Leica R Series Lenses
p.85 #1Leica R Series Lenses
Gunzorro wrote:
phuang3 -- Only six elements?
I'm sorry. I was referring to the 35 Summicron not the zoom lens. My mistake.
phuang3 -- Only six elements?
I'm sorry. I was referring to the 35 Summicron not the zoom lens. My mistake.
Apr 17, 2012 at 12:19 AM
p.85 #2Leica R Series Lenses
freaklikeme wrote:
Nice, Jim. Congrats. Which version of the 50/1.4?
well i got the 50'lux almost a year ago, i was in awe of it wide open compared to my 50'cron. to my minolta accustomed eyes, the 50'cron was extremely extremely contrasty and saturated wide open, but the 50'lux wide open showed me what Leica glow truly is, despite not being a Mandler design, but amazingly is sharp wide open.
i got the e55 with 3 cams, early/mid 80s vintage with serial # starting between 300 and 320.
Nice, Jim. Congrats. Which version of the 50/1.4?
well i got the 50'lux almost a year ago, i was in awe of it wide open compared to my 50'cron. to my minolta accustomed eyes, the 50'cron was extremely extremely contrasty and saturated wide open, but the 50'lux wide open showed me what Leica glow truly is, despite not being a Mandler design, but amazingly is sharp wide open.
i got the e55 with 3 cams, early/mid 80s vintage with serial # starting between 300 and 320.
Apr 17, 2012 at 09:02 AM
p.85 #3Leica R Series Lenses
Gunzorro wrote:
aCIDfire -- There are two versions, and this is the second version, which reported to be the better of the two. The first version has a wider front focusing ring. You can see examples of the two types on ebay. Prices are very reasonable, and I'm quite impressed with the sharpness and color -- compares well to the Leica 60 macro, if that means anything to you.
Those yellow rocks are wide open around 28mm, the yellow bush is at f/8 at 40mm. The other shots were mostly f/5.6 to 8.0 settings, IIRC.
Thx for reply, I was surprised by nice 3D efect of this lens.
aCIDfire -- There are two versions, and this is the second version, which reported to be the better of the two. The first version has a wider front focusing ring. You can see examples of the two types on ebay. Prices are very reasonable, and I'm quite impressed with the sharpness and color -- compares well to the Leica 60 macro, if that means anything to you.
Those yellow rocks are wide open around 28mm, the yellow bush is at f/8 at 40mm. The other shots were mostly f/5.6 to 8.0 settings, IIRC.
Thx for reply, I was surprised by nice 3D efect of this lens.
Apr 17, 2012 at 09:38 AM
p.85 #4Leica R Series Lenses
A few from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library with Leica R 28-70 and 5D2 (with flash on three shots).
Both sides of the walk.
Cliches.
The obligatory bench.
PS -- I wanted to add a note as to the source of this lens. I bought it from George Ohara of New Jersey, eBay member/store name leicagreatbuy. George is a terrific guy and very helpful. He has terrific Leice gear of all types at very reasonable prices. One of the best purchases I've every made -- just thought you should know.
Both sides of the walk.
Cliches.
The obligatory bench.
PS -- I wanted to add a note as to the source of this lens. I bought it from George Ohara of New Jersey, eBay member/store name leicagreatbuy. George is a terrific guy and very helpful. He has terrific Leice gear of all types at very reasonable prices. One of the best purchases I've every made -- just thought you should know.
Apr 19, 2012 at 09:27 AM
p.85 #5Leica R Series Lenses
Do some of you have some pictures taken with the Elmarit-R 24/2.8 (+ film or DMR)?
This lens is usually considered as one the less attractive within the R series but I would interested to get your feedback from "real-life"...
This lens is usually considered as one the less attractive within the R series but I would interested to get your feedback from "real-life"...
Apr 22, 2012 at 08:17 AM
p.85 #6Leica R Series Lenses
Thomas73 wrote:
Do some of you have some pictures taken with the Elmarit-R 24/2.8 (+ film or DMR)?
This lens is usually considered as one the less attractive within the R series but I would interested to get your feedback from "real-life"...
Yes, this is considered 'less attractive within the R series'. Being a Minolta design it has a reputation of being 'less than Leica' from the get-go. Ironically, here Minolta glass is generally highly praised. It would be interesting to see the R24 compared on a FF body with a Zuiko 24/2.8, Contax 25/2.8 and maybe others where it's shortcomings could be seen and compared objectively but I think most people just jump on the 'it's a Minolta design' bandwagon and dump on it for that reason alone.
