to check a catalog of lenses in 70s, you may find out a Leica 35mm lens is similarly priced to Pentax and Nikon lens. But nowadays, the price gap are much larger.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1977'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #48
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

Well, yes and no.

If we know about focus shift when using a RF and adjust etc then we know about it in SLR's and focus stopped down...

I agree about the SLR's lenses being complicated in some cases and I'm sure you'll agree when I say they are very, very primitive in others cases. So we are probably both right.

Regards, David
(bolded) My experience teaching people how to use their cameras demonstrates that very few people ever disbelieve that the focusing image in an SLR camera is correctly sharp as they see it, and only very rarely do some of them use the stop down preview at all. Most don't even know that the camera has it, how to use it, and when to use it. Most modern SLR lenses don't have anything more than a rudimentary distance scale anyway, so there's a limit to how much information other than sharpness on the focusing screen is available.

By contrast, most RF camera users are familiar with focusing using the split image focusing system and then glancing at the distance scale to see whether the set distance is close to expectations. They often check the DoF at that point, set the aperture and adjust the focus point a little bit in the normal course of using the camera.

So while the capability to do the same thing with an SLR camera (... adjust the focusing to accommodate a known focus shift ...) is there with more or less similar amounts of precision, the likelihood that someone actually does it with an SLR is quite small. The likelihood that an RF user actually does tweak the focus setting based on a priori knowledge of a lens' behavior is significantly greater.

The acid test is your own practice: How often have you adjusted the focus on an SLR (and NOT an eTTL camera) based on observed focus and known focus shift, David? I know from my photography that I do it rather frequently with my Leica M cameras and 'a number of times indistinguishable from never' with any SLR camera. That's at least one reason for why I use SLR cameras—because I want to see the precise point of critical focus and trust that it is correct.

eTTL cameras eliminate the need for trust necessary in either SLR or RF cameras because you actually can see, easily, when critical focus has been achieved at working aperture.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #49
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,210
lots of talk, but the only factor that matters with used lenses is supply/demand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #50
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitimageview View Post
lots of talk, but the only factor that matters with used lenses is supply/demand.
Yes ... not that I was talking about used lenses, however.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #51
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,210
And my comment was referring to the topic.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #52
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 307
Maybe there needs to be a Kickstarter project for all new construction Jupiter 8's built to true Leica thread mount standards along with an Industar collapsible 50mm. Better quality materials and price points of $400-650 new.

If I didn't have a nice J-3 already from Fedka, I'd have Lomo's new release.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-02-2017   #53
David Hughes
Registered User
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
(bolded) My experience teaching people how to use their cameras demonstrates that very few people ever disbelieve... SNIP!

G
Yes, but, we / you have to compare like with like, as I have said.

The discussion on RFF is about M mount lenses and I think it right to describe us M mount lens owners and users as experienced, knowledgable etc, etc.

And we are being compared with a class learning to use a new digital AF SLR.

Obvious to me they will behave differently until you have taught them and they understand, but that still won't be comparing like for like until they have second-hand digital SLR's with second-hand lenses like most M series film shooters...

If we don't compare like with like then you can compare prices of a new blue Rolls Royce with a second hand red Nissan Micra and so on and so forth and draw weird conclusions about car prices, comfort, fuel consumption, repair costs etc and blame it on the colour of the car's paint...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-02-2017   #54
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Yes, but, we / you have to compare like with like, as I have said.

The discussion on RFF is about M mount lenses and I think it right to describe us M mount lens owners and users as experienced, knowledgable etc, etc.

And we are being compared with a class learning to use a new digital AF SLR.

Obvious to me they will behave differently until you have taught them and they understand, but that still won't be comparing like for like until they have second-hand digital SLR's with second-hand lenses like most M series film shooters...

If we don't compare like with like then you can compare prices of a new blue Rolls Royce with a second hand red Nissan Micra and so on and so forth and draw weird conclusions about car prices, comfort, fuel consumption, repair costs etc and blame it on the colour of the car's paint...

Regards, David
Well, observing what others have commented in this and other threads, the people on this forum are not much different from the broad spectrum I've seen in classes, workshops, and camera clubs: Their knowledge, motivation, insight, goals, and experience in doing photography is very diverse.

