my consulting took precedence over traveling northward to Glazer's in Seattle and taking advantage of the Leica Days 10% discount. hopefully, Cameraworld or Pro Photo Supply in Portland will entertain these festivities soon and I can try once again to purchase an M6 and a lens or two. I have been using a Nikon F2 and 55mm f1.2 lens for low-light, large-aperture work (limited DOF), in a specialized application which has paved the way to wanting a Noctilux. as an engineer (and photographer), I am concerned with the parallax requirements for this lens and the 90mm Summicron. I am starting to question the .58 viewfinder choice, due to accuracy, though I know a 35mm is soon to be added.

one other observation, is that I loved the .85 viewfinder but found the LED's slightly blurry. I usually require a -2 diopter on my EOS-1v and Hasselblad cameras, and noted that the .72 was sharper. I believe there are correction lenses available, though I suspect I would be inclined not to buy them if they were intrusive in any way.

I also noted that the hood on the 35mm Summicron seems poorly placed. I didn't care for the interfering tight-fit with the aperture ring and wondering if the Summilux is better. there was a comment in the archives that it uses a different hood. and finally, the idea of a tabbed focusing ring is good, and am curious as to why it isn't consistent across the entire lens line. it must be a function of lens length, and focusing rotation required, and seems like it would require some acclimation when switching lens types.

thank you for your assistance.

Daniel Taylor Lightsmythe Studios Oregon, USA

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), July 22, 2001

Answers

For the Noctilux I use only the .85 M6 (metered) or the .91 M3 (non- metered) due to the critical focusing wide open. For the 35mm either the .58 or .72 rangefinder is fine. A 35mm on the .85 gives viewing problems for many people, esp those wearing glasses.

I do not use diopter corrections, but I have not heard of any problems with obstruction.

The hood arrangement on the 35mm Summilux does afford more room for the aperature ring. The lens is longer than the Summicron (meaning more viewfinder instrusion) but the Summilux ASPH hood is vented, whereas the Summicron ASPH hood is not. I still haven't figured out why Leica didn't vent the Summicron ASPH hood.

Focusing tabs are a source of never-ending debate here. Some people like them, while others do not. In general you'll find them only on lenses where the construction requires such a narrow focusing ring that you canot otherwise get your fingers in there. In the case of the new Tri-Elmar, it's there to ease confusion between the focusing ring and focal selector ring. In practice, the tab only makes sense on short rotation lenses that do not bring it up as far as the 12 o'clock position. Longer lenses generally rotate past that position, and also have wide focusing rings you can grip easily.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), July 22, 2001.

Picky, picky, picky! You vil take vot der factory makes unt like it. Ja!

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 22, 2001.

Daniel, its a well engineered product design from 50 years ago-not a perfectly engineered product design...

.85 works really well for me for 50mm. I have a .72 (in storage, a long story) which matches with the 35mm.

Since a lot of the Leica M appeal is in the ergonomics, you really can't tell until you use it for a while intensively. Its a very physical/tactile thing, much like getting used to a particular tennis racket or golf club.

The Summicrons are optimal precisely from this point of view-they balance well...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), July 22, 2001.

I have the same problem with the hood of my beloved old 35/f1.4 Summilux interferring with the apature ring. I've tried to jerry build some sort of alternative hood without success.

One lens that seems to handle really well is Konica's 35/f2. They seemed to have gone to great lenghts to make this an elegant lens. It has a focusing tab, there is plenty of room between the hood and apature ring. And the hood itself is nicely vented so that there is really no obstruction in the viewfinder of a Leica M-6. I imagine the optical quality is good too. I use my Summilux 35/f1.4 on my Hexar because the auto-shutter makes for less apature fiddling. Might get the Konica 35/f2 and use it on my M-6!

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4u.or.jp), July 22, 2001.

Folks might be interested to know that the circular vented hood for the older Canadian 35/2 (and 50/2) fits the 35/2 ASPH and pre-ASPH . The rectangular plastic hoods for those lenses will not, however, retrofit the older 35/2 without grinding off the protruding tab that interlocks the aperture setting index mark.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 22, 2001.

I have never noticed any focusing error with a 50/2 wide open at closest focus on the 0.58 body. And, Leica suggests that the Noctilux (and 75mm Summilux) can be accurately focused with the 0.58 body (see the .pdf file for the 0.58 body at leica.com). I would probably get the 0.85 body, however, if I was planning to shoot at close range (1-3 meters) with a Noct' wide open. Though, I have no experience with this lens personally. I assume you know that the 'lux and 'cron focus closer than the Noct'.

I don't quite understand what you mean about the 35 'cron hood being poorly placed. In the end, it was the excellent hood on the 'cron that tipped the scale with respect to the 'lux for me. Perhaps it is the close proximity between the focusing ring, aperture ring, and hood release buttons you are referring to. Yes they are close together, but the user quickly becomes famiar with the arrangement with some use of the lens. I have no problem adjusting the aperture ring on the 35 'cron, and I have used this lens just a very few weeks.

I also have no problem switching between and tabbed and non-tabbed lens. In fact, it helps to remind me of which lens I am shooting with, and the attendant differences that involves. The "50" is my people lens and the 35 my "places" lens.