I don't have many digital pics from it as I've only ever used it on a 40D as it won't clear the mirror on my FF bodies. However I've used it on film, mostly E6 for pro work, for a very long time and only had one issue with it. It's the dumb-ass-idea-from-hell to place white lettering on the front of a lens where it can reflect of any filters back to the image (in high contrast/flare prone conditions). This is exactly what happens when you photograph automotive interiors, which is what I do, so I had to tape over the lettering with matt black tape. Problem solved, see pic below.
It is a very sharp lens in the central area, even wide open, but I admit I'm not one to care much for corner sharpness and I think the R24 falls over in this department to some degree. It's probably not a 'landscape' lens and if that is your intended application then this possibly isn't the lens for you. Edge sharpness is probably the main real gripe with this lens, other than that it's a 'Minolta design', yadda yadda yadda. It's a nice lens for general use, people, reportage etc.
I like the relatively soft bokeh from this lens (The Yashica 24 ML is a little softer, not much) and I think this is probably it's strength combined with excellent central sharpness and it's highly saturated colours (which are fairly similar to the R50 Cron). Putting a polarising filter on this lens can give intense almost cartoon-like colours.
It might be a mediocre lens in some respects (it's not clinically sharp into the corners) but I've hung on to it in the hope of a FF mirrorless body. It's kept company with my R35/1.4 side lined for the same reason. Maybe a cheap zuiko 24 is a better option, I don't know.
In the only 'test' I ever did with this lens it was sharpest in the centre (at close range and at distance) of the Canon 24-70/2.8 (I) L, 17-40/4 L and Yashica 24/2.8 ML.
R 24 at F2.8 on 40D
JJ
Do some of you have some pictures taken with the Elmarit-R 24/2.8 (+ film or DMR)?
This lens is usually considered as one the less attractive within the R series but I would interested to get your feedback from "real-life"...
Yes, this is considered 'less attractive within the R series'. Being a Minolta design it has a reputation of being 'less than Leica' from the get-go. Ironically, here Minolta glass is generally highly praised. It would be interesting to see the R24 compared on a FF body with a Zuiko 24/2.8, Contax 25/2.8 and maybe others where it's shortcomings could be seen and compared objectively but I think most people just jump on the 'it's a Minolta design' bandwagon and dump on it for that reason alone.
I don't have many digital pics from it as I've only ever used it on a 40D as it won't clear the mirror on my FF bodies. However I've used it on film, mostly E6 for pro work, for a very long time and only had one issue with it. It's the dumb-ass-idea-from-hell to place white lettering on the front of a lens where it can reflect of any filters back to the image (in high contrast/flare prone conditions). This is exactly what happens when you photograph automotive interiors, which is what I do, so I had to tape over the lettering with matt black tape. Problem solved, see pic below.
It is a very sharp lens in the central area, even wide open, but I admit I'm not one to care much for corner sharpness and I think the R24 falls over in this department to some degree. It's probably not a 'landscape' lens and if that is your intended application then this possibly isn't the lens for you. Edge sharpness is probably the main real gripe with this lens, other than that it's a 'Minolta design', yadda yadda yadda. It's a nice lens for general use, people, reportage etc.
I like the relatively soft bokeh from this lens (The Yashica 24 ML is a little softer, not much) and I think this is probably it's strength combined with excellent central sharpness and it's highly saturated colours (which are fairly similar to the R50 Cron). Putting a polarising filter on this lens can give intense almost cartoon-like colours.
It might be a mediocre lens in some respects (it's not clinically sharp into the corners) but I've hung on to it in the hope of a FF mirrorless body. It's kept company with my R35/1.4 side lined for the same reason. Maybe a cheap zuiko 24 is a better option, I don't know.
In the only 'test' I ever did with this lens it was sharpest in the centre (at close range and at distance) of the Canon 24-70/2.8 (I) L, 17-40/4 L and Yashica 24/2.8 ML.
R 24 at F2.8 on 40D
JJ
Apr 22, 2012 at 05:59 PM
p.85 #7Leica R Series Lenses
JohnJ wrote:
However I've used it on film, mostly E6 for pro work, for a very long time and only had one issue with it. It's the dumb-ass-idea-from-hell to place white lettering on the front of a lens where it can reflect of any filters back to the image (in high contrast/flare prone conditions). This is exactly what happens when you photograph automotive interiors, which is what I do, so I had to tape over the lettering with matt black tape.