So there's nothing so different about what I say here compared to what I say in other venues. If you just would prefer that I agree with you, sure: then I'll stop posting entirely.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-02-2017   #55
iphoenix
Registered User
 
iphoenix's Avatar
 
iphoenix is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post

Perhaps we should compare like with like by looking at the prices when new of, f'instance, a Leica R and M lens when new, a new Zeiss pair and a new KMZ pair. Those are the only ones I can think of at present who made RF and SLR lenses at the same time.
Possibly I can help with some recommended prices in the 1995 edition of the "Australian Photography PHOTO DIRECTORY":

- Elmarit R 28/2.8 A$2948
- Elmarit M 28/2.8 A$2400
- Summicron R 35/2 A$2948
- Summicron M 35/2 A$2191
- Summilux R 35/1.4 A$4690
- Summilux M 35/1.4 A$3253
- Summicron R 50/2 A$1101
- Summicron M 50/2 A$1460
- Summilux R 50/1.4 A$3352
- Summilux M 50/1.4 A$3253
- Summicron R 90/2 A$3006
- Summicron M 90/2 A$2492

Similar pricing differences apply in the 1993 edition and yes, the prices of the 50/2 lenses are correct.

Regards,
David T.

Last edited by iphoenix : 01-02-2017 at 22:19. Reason: confirmation of detail
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #56
David Hughes
Registered User
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,977
Thanks, it's interesting that the aperture can make such a range of differences. You'd expect the difference to be the same for both 35mm lenses and so on.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #57
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,287
The variation in price cannot be explained by the aperture as such.
The price of various types of optical glass varies widely, sometimes by as much as 100 times as expensive, about half the cost of building the lens is in the machining of the barrel, the more complex the mechanism, the more expesive, etc.
The aperture may neccesitate more expensive glass or more complicated machining, but that is by no means a given.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #58
David Hughes
Registered User
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
The variation in price cannot be explained by the aperture as such.
The price of various types of optical glass varies widely, sometimes by as much as 100 times as expensive, about half the cost of building the lens is in the machining of the barrel, the more complex the mechanism, the more expesive, etc.
The aperture may neccesitate more expensive glass or more complicated machining, but that is by no means a given.
Hi,

I was assuming that the R and M versions of the lens had the same glass. The M mount should, surely, cost about the same regardless for both 35mm lenses. Same applies to the 50mm lenses.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #59
DrMcCoy
Registered User
 
DrMcCoy is offline
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
Do Leica users really not trust the rangefinder to accurately focus, and so check that the distance scale indicates focusing is at their expectations? If it is not to their expectations, do they really make focus adjustments based on their expectations in the normal course. This is the first time I have heard of this behavior.

Checking depth of field and setting aperture accordingly is an entirely different matter.
I just put mine on a tripod and use a tape measure from the focal plane to the subject.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #60
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
Do Leica users really not trust the rangefinder to accurately focus, and so check that the distance scale indicates focusing is at their expectations? If it is not to their expectations, do they really make focus adjustments based on their expectations in the normal course. This is the first time I have heard of this behavior.

Checking depth of field and setting aperture accordingly is an entirely different matter.
Yes, let's turn this into a "Leica users" behavior issue. Us and Them.

Maybe that's the subtext of the whole thread? These ignorant Leicaphiles are unjustly driving up the cost of lenses! This injustice must be addressed!

BTW in answer to your question, no they don't. But Godfrey takes his position very seriously.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #61
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
Yes, let's turn this into a "Leica users" behavior issue. Us and Them.

Maybe that's the subtext of the whole thread? These ignorant Leicaphiles are unjustly driving up the cost of lenses! This injustice must be addressed!

BTW in answer to your question, no they don't. But Godfrey takes his position very seriously.

That was not the purpose of this thread.
If you guys need to pi$$ on each others shoes, please start your own thread.
I asked nothing about Leica brand lenses. I asked about M-mount lenses (specifically naming Konica and Minolta).

Again ..... thanks to everyone who contributed their thoughts on my questions.
__________________
Dave


"Insults are pouring down on me as thick as hail." .... E. Manet
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #62
David Hughes
Registered User
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleo View Post
That was not the purpose of this thread.
If you guys need to pi$$ on each others shoes, please start your own thread.
I asked nothing about Leica brand lenses. I asked about M-mount lenses (specifically naming Konica and Minolta).

Again ..... thanks to everyone who contributed their thoughts on my questions.
"I like using Hexanons and Rokkors... "

OK, there's an answer the Rokkor 28mm f/2.8 SLR lens dates from the 1970's but the M mount Hexanon dates from 2000 from memory. So both would be second-hand and so are worth what people will pay for them, the age is probably the main driving factor.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #63
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleo View Post
That was not the purpose of this thread.
If you guys need to pi$$ on each others shoes, please start your own thread.
I asked nothing about Leica brand lenses. I asked about M-mount lenses (specifically naming Konica and Minolta).

