Leica R Series Lenses
p.153 #1Leica R Series Lenses
JohnJ wrote:
It's a walk-around-lens, for Arnold Schwarzenegger.
You need to go gym and build muscle to use it
It's a walk-around-lens, for Arnold Schwarzenegger.
You need to go gym and build muscle to use it
Feb 08, 2013 at 06:07 AM
p.153 #2Leica R Series Lenses
Why go to the gym? Just use it, the muscle will come 
Feb 08, 2013 at 06:14 AM
p.153 #3Leica R Series Lenses
wilco23 wrote:
You need to go gym and build muscle to use it
Actually it's not that bad (lens is approx 2.5KG IIRC). I've used it for long periods and it's never been a problem. I've also had it for over 15 years, normally using it with the R8 prior to digital, so maybe I'm just used to it.
JohnJ wrote
It's a walk-around-lens, for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Actually it's not that bad (lens is approx 2.5KG IIRC). I've used it for long periods and it's never been a problem. I've also had it for over 15 years, normally using it with the R8 prior to digital, so maybe I'm just used to it.
Feb 08, 2013 at 07:16 AM
p.153 #5Leica R Series Lenses
Paul Yi wrote:
I want that lens.....
Yeah, because what you need is another lens
I want that lens.....
Yeah, because what you need is another lens
Feb 08, 2013 at 11:09 AM
p.153 #10Leica R Series Lenses
I have an R 50/1.4 E55 and a 180/4 both adapted for a Sony a900. If I want to post pictures that are on my desktop but not on a website, how can I do it? None of the icons on the left of this screen seem to allow me to do it. Thank you.
Feb 08, 2013 at 08:00 PM
|
p.153 #11Leica R Series Lenses
you have to have membership i believe, join flickr for free?
Feb 08, 2013 at 08:23 PM
p.153 #12Leica R Series Lenses
Mikal, you cannot upload directly to FM unless you have a membership, as crazeazn says. If you don't want to do that, then you need to "host" your image (i.e. upload them) somewhere else, such as Flickr, or other places.
Feb 09, 2013 at 03:09 AM
p.153 #13Leica R Series Lenses
Thanks. I will look into getting a membership or find a place to host them.
Feb 09, 2013 at 06:40 AM
p.153 #14Leica R Series Lenses
I just picked up a Leica Elmarit-R 135/2.8 (second version, Leitz Canada, c. 1974) so my CY 135/2.8 wouldn't get lonely in the unpopular focal lengths corner. I've had one of these before, but foolishly let go of it during an "only the best lenses ever" phase. This old design holds up very strongly in contrast, detail, and general brilliance of image. Its flaw is displaying all kinds of CA (lateral CA red/blue edges, purple fringing on highlights, green/magenta defocus), but usually in a non-harmful way. Some photos, from the harsh SoCal midwinter:
Feb 09, 2013 at 03:39 PM
p.153 #15Leica R Series Lenses
zhangyue wrote:
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.
thanks, i think i need to use a different downsizing algorithm for my birding shots. i made a new general use one that i've been using since i got the NEX-7, but it seems to be destroying the fine detail in birds. i agree these both look a bit soft, but look pretty sharp at larger sizes.
here's another from the 350mm downsized the same way:
and one from brad's 250/4 + minolta 1.4x APO teleconverter:
i believe this one is just the 250mm without the teleconverter:
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.
thanks, i think i need to use a different downsizing algorithm for my birding shots. i made a new general use one that i've been using since i got the NEX-7, but it seems to be destroying the fine detail in birds. i agree these both look a bit soft, but look pretty sharp at larger sizes.
here's another from the 350mm downsized the same way:
and one from brad's 250/4 + minolta 1.4x APO teleconverter:
i believe this one is just the 250mm without the teleconverter:
Feb 09, 2013 at 06:48 PM
p.153 #16Leica R Series Lenses
Definitely great bird pics. I have a pretty hard time with any sort of moving target :-)
Here's one from today w/ the ME-R 60 on the Nex via Speedbooster:
DSC06181.jpg by Taylor Sherman, on Flickr
Here's one from today w/ the ME-R 60 on the Nex via Speedbooster:
DSC06181.jpg by Taylor Sherman, on Flickr
Feb 10, 2013 at 02:00 AM
p.153 #17Leica R Series Lenses
Nice,
I love my M-E 60, must use it more often...
I love my M-E 60, must use it more often...
Feb 10, 2013 at 06:57 AM
p.153 #18Leica R Series Lenses
mpmendenhall wrote:
I just picked up a Leica Elmarit-R 135/2.8 (second version, Leitz Canada, c. 1974) so my CY 135/2.8 wouldn't get lonely in the unpopular focal lengths corner.
This is slightly OT, but I would be curious how you would rate the Sonnar compared to the Elmarit. I'm currently considering picking up a Sonnar 135.
TIA,
Ron
I just picked up a Leica Elmarit-R 135/2.8 (second version, Leitz Canada, c. 1974) so my CY 135/2.8 wouldn't get lonely in the unpopular focal lengths corner.
This is slightly OT, but I would be curious how you would rate the Sonnar compared to the Elmarit. I'm currently considering picking up a Sonnar 135.
TIA,
Ron
Feb 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM
p.153 #19Leica R Series Lenses
Some more photos taken with the Lumix G1 camera and the f4 70-210 Vario Elmar taken at Mount Rainier NP in October:
Rich
Rich
Feb 10, 2013 at 03:16 PM
p.153 #20Leica R Series Lenses
Ron Pfister wrote:
This is slightly OT, but I would be curious how you would rate the Sonnar compared to the Elmarit. I'm currently considering picking up a Sonnar 135.
I haven't had enough time with both to do a detailed comparison; I hope to get around to that, and be able to report back results in the near future. What I can say now is that neither is a significantly better or worse performer than the other --- they're both good lenses, that share the limitations of their similar design era.
This is slightly OT, but I would be curious how you would rate the Sonnar compared to the Elmarit. I'm currently considering picking up a Sonnar 135.
I haven't had enough time with both to do a detailed comparison; I hope to get around to that, and be able to report back results in the near future. What I can say now is that neither is a significantly better or worse performer than the other --- they're both good lenses, that share the limitations of their similar design era.
Feb 10, 2013 at 03:39 PM