Went to Ano Nuevo State Park today to see the Elephant Seal Colony. Quite dramatic! Used 35 Cron, 50 Lux and 90 Elmarit for these shots. Crummy lighting, hence most are BW.
Thanks for looking,
Gregg
90 Elmarit
90 Elmarit
90 Elmarit
35 Crom E55
Mason looking through our friends D800 and 800mm.... 90 elmarit
More from Ano Nuevo on sunday. The longest lens I had was the 90 Elmarit, while there were quite a few of the big guns there...100-400's, 200 f2, 300's, a coupe 400's, and my friend has both the Nikon 200-400, and the 800, too!! So, while not being able to get close enough for the really good elephant Seal shots, I busied myself taking shots of everything else!!! All these with the 50 Lux.
Thanks for looking,
Gregg
a 5 ton piece of shipwreck from the 19th century...
"Mason looking through our friends D800 and 800mm...."
Well, nice to see Nikon has sold at least one of these $18,000 lenses. In comparison, collecting Leica glass is a relative bargain. Nice work Gregg, I particularly like the second and fourth of the 'dead wood' set.
JaKo,
Very nice work, with an admirable consistency. Looking at these recent shots, I admire (and am learning from) how you get a sense of presence and movement from foreground to background. I think trying to mimic that will be my exercise for my next walkabout.
Robert E wrote:
I currently have a Nikon D7000 and a Fuji X-Pro1 bodies.
Would like to use Leica R lenses on one of them.
Can any of you tell me which one it would be better going with an adaptor for?
Robert
Robert,
While I haven't used either, I'd lean toward the X-Pro. Not only can you get a cheap adapter to get a feel for how it works, but I think that the mirrorless camera also has focus peaking and magnification--which are significant benefits when manually focusing. When I used Pentax SLRs, I had to use an aftermarket screen to find focus when shooting below f/2.8. Also, the Pentax--and, I assume, all SLRs--meter much more accurately when they know the working aperture, so your X-Pro might be better there, too. Unfortunately, I think the optical finder will be substantially blocked by the size of the lenses, which is a definite benefit to the Nikon.
Edit: oh, and if you go the Nikon route, I can wholeheartedly endorse the Leitax products. The guy who runs it (David, I think) was responsive to my questions and the adapters themselves are much higher quality than the Metabones adapters that I've used. That said, I'm pleased with my (NEX) Speed Booster overall, and it cost about the same as a kit's worth of Leitax adapters.
I don't have any R lenses, but am thinking about getting a Leica R 180/3.4 apo. Seems more reasonably priced and lighter than the 2.8 apo, tho all thing being equal, I might like a 2.8. Am planning on using the lens on my Sony A7r. Any thoughts on an adapter? I have seen some Kipon adapters on EBay, one of which has a tilt feature, tho not sure how useful that would be on such a long lens. I did not see any with tripod mounts on the collars but did not look real hard. Anyway, any recommendAtions/advice appreciated. Thx much!
Well, nice to see Nikon has sold at least one of these $18,000 lenses
What? It costs that much? WOW...He also has the 200-400, and a slough of others, too. Him and another photography buddy actually share the cost and the lenses! Makes me want to get a Nikon body to shoot with, just so I can use the lenses!! Nice work Gregg, I particularly like the second and fourth of the 'dead wood' set
Thanks Ron...
Here are a few more from that day. all with the 50 Lux, too1
Thanks for looking,
Gregg
Luvwine wrote:
I don't have any R lenses, but am thinking about getting a Leica R 180/3.4 apo. Seems more reasonably priced and lighter than the 2.8 apo, tho all thing being equal, I might like a 2.8. Am planning on using the lens on my Sony A7r. Any thoughts on an adapter? I have seen some Kipon adapters on EBay, one of which has a tilt feature, tho not sure how useful that would be on such a long lens. I did not see any with tripod mounts on the collars but did not look real hard. Anyway, any recommendAtions/advice appreciated. Thx much!...Show more →
I've been using the Fotodiox Pro Nikon F to m43 adapter (for G lenses) and it works well on my 180/3.4 APO that has been Leitaxed to F-mount. Fit is very snug - which is should be - just like a native Nikkor lens on a Nikon body.
No obvious alignment issues on my m43 body.
The 180/3.4 is very very sharp - probably the sharpest thing I have at ~200mm - even wide open on my D800 it uses every one of those 36MP very effectively across the whole frame with just slight improvements stopping down. It's still super sharp on my m43 bodies, which have an even finer pixel pitch than my D800.
Luvwine wrote:
I don't have any R lenses, but am thinking about getting a Leica R 180/3.4 apo. Seems more reasonably priced and lighter than the 2.8 apo, tho all thing being equal, I might like a 2.8. Am planning on using the lens on my Sony A7r. Any thoughts on an adapter? I have seen some Kipon adapters on EBay, one of which has a tilt feature, tho not sure how useful that would be on such a long lens. I did not see any with tripod mounts on the collars but did not look real hard. Anyway, any recommendAtions/advice appreciated. Thx much!...Show more →
Steve, great choice. I have it and the R 180/3.4 is a terrific lens with superlative performance mid-infinity distances. Its initial design was conceived for military reconnaissance. Close performance is ok but its real strength is mid-infinity performance.
Re the adapter, I have a novoflex nikon f to sony e that is very very good. Given the quality the high cost was worth it to me and I also have a lot of Nikon f lenses so went with the novoflex. I've also used fotodiox pro and have no complaints. Metabones also has a Leica R to Sony E.
Jako, I noticed some of your 35mm cron-R E55 (fabulous!) photos you posted here. I'm in the process of purchasing this exact lens (rom) in absolute mint condition. The deal was too good to pass up. I was reading what Erwin Puts had written about the lens (1977 and later ver2?) and he noted that the edges aren't as good as the first version and wide open the contrast is a bit lower as well. I recently read elsewhere that this lens is more of a "street reporter" than a landscape lens. I guess the "street reporter" would be more my style since I don't do landscapes very much, but I would like to use the 35mm when I travel overseas. So in that regard, a "landscape" lens it might serve.
The only 35mm lens I've used (and sold) was the Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZE. What am I getting into with this Leica 35 cron-R? I just wanted something wider than my 50 cron-R's and "cheaper" than the 28mm elmarit-R version 2. Like I mentioned earlier, I was at the right spot at the right time and I would have been a fool to not pick this lens up.
Sorry to interrupt, here a few shots from 35 2.0 E55 at f/8 (D800 RAW), yes extreme corners softer a bit but does not so terrible by my opinion for real photography http://yadi.sk/d/Ud9VrjkZGvVqQ
