freaklikeme wrote:
sebboh wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
My user-condition vI Lux-M 50 turned out to be a very early (1961) vII with a dented filter ring. I like it. Both wide open.

sweet! looks like it should be a good match for the 35 m-lux.

I like it a lot. I was hoping for better bokeh close up, and it's marginally better, but not by much. I need to see how it measures up to my 1973 Cron, but I will say the wide open performance is enough to make me want to keep it. And I think it might be a hair better a f/2, but we'll see. It was fifty bucks cheaper than the Cron. The dented filter ring doesn't bother me and it's in otherwise excellent shape, so I think the Cron will go.

nice. from what i've seen it can have pretty ugly bokeh in rough situations (though a bit softer than the cron), but can have the most beautiful bokeh in better situations. it's one of those lenses (like the 50/1.5 sonnar) that adds a nice character to boring backgrounds while doing hideous things to rough backgrounds.

Just picked up a Canon 200mm f2.8 nFD for my GH2. Hopefully the weather will improve sometime soon so I can give it a decent try out.

Simon.

The 200/2.8 FD is pretty good. It's quite sharp, decent bokeh. Only downside is pretty massive purple fringing and longitudinal CA, but if you can correct those in post, it does a really nice job. I use one from time to time on my m4/3 gear.

Canon FDn 200/2.8 is a nice lens.It fringes in blue/red excessively wo but stop it down to f5.6-8 and you'll get nice,sharp and contrasty images.

Today I acquired a few Canons FDn : 28/2,35/2 and 85/1.8 with addition of the 50/4 SMC Pentax M Macro,which is a nice and a very sharp lens.I look around for 24/2.Fast FDn Canons are sharper and contrastier that their f2.8 equivalents,with fewer haze/fringing wo.What is most impressive,they are capable of, under some circumstances, to render images with visible 3D look, similar to the Zeiss glass.I noticed that after having closer look at a few preliminary test shots.

BTW:35/2.8 Rollei HFT Distagon is as close to it's Zeiss C/Y counterpart as is 50/1.8 HFT to the Planar 50/1.7 C/Y,as described in the oly 50/1.8 versus Pentax M 50/1.7 thread.Buy them before they get very expensive!

I'm very close to buy the Leica R Macro Elmarit 60/2.8 again....Discourage me!Help!!

I'm hoping for the better weather too...

Peire wrote:
Canon FDn 200/2.8 is a nice lens.It fringes in blue/red excessively wo but stop it down to f5.6-8 and you'll get nice,sharp and contrasty images.

Today I acquired a few Canons FDn : 28/2,35/2 and 85/1.8 with addition of the 50/4 SMC Pentax M Macro,which is a nice and a very sharp lens.I look around for 24/2.Fast FDn Canons are sharper and contrastier that their f2.8 equivalents,with fewer haze/fringing wo.What is most impressive,they are able to render images with visible 3D look similar to the Zeiss glass.I noticed that after having closer look at a few preliminary test shots.

BTW:35/2.8 Rollei HFT Distagon is as close to it's Zeiss C/Y counterpart as is 50/1.8 HFT to planar to 50/1.7 C/Y,as described in the oly 50/1.8 versus Pentax M 50/1.7 thread.Buy them before get very expensive!

I'm very close to buy the Leica R Macro Elmarit 60/2.8 again....Discourage me!Help!!

I'm hoping for the better weather too...

If you can afford it, get the Leica R 60mm f2.8 Macro Elmarit. it is an excellent and sharp general purpose and macro lens.

Rich

I must be one of the few people to have been underwhelmed by the Leica R 60mm F2.8 Elmarit.
After years of shooting a Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8 I expected a great improvement when I changed and didn't find it.
I'm not saying the Elmarit wasn't a good lens but it didn't blow the Micro Nikkor away as I expected.

timballic wrote:
I must be one of the few people to have been underwhelmed by the Leica R 60mm F2.8 Elmarit.
After years of shooting a Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8 I expected a great improvement when I changed and didn't find it.
I'm not saying the Elmarit wasn't a good lens but it didn't blow the Micro Nikkor away as I expected.