Daniel, I feel a concern that you are going to purchase a bag full of Leica stuff, head out to Africa, and then return frustrated and perhaps critical of Leica due to a perception about poorly planned ergonomics among the various items you are using. Perhaps such a criticism would not be completely unfair, as the Leica product range covers designs that are as recent as 2000, and as old as 1954. However, the Leica experience involves the user being forced to do things in ways they may not otherwise follow. Good and bad. Similar I suppose to Hasselblad in that the photographer must figure everything out for himself (or herself). And be sure to get it all right to accomplish a quality exposure with that camera. However, in the case of a Leica, this all may have to occur much more quickly. Thus, the actions of metering, setting shutter speed and aperture, and focusing must become second nature to you, or the results will most certainly suffer (I do have first hand experience on this point). But when all goes well, it is magic with a Leica. Perhaps this is a large part of the Leica mystique we talk about. It is not just the camera, but the interaction the photogrpaher has with the camera (an imperfect camera to be sure). This can leave you frustrated and critical, or it can lead to a sense of accomplishment, confidence, and even power. This, I think, is why so many experienced Leica users recommend getting a single lens and shooting with it for a while before expanding the kit.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), July 22, 2001.

thanks all. I grew up with rangefinders, and still have my grandfather's Petri. to love Hasselblad like I do, you have to love its quirks and march to a different drummer. I have the advantage that I am not a collector and can only judge what I see. rather than buying a lens based on mythology or the pack preference, I'll purchase the one that works for me. if the hood is a poor design which may prevent me from accomplishing my goals, I will look for an alternative. simple. what works for me might not work for anyone else.

I plan to purchase one lens, learn it like a glove, same with the M6 till I can set it in my sleep. the rest will follow ..

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), July 23, 2001.

thanks Dan. I know exactly what you mean and understand your concerns. I prefer the perspective I have, of defining my requirements, and selecting Leica equipment that meets them. in lieu of, buying equipment based on the mystique, legend, and personal preferences of others. that is where, I believe, trouble brews and the user quickly finds that mystique is not enough to sustain the experience positively.

I have no hesitation in crafting a workaround method of using a lens or camera that doesn't meld perfectly with my expectations and requirements. however, it is best to identify them and evaluate alternatives. from my very limited exposure to the 35mm Summicron, I was rather surprised that Leica would implement the hood release such that the release tabs tended to unnecessarily infringe upon the precious space between hood and aperture ring. probably not an issue at all after ten minutes of use. the requirements for focusing a 50mm f1.0 lens are much greater than a f2 design, and Leica seemed to be acknowledging that the .58 is at the fringe of being able to use this lens. marketing surely overruled engineerings objections.

I love a camera with character. and I too believe, that the interactions between photographer and camera help influence the direction traveled. I suspect the Leica will be an engaging companion.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), July 23, 2001.

Daniel,

In Ewrin Puts' new book he states the effective base needed with a circle of blur of .02mm:

35F1.4 11.4 50F1 32.5 90F2 63.1

He give these effective base lengths for the various model M's:

.58 40.17 .72 49.86 .85 58.86 .92 63.71

I'm sure you are going to have fun no matter the what you end up with!

Cheers.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), July 24, 2001.

so, Simon acording to E. Puts a .58 finder is plenty enough for a 50/1.0, and a 90/2.0 is hardly covered by the .92 of the M3, am I rigth? I thought the deep of focus in the Noctilux was shallower than in the 90/2.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 24, 2001.

Roberto, I also used to think the DOF requirements for fast normals were just as great as for slower long lenses. I was misled by a staement in my Leica Manual that claims that DOF is ultimately determined only by by the iris diameter. According to that, a 50mm f2, with an iris diameter of 25mm, and a 100mm f/4, with the same iris diameter, ought to have the same DOF. Not so, as a few minutes spent with a set of DOF tables will show. As focal length increases, DOF shrinks FAST.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 24, 2001.

The DOF calculator at http://members.home.net/gillettm/DOF.html is useful for quickly appreciating these differences. At 3 metres a 50mm f1 gives 21cm DOF whilst 90mm f2 gives only 13cm using a CC of 0.03mm.

I also found an old article on DOF at http://www.anstendig.org/FlawedStateOfPhotog.html which I found very interesting. It exalts the virtues of precise focusing, which surprised me given the numerous proponents of a hyperfocal approach to focusing.

-- enrique munoz (enrique.munoz@ru.pwcglobal.com), July 25, 2001.

DOF tables are best utilized in comparisions of different lens at settings that correspond to similar magnifications.

DOF is smallest up close. You will be much closer in a head shot with a 50 than with a 90.

Erwin Puts is clear that even with the .58 finder the Noctilux can accurately be utilised. Bases on many users' comments, this is not the case in reality.

He notes that calculations with SLR's and 50mm lenses give an effective base of 9.82mm. That's a little less than the 32.5mm needed for a 50F1. Still most SLR shooters are able to get good results with the ubiquitous 50F1.4. I know I do.

Cheers.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), July 26, 2001.

Simon, you had me thinking about your comment. If my understanding is correct (and I may be totally wrong), at an identical magnification and f stop, the depth of field is exactly the same irrespective of the focal length.

For example a 90mm lens 3.6m distance at f2 gives the same magnification as a 50mm lens 2m distance at f2, both with the same depth of field (about 19cm).

I guess that with a 90mm you will usually shoot higher magnifications, so peharps you will be working with less depth of field. However if you are shooting the same magnification, say a portrait, a typical distance with a 50mm might be 1.2m which is equivalent to 2.16m with a 90mm. This gives DOF of 3cm for 50mm at f1 and 6cm for 90mm at f2. So to me a Noctilux at f1 is harder to focus than a 90mm at f2. This is different to the conclusion I see from people that understand these things far better than I do. Where am I going wrong?

-- enrique munoz (enrique.munoz@ru.pwcglobal.com), July 26, 2001.