135mm question

[John Camp]

A couple of related questions, two conceptual and one factual (I've been trying to accumulate some thoughts about the practicality of a 135mm on the m8.)

1. Since you have an essentially instant review of the shot on the M8's LCD, it would seem to me that you could put on a 135, shoot some well-defined pictures (like a house) and by comparing the viewfinder view with the LCD, quickly learn how to frame a shot without any actual frames; that is, twice the size of the split image focusing glass, or two thirds of it, or whatever. Right? Maybe?

2. If you use the 135 primarily for outdoor telephoto work (landscapes) rather than low-light telephoto, or indoor portrait, or where you're close and focusing is critical, then there's no focusing problem. You just slam it over on infinity, f8, and shoot. Right?

3. Which brings up the third question: at, say, f5.6, with a common Leica 135mm lens, what is the closest distance that will be in focus when the lens is set at infinity? Anybody? Anybody?

JC

 

[Bob Ross]

2. If you use the 135 primarily for outdoor telephoto work (landscapes) rather than low-light telephoto, or indoor portrait, or where you're close and focusing is critical, then there's no focusing problem. You just slam it over on infinity, f8, and shoot. Right?

3. Which brings up the third question: at, say, f5.6, with a common Leica 135mm lens, what is the closest distance that will be in focus when the lens is set at infinity? Anybody? Anybody?

JC

Hi John,
I ran your question through DOF MAster's calculator, that Roland gave the link to, using 10,000ft as infinity and got 405.7ft.
Using Harold Merkingler's approach, things the size of the actual diameter of the aperture will be recognizable, so f/5.6 would yield 24mm and half that at f/11, where diffraction may start to be noticeable. At least with the M8 we can test these theories out with fast results and no costs.
Bob

 

[jaapv]

@ 1. I looked into that when i handled the M8; The width was about 3 RF patches, the heigth about 2 1/2 RF patches. Easy, but a bit small to compose a decent image, even when using the 1.25 Okular. On the other hand, focussing of the 3.4 135 apo was unproblematic (with the magnifier). In all events, I think the 2.8/135 with goggles is preferable.

 

[ZeissFan]

Don't forget that you would need to correct for parallax for closeups. A bit of testing might tell you how much you need to adjust.

Amateur Photographer said the M8 is not recommended for use with the most recent version of the 135. However, I think the article said that it would be OK with the goggled version.

It had to do something with the rangefinder patch being roughly the same size as the coverage area for the 135mm and the inability to consistently focus with accuracy.

I'm sure that this will not stop people from doing it anyway, and I'm curious to see how difficult framing and focusing will be.

 

[AndyPiper]

"Don't forget that you would need to correct for parallax for closeups."

Ahh- the magic is that the RF patch in M cameras (including the M8) MOVES along with the framelines for parallax correction (something that was unfortunately not true with the Epson R-D1). Therefore, the patch works for pointing a 135 at any distance.

If one likes the "rule of thirds" for composition, just placing either end of the M8's RF patch on something - say, a face - will automatically position that face offset in the frame at the 1/3rd point in a 135mm lens image.

I've always considered M framelines more as pointing devices than framing devices, (even the real frames are poor for corner to corner framing precision) - and in that paradigm the RF patch makes a fairly decent pointing device for the 135.

 

[jaapv]

Amateur Photographer said the M8 is not recommended for use with the most recent version of the 135. However, I think the article said that it would be OK with the goggled version.

This would not be the first time Amateur Photographer got something wrong about Leica digital. Remember the red herring (sorry-red reflection ) on the DMR. I tried it myself at the Photokina and despite interior light and jostling crowds 18 out of 20 shots with the 3.4 apo 135 were perfectly focussed, using the 1.25 Okular. They are parroting an earlier Leica publication here. However Leica now tells their customers that this lens can be used without restrictions, albeit (obviously) without framelines or coding.

 

[edlaurpic]

I have used the 135 f/3.4 wide open in a jazz club on the Rd-1, no less, and got some terrific pictures, albeit with a fair amount of chimping until I figured out what the lens was taking in. I personally have found using the RF patch in the R-D1 worked well enough to approximate the shot. As noted, there is parallax to deal with in the R-d1 but not with the M8. But even with the R-d1 after one "practice" shat, I was able to shoot again and capture the image. I also use a magnifier made in Japan for the R-d1 which increases magnification (I believe) to 1.3. A lens like the 135 isn't a "grab shot" lens anyway, so taking a couple of practice shots before homing in for the final one doesn't bother me. That said I am looking forward to using it on the M8 with the 1.25 magnifier and auto parallax. If I can locate the jazz shots I will post a couple.