I can appreciate this and really don't like the silver/chrome filter rings of the Zeiss Z* lenses, or the Voigtlanders with this as well. Brutal if you need to shoot through glass and forgot to bring along a step ring, filter, hood, or anything to hide the ring... But I guess it looks neat, which is of course what counts most (not).
The library image looks very nice.
However I've used it on film, mostly E6 for pro work, for a very long time and only had one issue with it. It's the dumb-ass-idea-from-hell to place white lettering on the front of a lens where it can reflect of any filters back to the image (in high contrast/flare prone conditions). This is exactly what happens when you photograph automotive interiors, which is what I do, so I had to tape over the lettering with matt black tape.
I can appreciate this and really don't like the silver/chrome filter rings of the Zeiss Z* lenses, or the Voigtlanders with this as well. Brutal if you need to shoot through glass and forgot to bring along a step ring, filter, hood, or anything to hide the ring... But I guess it looks neat, which is of course what counts most (not).
The library image looks very nice.
Apr 22, 2012 at 06:09 PM
p.85 #8Leica R Series Lenses
rscheffler wrote:
I can appreciate this and really don't like the silver/chrome filter rings of the Zeiss Z* lenses, or the Voigtlanders with this as well. Brutal if you need to shoot through glass and forgot to bring along a step ring, filter, hood, or anything to hide the ring... But I guess it looks neat, which is of course what counts most (not).
The library image looks very nice.
Ta.
JJ
JohnJ wrote
However I've used it on film, mostly E6 for pro work, for a very long time and only had one issue with it. It's the dumb-ass-idea-from-hell to place white lettering on the front of a lens where it can reflect of any filters back to the image (in high contrast/flare prone conditions). This is exactly what happens when you photograph automotive interiors, which is what I do, so I had to tape over the lettering with matt black tape.The library image looks very nice.
Ta.
JJ
Apr 23, 2012 at 04:45 PM
p.85 #9Leica R Series Lenses
Has anybody used a 80-200mm F4.0 on a NEX7? I am getting very sharp images with this lens out of my NEX5n, but the 7 seems to be so so...
Comments appreciated.
Thanks
Andrew
Comments appreciated.
Thanks
Andrew
Apr 23, 2012 at 05:35 PM
p.85 #10Leica R Series Lenses
Andrew Gough wrote:
Has anybody used a 80-200mm F4.0 on a NEX7? I am getting very sharp images with this lens out of my NEX5n, but the 7 seems to be so so...
Based on the MTF it would fulfill the needs of pixel peepers around 140mm also for small pixel cameras such as NEX7. However I doubt it can deliver at 80mm or 200mm pixel to pixel sharp results.
Question: In the "Puts Column 180-280 mm Leica R Lenses" (link) Erwin Puts says:
The superb performance of the 180 mm f/2.8 Apo-Elmarit-R permits the unrestricted use of the Macro-Adapter-R. We can obtain a reproduction ratio of 1:3 with excellent quality. At these distances there is a reduction of 1.8x in the luminance of the negative. The automatic exposure programs of Leica R cameras compensate for this effect, but when you make a manual exposure, it is wise to take this into account. The occasionally expressed wish for a true macro lens with a focal length of 200 mm is practically fulfilled with this combination. A bit outmoded nowadays, but still useful is the Bellows Attachment BR-2 that allows reproduction ratios of 1:3.3 to 1.2:1.
Is he the "Macro-Adapter-R" just extension tube he refers to? I could not find much information, more or less this (this has little more info) was only publication by Leica, and even it won't say anything about compatibility. If I look eBay there are all kind of various of stuff, which claims to be Macro-Adapter-R, some are extension tubes and some seem to have something more. If it's just extension tube then it's very easy to use the Canon extension tube set.
If just extension ring is the quality how good? I would use it to shoot butterflies (and the 1:3 magnification of 30mm tube is plenty enough for me, if I want real close-ups of butterflies then I will use other lens).
Leica gurus please advice!
Samuli
Has anybody used a 80-200mm F4.0 on a NEX7? I am getting very sharp images with this lens out of my NEX5n, but the 7 seems to be so so...
Based on the MTF it would fulfill the needs of pixel peepers around 140mm also for small pixel cameras such as NEX7. However I doubt it can deliver at 80mm or 200mm pixel to pixel sharp results.