I have borrowed Doug Herr's (Telyt) photos that he had posted over on the Leica User's group demonstrating the lens:.

Not a purchase, but I just borrowed a Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2! First impressions in swedish: http://www.fotosidan.se/blogs/hertsius/samlarens-mardrom-jag-provar-noct-nikkor.htm

Thank you guys! I used to have 60/2.8 Macro Elmarit about 2 years ago and I know it is a very good lens,though I regard my C/Y 60/2.8 MPC and 50/2 MP ZF to be better overall.Having so many lenses, I vaguely thouht to myself for the last week, that it's time to get at least one R lens into the hoard...

I phoned the seller asking him to keep the lens for me till the next Saturday, untill I'll be able to collect it

Peire wrote:
Thank you guys! I used to have 60/2.8 Macro Elmarit about 2 years ago and I know it is a very good lens,though I regard my C/Y 60/2.8 MPC and 50/2 MP ZF to be better overall.Having so many lenses, I vaguely thouht to myself for the last week, that it's time to get at least one R lens into the hoard...

I phoned the seller asking him to keep the lens for me till the next Saturday, untill I'll be able to collect it

If you really want an R lens, you can afford it, and would use the focal length, then consider the 100mm F2.8 Macro Apo Elmarit. It is sharper and a better performer than the 60mm f2.8 Macro Elmarit. But, it is much larger, heavier, has very long focus to reach 1/2 life size (though reasonable for normal shooting) and is much more expensive than the 60mm Macro Elmarit. To reach life size with the lens though you would either need the 1:2 to 1:1 Elpro designed for the lens or the Leica 2X Apo Extender. It is regarded as one of probably 2 or 3 best macro lenses designed in/near this focal length for 35mm cameras. Performance is outstanding for distant work, as well as close-up, and is considered to have a fairly nice Bokeh.

Rich

Hi Peire,

Peire wrote:

Today I acquired a few Canons FDn : 28/2,35/2 and 85/1.8 with addition of the 50/4 SMC Pentax M Macro,which is a nice and a very sharp lens.I look around for 24/2.Fast FDn Canons are sharper and contrastier that their f2.8 equivalents,with fewer haze/fringing wo.What is most impressive,they are capable of, under some circumstances, to render images with visible 3D look, similar to the Zeiss glass.I noticed that after having closer look at a few preliminary test shots.



I have found that the FDn's in the f2 range are outstanding performers, as I still own the 24 (two copies; one converted to EF with EdMika adapter), 28, and 35mm. I had tried (twice) the FD 24mm f1.4L years ago, and it could not hold a candle (other than having f1.4!) to the f2 version.

Enjoy the glass as I certainly do; there is life way beyond MTF charts...

Regards,

Edd

timballic wrote:
I must be one of the few people to have been underwhelmed by the Leica R 60mm F2.8 Elmarit.
After years of shooting a Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8 I expected a great improvement when I changed and didn't find it.
I'm not saying the Elmarit wasn't a good lens but it didn't blow the Micro Nikkor away as I expected.

Isn't the Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8 one of the best of it's kind (in this focal length)? Frankly I wouldn't have expected the Leica to be sharper, maybe different colour rendition, possibly better tonal gradation, but not sharper. I've been tempted to pick up a Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8 for a while as they are quite cheap but I don't trust them to work properly. I don't trust AIs Nikkors to age gracefully with their sticky apertures and sloppy focusing, so am reluctant to buy one on Evilbay.

Makten wrote:
Not a purchase, but I just borrowed a Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2! First impressions in swedish: http://www.fotosidan.se/blogs/hertsius/samlarens-mardrom-jag-provar-noct-nikkor.htm

Wish I could read swedish.... Does that lens truly live up to all the hype Martin?