Again ..... thanks to everyone who contributed their thoughts on my questions.

50cron v4 by unoh7, on Flickr

Size matters

Not to mention it's the strongest 50 in the 20th century.

A steal really at todays prices.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #64
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
[url=https://flic.kr/p/Aex7Dr]
Size matters

Not to mention it's the strongest 50 in the 20th century.

A steal really at todays prices.
Slow 50s are a actually the bext example of the OP's question. I like the several Summicrons that I tried (all but the APO). But this lens felt just as good:



There are some RF lenses that are not cheaper in M mount compared to the equivalent (if available) for an SLR, like the VM 21/1.8, 50/1.1, etc.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #65
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Can you explain the higher precision requirement? I wasn't aware of this and now it makes sense why, for example, a ZM lens costs more than a ZF lens, relatively speaking. Especially given the fact that ZF lenses have things like auto aperture stop down etc.

Also, given the higher precision required, am I mistaken to think that RF lenses suffer from focus shift more than SLR lenses?
SLR lenses have more parts, but in a couple of senses, they don't have to be quite so critical in build.

1. Rangefinders require transmitting distance data to the viewfinder through a lot of linkages. At the lens, this requires two helicoids or grinding a spiral exterior cam that is just right. It only takes 0.02mm of RF displacement to screw up the focus. Contrast an SLR lens, which is focused by a human or a computer through the lens and is essentially self-correcting. Modern SLR lenses don't have hard infinity stops, either.

2. The glass in RF lenses has to be made within a tighter range because it has to be matched to the helicoids. Leica, for example, used to have several different focusing mechanisms for each model lens, each tied to a 1/10mm deviation in focal length (and this showed up as a two-digit number near the back of the lens). I don't know how they do it now, whether it's just a lot of QC rejection or whether the numbers are hidden inside. Konica definitely had different helicoids with the 90/2.8 M lens because they are mentioned in the service manual.

3. Modern SLR lenses don't rely on the smoothness of microscopic helicoid grooves or precise greasing because they either use a clutch to manually focus or - in the case of focus-by-wire - don't have any connection between the focusing ring and the focusing mechanism.

SLR lenses shift focus too, the extent depending on the vintage of the lens. RF lenses are generally less corrected, so they shift more. But I suspect that the micro-adjustment you see on DSLRs has something to do with either focus shift or focal length variations.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #66
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 69
Posts: 1,947
Are they expensive?

They have a high (relative) initial investment.

Over their life, how expensive?
__________________
I use my real name. How about you?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #67
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
SLR lenses have more parts, but in a couple of senses, they don't have to be quite so critical in build.

1. Rangefinders require transmitting distance data to the viewfinder through a lot of linkages. At the lens, this requires two helicoids or grinding a spiral exterior cam that is just right. It only takes 0.02mm of RF displacement to screw up the focus. Contrast an SLR lens, which is focused by a human or a computer through the lens and is essentially self-correcting. Modern SLR lenses don't have hard infinity stops, either.

2. The glass in RF lenses has to be made within a tighter range because it has to be matched to the helicoids. Leica, for example, used to have several different focusing mechanisms for each model lens, each tied to a 1/10mm deviation in focal length (and this showed up as a two-digit number near the back of the lens). I don't know how they do it now, whether it's just a lot of QC rejection or whether the numbers are hidden inside. Konica definitely had different helicoids with the 90/2.8 M lens because they are mentioned in the service manual.

3. Modern SLR lenses don't rely on the smoothness of microscopic helicoid grooves or precise greasing because they either use a clutch to manually focus or - in the case of focus-by-wire - don't have any connection between the focusing ring and the focusing mechanism.

SLR lenses shift focus too, the extent depending on the vintage of the lens. RF lenses are generally less corrected, so they shift more. But I suspect that the micro-adjustment you see on DSLRs has something to do with either focus shift or focal length variations.

Dante
Thank you for the detailed reply.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #68
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Slow 50s are a actually the bext example of the OP's question. I like the several Summicrons that I tried (all but the APO). But this lens felt just as good:


There are some RF lenses that are not cheaper in M mount compared to the equivalent (if available) for an SLR, like the VM 21/1.8, 50/1.1, etc.