Question: In the "Puts Column 180-280 mm Leica R Lenses" (link) Erwin Puts says:
The superb performance of the 180 mm f/2.8 Apo-Elmarit-R permits the unrestricted use of the Macro-Adapter-R. We can obtain a reproduction ratio of 1:3 with excellent quality. At these distances there is a reduction of 1.8x in the luminance of the negative. The automatic exposure programs of Leica R cameras compensate for this effect, but when you make a manual exposure, it is wise to take this into account. The occasionally expressed wish for a true macro lens with a focal length of 200 mm is practically fulfilled with this combination. A bit outmoded nowadays, but still useful is the Bellows Attachment BR-2 that allows reproduction ratios of 1:3.3 to 1.2:1.
Is he the "Macro-Adapter-R" just extension tube he refers to? I could not find much information, more or less this (this has little more info) was only publication by Leica, and even it won't say anything about compatibility. If I look eBay there are all kind of various of stuff, which claims to be Macro-Adapter-R, some are extension tubes and some seem to have something more. If it's just extension tube then it's very easy to use the Canon extension tube set.
If just extension ring is the quality how good? I would use it to shoot butterflies (and the 1:3 magnification of 30mm tube is plenty enough for me, if I want real close-ups of butterflies then I will use other lens).
Leica gurus please advice!
Samuli
Apr 24, 2012 at 10:35 AM
|
p.85 #11Leica R Series Lenses
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
.... If it's just extension tube then it's very easy to use the Canon extension tube set.
It's just an extension tube with metering info for R camera bodies.
Almass wrote:
It is an adapter which acts as Extension Tube
They are available in 2 versions: 14256 (3 cam) and 14299 (ROM)
The 14256 isn't 3-cam. It has the 3rd cam but not the first or second cam and it won't fit any of the Leicaflex bodies.
Almass wrote:
As for the Extension Tubes proper, these are available dedicated for the 100/4 (14262) and for the 60/2.8 Macro Elmarit (14198)
These extension tubes were made in 2-cam (14198) and 3-cam (14198 and 14262) versions. The 3-cam models of both 14198 and 14262 can be modified to be near-universal extension tubes for all Leica reflex bodies by removing the collar that covers the lens' aperture ring and milling the lens-side flange to work with R-only lenses.
Almass wrote:
This is the 14256 which you need for the 180-280
The illustrated extension tube is the 14299 model. The 14256 doesn't bulge in the middle.
Edited on Apr 25, 2012 at 08:07 PM · View previous versions
.... If it's just extension tube then it's very easy to use the Canon extension tube set.
It's just an extension tube with metering info for R camera bodies.
Almass wrote:
It is an adapter which acts as Extension Tube
They are available in 2 versions: 14256 (3 cam) and 14299 (ROM)
The 14256 isn't 3-cam. It has the 3rd cam but not the first or second cam and it won't fit any of the Leicaflex bodies.
Almass wrote:
As for the Extension Tubes proper, these are available dedicated for the 100/4 (14262) and for the 60/2.8 Macro Elmarit (14198)
These extension tubes were made in 2-cam (14198) and 3-cam (14198 and 14262) versions. The 3-cam models of both 14198 and 14262 can be modified to be near-universal extension tubes for all Leica reflex bodies by removing the collar that covers the lens' aperture ring and milling the lens-side flange to work with R-only lenses.
Almass wrote:
This is the 14256 which you need for the 180-280
The illustrated extension tube is the 14299 model. The 14256 doesn't bulge in the middle.
Edited on Apr 25, 2012 at 08:07 PM · View previous versions
Apr 24, 2012 at 02:21 PM
p.85 #12Leica R Series Lenses
JohnJ wrote:
This lens is usually considered as one the less attractive within the R series but I would interested to get your feedback from "real-life"...Yes, this is considered 'less attractive within the R series'. Being a Minolta design it has a reputation of being 'less than Leica' from the get-go. Ironically, here Minolta glass is generally highly praised. It would be interesting to see the R24 compared on a FF body with a Zuiko 24/2.8, Contax 25/2.8 and maybe others where it's shortcomings could be seen and compared objectively but I think most people just jump on the 'it's a Minolta design' bandwagon and dump on it for that reason alone.
I don't have many digital pics from it as I've only ever used...Show more →
To be fair, the dumbasses did design a hood for it that covers the lettering. It's bulky, but it's an excellent hood.