JohnJ wrote:
Isn't the Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8 one of the best of it's kind (in this focal length)? Frankly I wouldn't have expected the Leica to be sharper, maybe different colour rendition, possibly better tonal gradation, but not sharper. I've been tempted to pick up a Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8 for a while as they are quite cheap but I don't trust them to work properly. I don't trust AIs Nikkors to age gracefully with their sticky apertures and sloppy focusing, so am reluctant to buy one on Evilbay.

Having sold mine a while ago, I came across one on ebay being sold £40 incl p+p. because it was gummed up etc.
An easy fix, (as told on another thread here), so in this case their poor ageing meant I got one cheap!

timballic wrote:
JohnJ wrote:
Isn't the Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8 one of the best of it's kind (in this focal length)? Frankly I wouldn't have expected the Leica to be sharper, maybe different colour rendition, possibly better tonal gradation, but not sharper. I've been tempted to pick up a Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8 for a while as they are quite cheap but I don't trust them to work properly. I don't trust AIs Nikkors to age gracefully with their sticky apertures and sloppy focusing, so am reluctant to buy one on Evilbay.

Having sold mine a while ago, I came across one on ebay being sold £40 incl p+p. because it was gummed up etc.
An easy fix, (as told on another thread here), so in this case their poor ageing meant I got one cheap!

That worked out well.

sebboh wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
sebboh wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
My user-condition vI Lux-M 50 turned out to be a very early (1961) vII with a dented filter ring. I like it. Both wide open.

sweet! looks like it should be a good match for the 35 m-lux.

I like it a lot. I was hoping for better bokeh close up, and it's marginally better, but not by much. I need to see how it measures up to my 1973 Cron, but I will say the wide open performance is enough to make me want to keep it. And I think it might be a hair better a f/2, but we'll see. It was fifty bucks cheaper than the Cron. The dented filter ring doesn't bother me and it's in otherwise excellent shape, so I think the Cron will go.

nice. from what i've seen it can have pretty ugly bokeh in rough situations (though a bit softer than the cron), but can have the most beautiful bokeh in better situations. it's one of those lenses (like the 50/1.5 sonnar) that adds a nice character to boring backgrounds while doing hideous things to rough backgrounds.

Hideous is a good word for it, although there are some scenarios where few fast 50s are going to give you anything but variations on funk (see below). I think you said it best in the L vs Z thread, it's simply not what the lens was designed for. The Summarit 75's much better behaved for close shooting, even when you break its MFD.

Lux-M 50 @ f/2 near Hawk's-assisted MFD.

Jman13 wrote:
The 200/2.8 FD is pretty good. It's quite sharp, decent bokeh. Only downside is pretty massive purple fringing and longitudinal CA, but if you can correct those in post, it does a really nice job. I use one from time to time on my m4/3 gear.

Thanks Jordan. I'd been looking for one for a while, but they are difficult to get at a sensible price over here in the UK from my experience. I've also added a Canon 135mm f2.0 nFD and 100mm f2.8 FD SSC over the winter. Roll on spring when we might get a break from this typically grey and wet English winter and I might get a chance to get out and use them.

So far I've found PF and CA not to be too intrusive, but I'm still going through the learning curve with the lenses to understand what conditions provoke their habit worst of all. Certainly stopping them down, even just a little bit seems to help a lot as others have said.

Cheers,

Simon.

100/2.8 SSC is an amazing lens.Sharp,contrasty with vivid colours even wo.Lots of 3D look.I did not notice any significant CA.Very special lens.

NEX5N at f4

That's good to hear Peire :-). I managed to find a mint version of the 100mm f2.8 SSC complete with original box, documentation and warranty card for a very good price. It really is just like a brand new lens! I'm looking forward to using it even more now!

Cheers,

Simon.

Great!You won't be disappointed