nehemiahphoto wrote:
Can someone weigh in the on the best way/solution or magnifier if shooting a Zeiss Ikon with 75mm lenses? Frame lines are 50/85mm.
I have a 73 Sonnetar, might get a 75 Lux again at some point or a CV 75 1.5...
As far as a frameline solution, the trick to using 75mm lenses on Ms before the M4-P is to look at the ends of the 50mm framelines and extrapolate where a rectangle would be from them. I'm not sure if the the Zeiss's 50mm frames are similar.
Personally, if the Sonnetar is an LTM, I'd use a 28/90 adapter (though I haven't had much success in finding an in production adapter that doesn't focus past infinity). Otherwise, knotting some thread around the lens and preview lever to force it to 90/85mm is a low budget solution.
d.s. wrote:
As far as a frameline solution, the trick to using 75mm lenses on Ms before the M4-P is to look at the ends of the 50mm framelines and extrapolate where a rectangle would be from them. I'm not sure if the the Zeiss's 50mm frames are similar.
Personally, if the Sonnetar is an LTM, I'd use a 28/90 adapter (though I haven't had much success in finding an in production adapter that doesn't focus past infinity). Otherwise, knotting some thread around the lens and preview lever to force it to 90/85mm is a low budget solution.
Yeah, I have just been toggling between 50 and 85 lines and shooting between. Was hoping the hivemind of FM might give me a something a little less primitive.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just bought the Bresson magnifier for the M240 (they also have one for the M10) and will report my findings. https://www.ebay.com/itm/293054048013
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just bought the Bresson magnifier for the M240 (they also have one for the M10) and will report my findings. https://www.ebay.com/itm/293054048013
Mainly to be used with CV 75/1.5 and Leica 135/4.
Yes, I'm anxious to hear your report as I would like one for the M10 as well. I believe that they changed the threads
Yup, looks like a redesign beyond the thread: less likely to fall out, integrated rubber O-ring. Price is almost double. More annoying is lack of compatibility with six decades of threaded accessories. In fact, this M10 appears to have no eyepiece thread at all. I own two diopters for my M4, and use the -1.0 these days.
GMPhotography wrote:
You realize how screwed you are now. I was up to 13 before my sanity returned. ROTFLMAO
Fred when I sold the whole lot of Leica I had enough money in the pot to buy a really nice medium format kit. Just sayin be careful.
I bought the M240 to play around and to better test M-mount lenses. Now I can compare and report how they perform on the both Sony and Leica. Still waiting for my CV 35/1.2 replacement. Stores are not getting as many as before due to a delay.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just bought the Bresson magnifier for the M240 (they also have one for the M10) and will report my findings. https://www.ebay.com/itm/293054048013
Mainly to be used with CV 75/1.5 and Leica 135/4.
Each of the two models of Bresson magnifiers (for M240 and earlier and for M10 and later) is available in two different types: J (with a "refractive degree" of -250 to +250) and Y (with a "refractive degree" of -150 to +350).
Am I correct in assuming that the Bresson magnifiers have a variable diopter adjustment and that the "refractive degree" they refer to is a a different way of expressing a diopter value? In other words does "+250" mean +2.5 diopters? If this is true and since I use +0.5 diopter Leica corrective lenses, it would appear not to matter whether I order the J or the Y model.
genji wrote:
Each of the two models of Bresson magnifiers (for M240 and earlier and for M10 and later) is available in two different types: J (with a "refractive degree" of -250 to +250) and Y (with a "refractive degree" of -150 to +350).
Am I correct in assuming that the Bresson magnifiers have a variable diopter adjustment and that the "refractive degree" they refer to is a a different way of expressing a diopter value? In other words does "+250" mean +2.5 diopters? If this is true and since I use +0.5 diopter Leica corrective lenses, it would appear not to matter whether I order the J or the Y model....Show more →
GMPhotography wrote:
You realize how screwed you are now. I was up to 13 before my sanity returned. ROTFLMAO
Fred when I sold the whole lot of Leica I had enough money in the pot to buy a really nice medium format kit. Just sayin be careful.
I’m very happy that Fred purchased an M240. Those few of us who use (and love using) Leica rangefinder cameras can only benefit from Fred’s curiosity, thoroughness, and openness to new experiences.
genji wrote:
I’m very happy that Fred purchased an M240. Those few of us who use (and love using) Leica rangefinder cameras can only benefit from Fred’s curiosity, thoroughness, and openness to new experiences.
Yea yea. Been there have the Golden T Shirt. It’s a really really dangerous system to your wallet. I had the most expensive glass they sell.but when I sold it I felt really rich.
No it’s fun he is trying it. I just have to give him a hard time. He knows he goes to MF than he needs to talk to Guy the shrink first. I’ll have to yank him off that mountain.
genji wrote:
Each of the two models of Bresson magnifiers (for M240 and earlier and for M10 and later) is available in two different types: J (with a "refractive degree" of -250 to +250) and Y (with a "refractive degree" of -150 to +350).
Am I correct in assuming that the Bresson magnifiers have a variable diopter adjustment and that the "refractive degree" they refer to is a a different way of expressing a diopter value? In other words does "+250" mean +2.5 diopters? If this is true and since I use +0.5 diopter Leica corrective lenses, it would appear not to matter whether I order the J or the Y model....Show more →
Received the 135/4 Tele-Elmar today and was able to focus with accuracy wide open without any magnifier.
Perhaps it won't be needed with this lens. Here are some snaps from the backyard: (all wide open)
PS: This lens is a steal for the price. Sharp throughout the frame from wide open. I will be using it with the Sony as well.
It's harder to get more focus accuracy with the Voigtlander 75mm @f1.5 because of the narrower DOF compared to 135mm @f/4. So, the magnifier may be more helpful for the Voigtlander.
Forgive me for the OT post as this is not related to the CV 75/1.5 but I'm shocked by the extreme corners of the Leica 135/4 Tele-Elmar at infinity distance. (hard stop on my lens)
Here it is WIDE OPEN. (See the image showng my lens version which I think it's from 1969!!!)
Weighs 504g (measured) - It's a steal for the price.
Extreme corners at f/4 (wide open). Center looks even better. Incredible performance and I will be using it on the Sony for landscapes as well.
TE135 has a rep for high perf and mine is the same vintage. The advantages of a slower lens can be seen here and with others like the Elmar 90 and modern CZ TT85 ZM. Single-coated treatment from this era gives more character. Perhaps my only complaint is the slight LCA that can hit at unexpected moments.
rico wrote:
TE135 has a rep for high perf and mine is the same vintage. The advantages of a slower lens can be seen here and with others like the Elmar 90 and modern CZ TT85 ZM. Single-coated treatment from this era gives more character. Perhaps my only complaint is the slight LCA that can hit at unexpected moments.
I find LCA to be pretty low for such old lens. My only negative is the noticeable veiling flare when shooting against the light.
Some of that flare is inescapable. Unlike CZ, Leica has traditionally shown less care about internal reflections of every kind in their lenses. You can, however, add a suitable shade (Leitz IUFOO, 12575), and look more stylish at the same time! These are reversible, too.
More annoying is lack of compatibility with six decades of threaded accessories. In fact, this M10 appears to have no eyepiece thread at all. I own two diopters for my M4, and use the -1.0 these days.