I never got to test them on the same FF camera, but I've used the Zuiko 24/2.8 and 24/2 on a 5D and DsIII and the Leica E60 on an R8 and a900, and I've used all three on the NEX 5N and 7. As imperfect as the corners are on the Leica, neither Zuiko could keep up at like apertures (the f/2 is fairly bad in this respect down to about f/4 with distance shots, and never really gets good in corners below 2m, the f/2.8 is better than the f/2 at distances, much worse below 2m). I'm not convinced that it matters, though. I think as a rule, you'd be hard pressed to find a shot taken with a wide angle lens that was ruined by a little fuzziness in the corners.
The upside on the Minolta-design's fairly high. Sharper across the frame, more consistent performance regardless of distance to subject (or aperture, between f/4 and f/8). Higher contrast (without being too high) and, in my opinion, better colors. The Zuiko 24/2 can be more fun to shoot close up, simply because the barrel distortion and curvature of field create a very unique frame, particularly for limited DoF shots, its flare resistance is impressive, and of the three, it's the least punishing when you're shooting off-axis. The 24/2.8 is an incredible bargain for the size and performance, and it may be all you want or need from the focal length, but it's not as versatile as the other two. That's my take on it.
Edited on Apr 25, 2012 at 07:32 PM · View previous versions
Thomas73 wrote
Do some of you have some pictures taken with the Elmarit-R 24/2.8 (+ film or DMR)?This lens is usually considered as one the less attractive within the R series but I would interested to get your feedback from "real-life"...
I don't have many digital pics from it as I've only ever used...Show more →
To be fair, the dumbasses did design a hood for it that covers the lettering. It's bulky, but it's an excellent hood.
I never got to test them on the same FF camera, but I've used the Zuiko 24/2.8 and 24/2 on a 5D and DsIII and the Leica E60 on an R8 and a900, and I've used all three on the NEX 5N and 7. As imperfect as the corners are on the Leica, neither Zuiko could keep up at like apertures (the f/2 is fairly bad in this respect down to about f/4 with distance shots, and never really gets good in corners below 2m, the f/2.8 is better than the f/2 at distances, much worse below 2m). I'm not convinced that it matters, though. I think as a rule, you'd be hard pressed to find a shot taken with a wide angle lens that was ruined by a little fuzziness in the corners.
The upside on the Minolta-design's fairly high. Sharper across the frame, more consistent performance regardless of distance to subject (or aperture, between f/4 and f/8). Higher contrast (without being too high) and, in my opinion, better colors. The Zuiko 24/2 can be more fun to shoot close up, simply because the barrel distortion and curvature of field create a very unique frame, particularly for limited DoF shots, its flare resistance is impressive, and of the three, it's the least punishing when you're shooting off-axis. The 24/2.8 is an incredible bargain for the size and performance, and it may be all you want or need from the focal length, but it's not as versatile as the other two. That's my take on it.
Edited on Apr 25, 2012 at 07:32 PM · View previous versions
Apr 24, 2012 at 09:34 PM
p.85 #13Leica R Series Lenses
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Based on the MTF it would fulfill the needs of pixel peepers around 140mm also for small pixel cameras such as NEX7. However I doubt it can deliver at 80mm or 200mm pixel to pixel sharp results.
Samuli
I have good news! After testing my lens on my 5D2, I found that it was very sharp, wide open, at 200mm. I shimmed my R-Nex adapter to achieve infinity at the proper focus point and voila, the lens easily out resoves the NEX7 sensor at 200mm, wide open. Its almost as sharp as my Contax 100-300mm, but with that Leica look instead.
Andrew Gough wrote
Has anybody used a 80-200mm F4.0 on a NEX7? I am getting very sharp images with this lens out of my NEX5n, but the 7 seems to be so so...Samuli
I have good news! After testing my lens on my 5D2, I found that it was very sharp, wide open, at 200mm. I shimmed my R-Nex adapter to achieve infinity at the proper focus point and voila, the lens easily out resoves the NEX7 sensor at 200mm, wide open. Its almost as sharp as my Contax 100-300mm, but with that Leica look instead.
Apr 25, 2012 at 04:51 PM
p.85 #14Leica R Series Lenses
Edited on Apr 26, 2012 at 08:59 AM · View previous versions
Apr 25, 2012 at 10:19 PM
p.85 #15Leica R Series Lenses
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Based on the MTF it would fulfill the needs of pixel peepers around 140mm also for small pixel cameras such as NEX7. However I doubt it can deliver at 80mm or 200mm pixel to pixel sharp results.