Roland.
Roland it is huge in comparison, you will need another thick adapter. I don't know how many nikkor SLR lenses you have had apart but they show increasingly cheap materials.

You may not see the performance difference, but many tests show how spectacular the v4 cron is:


F2 is slow? LOL

The SLR market was highly competitive with many price wars. Yes, there are a few SLR lenses built really well. They are the exceptions.

Canon nFD, later minolta, all have very cheap lens bodies. I have bought them. I have them lying around. They are junk compared to a minolta CLE.

I do have a few like this which really are well built:

300/2.8 ais by unoh7, on Flickr

and that lens is at level of performance you see in the best M lenses as well.

On the other hand, the legendary nikkor 28/2 AIS, which I bought believing all the hype, proved no match for RF 28s on digital. My nikkors which really are super sharp, 180 ED, 55 micro, have harsh bokeh.

My RF nikkors and Canon RF lenses have gorgeous builds.


DSC00169 by unoh7, on Flickr


DSC08099 by unoh7, on Flickr

I do also have a CY 100300 Zeiss with a wonderful build. It cost a grand.

In comparison this is a piece of crap:

Minolta_MD_200_f4.sf-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

M lenses are more expensive because far more care went into their production, at multiple levels, in general, and often many less were made. The M mount is alive and very healthy in both film and digital. Most SLR mounts are long dead. Yes there are some SLR exceptions--wonderful lenses really well made--most are also expensive, but a few are cheap. In general SLR lenses are overpriced for what you get.

The real mystery is why most of the SLR lenses on Ebay are for sale at all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #69
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
(bolded)
By contrast, most RF camera users are familiar with focusing using the split image focusing system and then glancing at the distance scale to see whether the set distance is close to expectations. They often check the DoF at that point, set the aperture and adjust the focus point a little bit in the normal course of using the camera.
What?? I've used RF cameras for a few years and have never done this. What's the point of using them if you have to do all these gymnastics just to get a sharper image???
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #70
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 44
Posts: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompyq View Post
What?? I've used RF cameras for a few years and have never done this. What's the point of using them if you have to do all these gymnastics just to get a sharper image???
+1. Been using RF for like 20 years and always trust the split image. The moment they start to fail, up for adjustment they go.

Regards.

Marcelo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #71
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
I'm with you guys, but back to the topic:

Anybody who built a lens for the M mount knew right away against which lenses theirs would be compared. A lousy M lens is the way reputations were/are destroyed.

On the other hand how did Nikon and Canon build their reputations? Fantastic lenses in LTM and Contax RF mount.


Japan Camera by unoh7, on Flickr

If you are not Leica and you make a M lens, it's for prestige, to try to beat the germans. This landmark article was the most spectacular payoff--though in LTM. The early Nikkors really were superior. But Mandler was not standing still.

When I started buying older lenses I had no clue, and I just assumed the big SLR lenses HAD to be better. How could such a tiny toy be a great lens? Live and learn
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #72
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
Roland it is huge in comparison, you will need another thick adapter. I don't know how many nikkor SLR lenses you have had apart but they show increasingly cheap materials.
- That particular Nikkor 50/1.8 in my picture is very well built, actually.

- If you read http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Xqaq, for instance, you'll see that some Leica lenses are built quite cheaply, which doesn't make them cheaper in the used market (the "bokeh king" runs north of US 1500 these days, used).

- Or compare the Noctilux 50/1.0 in your table to the Nokton 50/1.1, price difference is not justified by performance, arguably the Nokton is technically better.

- Checkout prices of the LTM Ultron 35/1.7, used today, vs. new when it came out. Why did it's value increase over the few years of its lifetime ? Is it well built ?

I'm the last to tell anybody not to buy a lens, however expensive - that's up to the buyer and none of my business. My point is that one can not in a general way correlate price to performance and/or build quality. Digital Leicas and full-frame mirror-less have only driven M/LTM lens prices up because there is more demand. Basic capitalism.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #73
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
SLR lenses have more parts, but in a couple of senses, they don't have to be quite so critical in build.

1. Rangefinders require transmitting distance data to the viewfinder through a lot of linkages. At the lens, this requires two helicoids or grinding a spiral exterior cam that is just right. It only takes 0.02mm of RF displacement to screw up the focus. Contrast an SLR lens, which is focused by a human or a computer through the lens and is essentially self-correcting. Modern SLR lenses don't have hard infinity stops, either.

