Perhaps those with an opinion on this lens would share their thoughts.

-- Don M (Maldos@earthlink.net), August 31, 2000

Answers

The 28 lines in the .72 M6 are nearly impossible to see, and they are not there on the new .85 M6 (where you can barely see the 35mm lines) You can get used to using a seperate finder, but it slows you down a tad having to focus in one finder and view in another. Its also a pain if you want to pop your ttl flash on the shoe and shoot a group shot, and an expensive accesory at that. Which M6 did you purcahase, the .72 or .85 magnification? From a quality stand point, all the current Leica built m series wide angles are exceptionally corrected, sharp, and resistant to flare. I think the best standard lens on the M6 is the 35mm f2.0 or 1.4.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 31, 2000.

I have the 0.72/M6 and will be trying out the following lenses this weekend. 28/90 - next week 35/50. Any advice would help. Not new to photography, but new the world of Leica.

D

-- Don (maldos@earthlink.net), August 31, 2000.

I use the tiny 28mm F5.6 on my M-4P (0.72 the same as the first version of M6) during many years. The 28-frames are visible. No goggles, no problem. When shooting I see the inner borders of the viewfinder, it is a pain, but this allows me to use 21 mm too with no parallax compensation. In any case, when shooting with RF & short-focus lens (shorter than 28mm), frames are not so correct when shooting with SLR. This problem, if any, I solve in the darkroom. Just I don't like bulky Nikon for street shooting. Best. Victor.

-- Randin Victor (www.ved@enran.com.ua), September 01, 2000.

Not so much an answer, but an observation:

It seems like a lot to put up with to shoot anything wider than 35mm, the extra finders etc. Is that what most people end up doing, or are most M6 shooters not of the wider-than-35mm-focal-length family? I like compact, unobtrusive, mechanical, and top optics. But I also like wide...

This might start a tangent, but what I'm getting in lurking in the Leica threads is that the M6 is what it's known to be- fast to use, discreet, etc., between 35mm and 75mm (the frameline for the 90 is a bit small most seem to say). Is that the case? A pretty limited range. Beyond that you need to put up with a small framing patch, or additional viewfinders. Is this fair to say?

(yes, I'm looking to rent, but there seems to be only one place in the SF Bay Area to do that...)

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), September 01, 2000.

I use a 21mm with its separate viewfinder and really enjoy the freedom from the temptation to be constantly refocusing. Set the zone of focus and go. It is very freeing. I have no problems using the 28 framelines on my M6.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), September 01, 2000.

The only way I know to get exact 100% coverage of the 28mm lens is with an Imarect and 28mm attachment. The frameline in my (early) M6 is a special disgrace, as are all the frameline coverages. The 35mm frameline exactly covers the field of a 40mm Summicron, my favorite lens, which is helpful. As to the quality of the 28mm lens, my third generation sample is sharp and contrasty, even wide open.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), September 02, 2000.

You'd be surprised how many great shots can be taken within the 28 to 90mm range, even just carrying a 35mm and a 90mm can cover a great deal of shooting situation, and it is such a compact outfit. I looked through a .72 M6 again, and if you do not wear glasses, you can see the 28mm lines, but you have to look around the corners a bit to do so. I have an M3 now, with the 35mm Summaron and eyes, 50mm DR f2.0, 90mm f2.8, and a very sharp 135mm Tele Elmar that I seldom use. I did get some great shots at the vintage car races with the 135mm. The ability to see the cars coming in the finder made it easy to pan and get them right on center in the shots. I use the 35mm for quick shooting, landscapes, environmental portraits, classic cars, and low light portaits. I use the 90 for tight portraits, candid shots, and for isolating details in landscapes. It is razor sharp wide open-I got over 80 LPMM on the chart wide open for a good part of the negative. The dual range 50 allows for near macro work with a rangefinder, and the images are really excellent. I also use it often wide open for existing low light shots. What I still have to get use to is focusing with the patch on the subject and then composing with the subject off center, especially on verticles. I noticed recently that a lot of my verticle shots have more space at the top than they should. These cameras take some getting used to, but the ability to capture photos of incredable detail hand held in low light with total silence is worth it.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 02, 2000.

This is for Bill Mitchell: Does the 40mm bring up the 35 lines on your M6? I thought the 40mm would be a great match for the .85 M6 as a standard lens as well. It is such a sharp little compact lens, and one of my favorites as well. I have the Minolta labeled version. I thought only the 50 lines would come up with the 40 on the camera.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 02, 2000.