 

[Ben Z]

If I do get an M8 I fully intend to use my 135 T-E for which I paid the princely sum of $265 as it is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used and for as long as I've been using Leicas I've missed the 180-200mm focal length. I happen to have a shoe-mount zoom finder of some unknown brand that goes from 35-200mm with a stop at 180, which may be my finder of choice. Or, I may mask one of the single 135mm Leitz finders I have lying around. If none of those are comfortable, I do have the short focusing mount that goes with the Visoflex (would need to mark off the GG screen for the crop factor).

 

[lxlim]

"Don't forget that you would need to correct for parallax for closeups."

Ahh- the magic is that the RF patch in M cameras (including the M8) MOVES along with the framelines for parallax correction (something that was unfortunately not true with the Epson R-D1). Therefore, the patch works for pointing a 135 at any distance.

If one likes the "rule of thirds" for composition, just placing either end of the M8's RF patch on something - say, a face - will automatically position that face offset in the frame at the 1/3rd point in a 135mm lens image.

I've always considered M framelines more as pointing devices than framing devices, (even the real frames are poor for corner to corner framing precision) - and in that paradigm the RF patch makes a fairly decent pointing device for the 135.

Does this means that if my framing needs are not critical and say my subject is about 90 to 150' away the 135mm f3.4 is likely to be consistently accurate? I'm asking as a Canon user considering the Leica M for concert photography?

Alex

 

[boilerdoc2]

I have the 135 goggled version and always wondered why I got it for such a good price (~$300). Especially when it takes such great photos. And it says Leica on it. It's heavy but a wonderful portrait lens on the M7. Can't wait to give it a try on the M8.

 

[jaapv]

Does this means that if my framing needs are not critical and say my subject is about 90 to 150' away the 135mm f3.4 is likely to be consistently accurate? I'm asking as a Canon user considering the Leica M for concert photography?
Alex

I think it will be fine and consistently accurate, particularly when using a viewfinder magnifier. In general I like doing that on any Leica M camera at focal lengths over 50 mm, especially with fast lenses.
But why not use the 2.8/135? For your use it has a number of advantages.
1.higher speed.
2.larger image due to goggles.
3.better low-light focussing due to same goggles.
4.better handholdability due to greater weight. 1/30th should be possible.
5.framelines on the M8. (it uses 90 mm framelines)

 

[lxlim]

I think it will be fine and consistently accurate, particularly when using a viewfinder magnifier. In general I like doing that on any Leica M camera at focal lengths over 50 mm, especially with fast lenses.
But why not use the 2.8/135? For your use it has a number of advantages.
1.higher speed.
2.larger image due to goggles.
3.better low-light focussing due to same goggles.
4.better handholdability due to greater weight. 1/30th should be possible.
5.framelines on the M8. (it uses 90 mm framelines)

Thanks Jaap for the info. I will look into that. Could not find a new 135mm f2.8 in my country though (Singapore).

How difficult is it to change lenses quickly with the 135mm f2.8?

alex

 

[Jan Brittenson]

2. If you use the 135 primarily for outdoor telephoto work (landscapes) rather than low-light telephoto, or indoor portrait, or where you're close and focusing is critical, then there's no focusing problem. You just slam it over on infinity, f8, and shoot. Right?

That's what I'll be using a 135 for. It's not that different from the 210 on a Mamiya 7 if you're familiar with that, except a bit longer of course. Get an accessory viewfinder with a reasonable magnification to go with it.

You do need to focus and stop down the lens, and will notice if you don't, even near infinity. People who say you won't don't shoot landscapes.

Ken Rockwell has an article on balancing diffraction vs DOF. I have his scale added to the back of my Mamiya 7 and it works extremely well. I also have similar scale on the focusing knob of my Toyo 45.
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm

For the M8 I might have it done as a plasticized sticker that can go on the top plate.

Here's the scale on my Mamiya 7:
http://www.rockgarden.net/download/m7scale.jpg
Toyo 4x5:
http://www.rockgarden.net/download/a45iiscale.jpg

Very simple to make, but takes the guesswork out of shooting.

(If someone reads this and doesn't understand what's discussed, or why it's useful, then you probably don't need it. )

 

[jaapv]

Thanks Jaap for the info. I will look into that. Could not find a new 135mm f2.8 in my country though (Singapore).

How difficult is it to change lenses quickly with the 135mm f2.8?

alex

There are no new ones. Second hand only. Look for instance on the ffordes website. They have a number of very good ones.
The lens is just as easy to change as any other M-lens....click on, click off...
The only thing is, because of the goggles it is slightly bulkier. And it is not a light lens.
The optical cell is exactly the same as the highly regarded 135/2.8 R
All three versions from 1966 onwards have similar good optical quality with only minor differences. If you want to nit-pick the second version is maybe the best for the M8. The newest one has a slightly better performance in the field and corners,so a bit more even on film, but the second one is very sligthly more contrasty in the center.