2. The glass in RF lenses has to be made within a tighter range because it has to be matched to the helicoids. Leica, for example, used to have several different focusing mechanisms for each model lens, each tied to a 1/10mm deviation in focal length (and this showed up as a two-digit number near the back of the lens). I don't know how they do it now, whether it's just a lot of QC rejection or whether the numbers are hidden inside. Konica definitely had different helicoids with the 90/2.8 M lens because they are mentioned in the service manual.

3. Modern SLR lenses don't rely on the smoothness of microscopic helicoid grooves or precise greasing because they either use a clutch to manually focus or - in the case of focus-by-wire - don't have any connection between the focusing ring and the focusing mechanism.

SLR lenses shift focus too, the extent depending on the vintage of the lens. RF lenses are generally less corrected, so they shift more. But I suspect that the micro-adjustment you see on DSLRs has something to do with either focus shift or focal length variations.

Dante
Which also explains why Leica has always been very careful to keep the construction of M lenses in their own hand, with very few exceptions, but had no problems with farming out the manufacturing and sometimes even design of quite a few R lenses to firms like Minolta, Sigma and Kyocera.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #74
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompyq View Post
What?? I've used RF cameras for a few years and have never done this. What's the point of using them if you have to do all these gymnastics just to get a sharper image???
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpaniagua View Post
+1. Been using RF for like 20 years and always trust the split image. The moment they start to fail, up for adjustment they go.
Note that no amount of calibrating rangefinder and focusing mount will solve a focusing problem if it is caused by a lens which exhibits focus shift.

A relatively small number of modern lenses exhibit significant focus shift (like the Zeiss "C Sonnar 50mm", some Ultrons and Noktons, a couple others).. Use these lenses and you'll find yourself making focus adjustments based on a priori knowledge of their behavior when you're not focusing them at working aperture with an electronic viewfinder. Or you'll be content with their slightly unfocused results and call it 'character'.

Most rangefinder camera users with lenses like these know exactly what I'm talking about. If you don't, it means you've been lucky enough to have only lenses without focus shift.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2017   #75
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
- That particular Nikkor 50/1.8 in my picture is very well built, actually.

- If you read http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Xqaq, for instance, you'll see that some Leica lenses are built quite cheaply, which doesn't make them cheaper in the used market (the "bokeh king" runs north of US 1500 these days, used).

- Or compare the Noctilux 50/1.0 in your table to the Nokton 50/1.1, price difference is not justified by performance, arguably the Nokton is technically better.

- Checkout prices of the LTM Ultron 35/1.7, used today, vs. new when it came out. Why did it's value increase over the few years of its lifetime ? Is it well built ?

I'm the last to tell anybody not to buy a lens, however expensive - that's up to the buyer and none of my business. My point is that one can not in a general way correlate price to performance and/or build quality. Digital Leicas and full-frame mirror-less have only driven M/LTM lens prices up because there is more demand. Basic capitalism.

Roland.
Hi Roland,

TY for link. It shows that not every M lens is as nicely put together as others. I think when a generalization is involved there are going to be exceptions, and I'm sure that's not the only one.

Prices for M/LTM lens rise and fall independently. 35 FLE 28Cron 50Lux Asph and many others are way down. 75 Lux 8-element cron 50 DR and others seem quite steady.

The M9 is actually going up, or so it seems LOL.

You are right, the essential element is demand, and that's based on multiple factors. You can bet prices would be higher if the Stock Sony A7 cameras shot M wides better.

But I think the fundamentals basically stand overall. The M lenses are very compact, generally good in performance and construction, the mount is alive and well, and many of these lenses were made in limited numbers. Less than 2000 Canon LTM 85/1.5 lenses made. The 85/1.8 also not many, and these are not even the rare ones.

As I noted above there are beautiful SLR lenses. Yours may well be one.

Happy New Year to you and all the best.

PS I was checking the other thread on the same lens, one that had been dropped in 2011
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/...-mm-in-pieces/



No excuse for the bad build but this guy, at the urging of several members, did send in the old lens and for a fee Leica completely rebuilt it, so though it cost some money, the guy ended up with a brand new "king of bokeh" which is probably worth a little extra.
I pmed him:
"They fixed the 35/2 and send it back as new. Communication with Leica was perfect. It cost me about 700 euro's but sold it for much more."
Try that after you drop an old Rokkor

Thanks to you Roland, I will be avoiding that particular M lens, unless I can buy the "new" one. And there are others with plastic as well. Caveat Emptor
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 13:48.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.