This is in response to Bill's earlier post. The area inside the M framelines covers the area of a mounted slide (23mm x 35mm) or approximately 93% of the of the full negative when the lens is at its closest focus. The outside of the framelines show the same area as above when the lens is focused at about 2 to 3 metres. When the lens is focused to infinity, about three frameline widths wider all around is correct. Leica decided it was better to error on the side of including too much rather than cutting off some of the subject when you focused as close as possible. This seems to be a reasonable compromise to me.

Cheers

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), September 02, 2000.

Oskar Barnack designed his Leica viewfinder to show 100% of the field at 10 feet, a practical distance for real-world photogapers. I have no problem with the inside of the frameline showing the projected area of a Kodachrome, as long as the outside of the frameline covers the entire image from edge to edge. To base the frameline size on the closest possible focussing distances is just plain silly.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), September 02, 2000.

Oh, sorry. I forgot to name my source. Gunter Osterloh, the head of the Leica Academy in Solms.

Cheers

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), September 03, 2000.

It is better for accuracy that frames are set for closest distance.I used my 90 Tele- Elmarit for document copying for years.The framelines are perfect on M3.Guess I`m gonna hear how bad the frames are on the new wunderkind M6..... The more I read and hear about the M6,the more I appreciate my M2 and M3.No wonder the prices are so high for old cameras...I prefer to use 28mm lenses on a reflex.No extra viewfinder or force my eyes to see frame on edges.I wear glasses some of the time.I find better composition that way.For my Leica I prefer the 50,35 and 90.The last lens alas is gone due to theft.I am forced to use my 135mm Tele-Elmar f4.0 on the M3 which is ok.The M2 is "guess" using inside the 90 frame.Actually I do rather well.

-- jason gold (jason1155234@webtv.net), September 04, 2000.

You'd be surprised how many great shots can be taken within the 28 to 90mm range, even just carrying a 35mm and a 90mm can cover a great deal of shooting situation, and it is such a compact outfit.

Agreed. (Personally, I just feel closer to the 28mm perspective- at least in SLR- I'm not sure about an RF viewfinder. Conversely, were I to shoot with a 35/2 on my SLR, would I feel the same way about it as I do my Hexar..?)

However, it has been said that RF makes for wonderful wide angle lenses. I find it ironic then that one needs to compromise on compositional and focusing ease (less of an issue in the latter due to extreme DOF) with the M6 in focal lengths less than 35mm. Maybe that is the tradeoff between excellent optics and ease of use...

Am I being overly SLR-centric?

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), September 05, 2000.

Tse-Sung Wu, There is always going to be a bit of personal bias in the selection and use of a camera. I too find that I can switch back and forth freely between the SLR and rangefinder when using the 35 and 50mm focal lengths... yet I have all but given up on the rangefinder for the 90mm... a truly great lens. I just can't use it as easy as I can my 105mm on my Nikon, while others can wield their 90mm's as easy as a 35... it is just a personal preference.

Another fact regarding the use of one camera over the other is style of photography. Yes the wide angles are not too convenient on the rangefinder, but in all honesty, you really don't spend too much time looking through the viewfinder. Using the depth of field marks and a surreptitious technique, the Leica M is "THE" street shooting camera. Yes for a well composed, filtered, and tripod mounted landscape, the SLR shines. When the desire is to remain invisible and take those great journalistic shots as seen in the old "LIFE" or "NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC" magazines, you can't beat a rangefinder.

Also, with the rangefinder, a 21mm and a 50mm lens focus with the exact same ease. With an SLR, the same can't be said. To your eye, an SLR viewfinder can make the focus look fine, due to the reduced scale and DOF. With the rangefinder, you can focus precisely on any point, and with lenses that can readily be used wide open, this is not a small point.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 05, 2000.

Along with 50mm, 28mm and 90mm are the focal lengths I use most often on my .72 M6. The framelines are fine for me at 28mm, but I don't wear glasses either.

Here's an interesting exercise: compare the size of the framelines for 90mm with the size of the viewfinder in a Contax G.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), September 11, 2000.

I use the 28mm (version 3) on my M6. For a day of serious shooting, I wear contact lenses. This lets me see the whole frame line easily. With eyeglasses, I have to move my eye slightly left and right with the camera held steady, to check for exact framing. My version 3 lens does block the lower right finder area, a bit of a nuisance. The current version looks to me, judging by a picture of it, to be more compact--so it may not block the finder significantly. The lens itself is a hot performer--very sharp and no vignetting. I use it often for landscapes and indoor shots, at times preferring it to my favorite, the 35mm. The 28mm is halfway between my 21mm and 35mm in focal length, and comes close enough to the "natural" perspective which the 355mm focal length has, in my opinion.

Regards, Bob F.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@juno.com), November 01, 2000.