Ron Pfister wrote:
Are any of you AE180 owners using the STA 1 tripod collar with the lens? I'd be interested to learn more regarding usability and stability.
Used with the DMR it rates a solid 'meh' from me. Stability is adequate, rotating the camera between horizontal and vertical is fiddly, the locking knob is on the wrong side (too close to the DMR's hand grip) and there's very little clearance to operate the aperture ring. The Burzynski tripod collar gets much better reviews.
I have no personal experience with the Burzynski. I have heard that the shipping charges from isarfoto.de are outlandish and the shipping charges from photo-nature.fr (same company, in France) are reasonable.
Ron Pfister wrote:
I love the image of the heron. Quite a character... Is this a fledgling?
telyt, many thanks for your feedback regarding the STA1. Much appreciated!
Since stability is key with the D800, I'll probably opt for the Burzynski. Foregoing a collar will likely not be an option, considering the weight of the AE 180...
Paul Yi wrote:
Testing out the Elmarit 19 (ROM) for the first time....
I think it's a keeper....
The Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 (both the former C/Y and the current ZE/ZF.2) is also a stellar performer. I personally prefer 20-21mm focal lengths to 18-19mm. The latter is usually too wide for my taste, resulting in unnatural looking perspectives.
Edit: although I do like the shot with the bridge - well done!
Paul Yi wrote: Testing out the Elmarit 19 (ROM)...
Paul, did you have to make any (irreversible) modifications to you Elmarit-R 19 and, especially Lux-R 50 E60 lenses?
Ron Pfister wrote: I personally prefer 20-21mm focal lengths to 18-19mm...
Similarly, I found 16mm UWA I used for a short while rather distracting. For my needs Distagon 21mm may be the maximum wide ride ticket. I have free use/access to Elamrit-R 19 but this lens will not be used WO, so LV/stopped down would be the only option for me, in which case Zeiss 21/2.8 is a better choice for my needs (and it has funky use at close distance, WO!)
I have tried ze21 before...it is a wonderful lens, but....
Two things turned me off ... Size and distortion...
I have been using Contax exclusively until recently...
I am now going back to Leica color....
BTW, I bought this R19 already shaved ....
My Summilux 50 E60 was not modified, but somehow it clears the mirror of my 5D Mk III....
I have read that the E60 version clears the mirror of FF camera.
Paul, I like your 2nd bridge shot. I seems remember you post one similar in M thread with 21/2.8??
You are so fast to accumulate R glass, and they are all top performers. so, when 280f4 happen?
Derek, 2nd one is great. They are great photo though I don't feel they are sharp enough. your photos cover wide from bird to city to landscape and portrait, and they all wonderful.
Paul Yi wrote:
I have read that the E60 version clears the mirror of FF camera.
Not with my copy. It hits my 5D2's mirror. However, I heard 5D3's mirror is a bit shorter. Someone got a 21-35 ASPH which will not clear on 5D2 but works on 5D3.
Paul Yi wrote:
I have read that the E60 version clears the mirror of FF camera.
Modifying old/classing gear, cars or alike to temporary modern needs feels so cruel to me. I plan on getting Lux-50 E60 sooner or later, and perhaps in a next year Sony RX2 or similar FF mirrorless camera from Nikon (Zeiss or Voigtlander?) would solve this Leica-R ‘modification’ issue.
For now, did anyone had any luck with mounting unshaved Lux-R 50 E55 or E60 on Nikon FF (without shaving mirror)? Thanks!
JaKo wrote:
Modifying old/classing gear, cars or alike to temporary modern needs feels so cruel to me.
De gustibus non est disputandum...
Personally, I have little nostalgic attachment for purity of "all original" condition. Instead, I consider putting in the effort to keep an old item doing what it was built to do (e.g. letting a lens keep taking pictures, instead of sitting "unspoiled" on a shelf) to be a high tribute to the enduring quality of said item.
Personally, I have little nostalgic attachment for purity of "all original" condition. Instead, I consider putting in the effort to keep an old item doing what it was built to do (e.g. letting a lens keep taking pictures, instead of sitting "unspoiled" on a shelf) to be a high tribute to the enduring quality of said item.
OK, I respect your take on it. However, why butcher $4-5k lens with a Dremel tool when it can be used unaltered, perhaps soon, with no ‘modifications’ by future DSLR/mirrorless, Leica M (M240 with an adapter) and R camera owners?
It’s not about the potentially invested $$$ for me, but rather… as you said, De gustibus non est disputandum
Is this a fledgling?