Question: In the "Puts Column 180-280 mm Leica R Lenses" (link) Erwin Puts says:
The superb performance of the 180 mm f/2.8 Apo-Elmarit-R permits the unrestricted use of the Macro-Adapter-R. We can obtain a reproduction ratio of 1:3 with excellent quality. At these distances there is a reduction of 1.8x in the luminance of the negative. The automatic exposure programs of Leica R cameras
Is he the "Macro-Adapter-R" just extension tube he refers to? I could not find much information, more or less this (this has little more info) was only publication by Leica, and even it won't say anything about compatibility. If I look eBay there are all kind of various of stuff, which claims to be Macro-Adapter-R, some are extension tubes and some seem to have something more. If it's just extension tube then it's very easy to use the Canon extension tube set.
If just extension ring is the quality how good? I would use it to shoot butterflies (and the 1:3 magnification of 30mm tube is plenty enough for me, if I want real close-ups of butterflies then I will use other lens).
Leica gurus please advice!
Samuli...Show more →
I have used my Canon 25mm extension tube with my 180/2.8 APO for shooting hummingbird nests.
Andrew Gough wrote
Has anybody used a 80-200mm F4.0 on a NEX7? I am getting very sharp images with this lens out of my NEX5n, but the 7 seems to be so so...Question: In the "Puts Column 180-280 mm Leica R Lenses" (link) Erwin Puts says:
The superb performance of the 180 mm f/2.8 Apo-Elmarit-R permits the unrestricted use of the Macro-Adapter-R. We can obtain a reproduction ratio of 1:3 with excellent quality. At these distances there is a reduction of 1.8x in the luminance of the negative. The automatic exposure programs of Leica R cameras
Is he the "Macro-Adapter-R" just extension tube he refers to? I could not find much information, more or less this (this has little more info) was only publication by Leica, and even it won't say anything about compatibility. If I look eBay there are all kind of various of stuff, which claims to be Macro-Adapter-R, some are extension tubes and some seem to have something more. If it's just extension tube then it's very easy to use the Canon extension tube set.
If just extension ring is the quality how good? I would use it to shoot butterflies (and the 1:3 magnification of 30mm tube is plenty enough for me, if I want real close-ups of butterflies then I will use other lens).
Leica gurus please advice!
Samuli...Show more →
I have used my Canon 25mm extension tube with my 180/2.8 APO for shooting hummingbird nests.
Apr 26, 2012 at 12:52 AM
p.85 #16Leica R Series Lenses
wayne seltzer wrote:
I have used my Canon 25mm extension tube with my 180/2.8 APO for shooting hummingbird nests.
Thanks Wayne. How you find the image quality with extension 25mm extension tube (should get somewhere between 1:4 and 1:3)?
Does one have to close f/8 or f/5.6 to get good image quality?
Samuli
Samuli Vahonen wrote
If just extension ring is the quality how good? I would use it to shoot butterflies (and the 1:3 magnification of 30mm tube is plenty enough for me, if I want real close-ups of butterflies then I will use other lens).Thanks Wayne. How you find the image quality with extension 25mm extension tube (should get somewhere between 1:4 and 1:3)?
Does one have to close f/8 or f/5.6 to get good image quality?
Samuli
Apr 26, 2012 at 08:00 AM
p.85 #17Leica R Series Lenses
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I have used my Canon 25mm extension tube with my 180/2.8 APO for shooting hummingbird nests.Thanks Wayne. How you find the image quality with extension 25mm extension tube (should get somewhere between 1:4 and 1:3)?
Does one have to close f/8 or f/5.6 to get good image quality?
Samuli
I didn't notice that. The lens is so sharp at f2.8 only getting slightly sharper at f4 on, that the lens is great with 2x APO extender as well as with tubes. Just depends on how much DOF you need. I have photographed butterflies with 100 APO lens but have not tried yet with 180 /2.8 APO with tube.
wayne seltzer wrote
Samuli Vahonen wrote
If just extension ring is the quality how good? I would use it to shoot butterflies (and the 1:3 magnification of 30mm tube is plenty enough for me, if I want real close-ups of butterflies then I will use other lens).Does one have to close f/8 or f/5.6 to get good image quality?
Samuli
I didn't notice that. The lens is so sharp at f2.8 only getting slightly sharper at f4 on, that the lens is great with 2x APO extender as well as with tubes. Just depends on how much DOF you need. I have photographed butterflies with 100 APO lens but have not tried yet with 180 /2.8 APO with tube.
Apr 26, 2012 at 09:33 AM
p.85 #19Leica R Series Lenses
love it carsten! if i ever moved to nikon...thats the first thing i would do..get a lux 35 and lei tax it
Apr 26, 2012 at 04:11 PM
