I bought the Leica 560/6.8 a while ago to give me added reach on days when I need the low light performance of my 5D over my cropped DSLR. While hard to use in dynamic situations I think these two images clearly show that the simple old Leica can hold it's own against the very good Canon 400/5.6L USM.
The real challenge using this big Leica will come over the next couple of months as I try to work the wintering Eagles. If I can manage some good BIF shots of them with this lense I will be very happy.
I would not call it big but I would call it long. Weight wise it is not bad at all as it is essentially a long tube with only 2 glass elements in the head. It focuses via a slide mechanism sort of like a trombone.
This is the lens shown next to me Canon 400/5.6L, both lenses have thier built-in hoods extended.
If I remember correctly, they are in different category. The old Leica 2-element lens is 'telescope' design by which the focal length is no shorter than the actual length of the entire lens. On the other hand, Canon or later is 'telephoto' design in that the lens could be shorter than its focal length. The Leica 180/2 APO is a good example of telephoto lens. Telescope design has an advantage over telephoto in that the former is free from spherical abberation, but astigmatism and chromatic abberation (fewer element) are inevitable. Telephoto provides a much better overall performance over telescope. (better IQ from center to edge) More abberations could be corrected due to a more complex design. In fact, telephoto is the reverse of retro-fcous design on WA's. I'd say the old leica telescope and 1.6x DSLR is a very good combination for wild life photography.
jamesdak wrote:
This is the lens shown next to my Canon 400/5.6L, both lenses have thier built-in hoods extended.
The Leica is also at minimum focus distance, which makes it longer.
The 560 has become my most-used lens on the DMR. I rarely need to use a tripod. Most of the photos below were made with the shoulder stock or shoulder stock with monopod for support.
The features I like are the light weight, which makes climbing mountains with it a reasonable proposition, the quick sliding focus, excellent central detail, good bokeh and color saturation, and the exceptionally low flare.
Hi Everyone.
I had the 560 F6.8/sholder stock , in 1975. It was used on a SL body-and yielded outstanding results. I never felt comfortable using it on a tripod, due to the slide focusing. The Early two element versions, 400/560 were F5.6, with a much different focusing method. I recall they were indeed called long focus lenses.
Cheers
Harry
Most impressive. Like how you used the EF 400/5.6 as a comparison. I sometimes conclude that I do not need my 400/5.6 (at least on paper, lens list) but it is just so sharp.
What is the minimum focus distance of the leica lens, this is usuallly one of the shortcomings of these older simple telephoto lenses, my Pentax 500mm F4.5 was 10m......
I've got the Telyt 560/6.8 as a lens head for the Novoflex PiGriff C. This is a follow-focus system with two pistol grips, quite easy to use handheld with a shoulder stock once you get the hang of it. A nice feature of the Novoflex system are the interchangeable mounts and the built-in extension tube. A quick test shows a minimum focus distance of about 4 meters. Given the length of the lens this leaves you with a working distance of about 3.5 meters.
Brambling wrote:
What is the minimum focus distance of the leica lens, this is usuallly one of the shortcomings of these older simple telephoto lenses, my Pentax 500mm F4.5 was 10m......
With the Leica focussing mount the MFD without extension tubes is 6.4 meters. I often use a 30mm extension tube for the smaller birds.