 

[jaapv]

You do need to focus and stop down the lens, and will notice if you don't, even near infinity. People who say you won't don't shoot landscapes.

How very true. It needs to be said and cannot be said enough...

Ken Rockwell has an article on balancing diffraction vs DOF. I have his scale added to the back of my Mamiya 7 and it works extremely well. I also have similar scale on the focusing knob of my Toyo 45.

I think in the allday battle of taking photographs little lists are not going to work (at least not for me.) I think that for daily use rules of thumb can work very well: I mostly keep in mind that diffraction starts to kick in at smaller than f11, and prefer to keep below that stop. But if there is a choice between losing DOF which will spoil the shot and diffraction I would choose for the diminished overall quality.And most Leica lenses don't stop down beyond f 22 anyway DOF should be in a photographers genes through experience if at all possible. By the time you have checed your table, or looked at the lens scale and measured front distance and rear distance, the light is usually gone...

It is the same with the best quality stopped down vs. wide open. If you are going to spoil your shot through motion blur the ideal aperture is not going to help you...

 

[jaapv]

Like Jaap said. Except: you cann't put the lens on with either grip or (Luigi only?) case. Camera has to be nekid, the goodles
are pretty large (larger than Summaron googles for instance).

Roland.

Yes Thanks. But for size: the outline is obviously the same for both lenses as they have to fit in front of the same windows.. The round telescope is about 4 mm longer, the rectangular one about 2 mm.

 

[jaapv]

I have them side by side here, and am holding the Summaron ones against the Elmarit as I write and actually the Summaron ones are a fraction (about 1mm) larger..
but these are the removable version of the Summaron. Maybe it is different for the fixed.Or the Elmarit goggles have changed during the production run. I have the double tescopic hood version.



As to this question:

3. Which brings up the third question: at, say, f5.6, with a common Leica 135mm lens, what is the closest distance that will be in focus when the lens is set at infinity? Anybody? Anybody?

This is a pretty narrow DOF lens:

All values at 3m distance:

135-2.8
08 cm film
06 cm M8
05 cm RD1

Hyperfocal distance on film for 5.6 is 120 metres. On the M8 probably near 180 metres. For all practical purposes it has NO hyperfocal distance ( see Jan's post), as the hyperfocal distance at f 32, not counting diffraction is still 50 m, giving a DOF from 29 metres to infinity. (on film, 1/3 rd less on the M8)

 

[MarcoS]

Jaap,

I'm glad you found focussing the 135 apo on the M8 quite easy.
I bought this lens used a couple of weeks ago and I love it, but on the R-D1 I really can't focus it with confidence, even with distant subjects (mountains apart...).

I use the Megaperls 1.3x magnifier, but getting the correct focus is always a guess...

I noticed though that trying to focus a subject above 30-50 meters away even if I focus the lens at infinity the RF patch doesn't display a perfectly aligned image, it's as if I'd need to go just a tiny bit beyond infinity.
Could it be that I need to calibrate the 135 apo ?

 

[jaapv]

No. It is simply that on the RD1 you have a short base rangefinder and even the 1:1 or even 1:1.35 magnification won't help much (don't ask me why, it probably has to do with mechanical tolerances). The Leica will be much, much better.

 

[jaapv]

And I'm on my hobbyhorse again: DOF; The M8 is interesting in that respect.
In general DOF is better defined and seemingly steeper on a digital camera for three reasons:
1. The circle of confusion on film is a misconception. As film has a thickness it is threedimensional, so it produces a cone of confusion narrower at the top than on the bottom and distorted as we move away from the centre of the photo.
2. The film emulsion, as a semi-transparant medium, produces microflare as the light refracts and bounces around inside the emulsion
3.The halide crystal lumps are irregular, breaking up the outline of the COC

All this combines to make the COC's less defined and DOF softer on film, as the COC on a sensor is an undisturbed onedimensional circle/oval.
Now on most digital camera's the AA filter, which is basically a matte screen, brings back a modicum of softness in the COC's, softening DOF and Bokeh.
But the M8 lacks this filter making for a very clear transition in sharpness, thus a clearly defined, steep DOF and thus a seemingly more narrow DOF.
Studying the photographs that we have seen, in particular the portraits, clearly bears out this theoretical consideration, making focussing and choosing of aperture on the M8 more critical than we have been used to up till now.