Phil_Hawkes
Established
Hi all,
I am considering buying a Leica 135/3.4 primarily for photographing dance events, photographing from around 15-20 m away from the dancers.
I was searching through the R-D1 forum, and noticed that there are very few comments on using a 135mm on the R-D1. I was hoping that those who have actually used a 135mm on the R-D1 would comment on focussing/framing/usability/etc.
Thanks in advance,
Phil
I am considering buying a Leica 135/3.4 primarily for photographing dance events, photographing from around 15-20 m away from the dancers.
I was searching through the R-D1 forum, and noticed that there are very few comments on using a 135mm on the R-D1. I was hoping that those who have actually used a 135mm on the R-D1 would comment on focussing/framing/usability/etc.
Thanks in advance,
Phil
LCT
ex-newbie
Due to the short base length of the rangefinder, it is difficult to focus accurately 135mm lenses at wider apertures than f/8.
The pic below (full frame and 100% crop) has been shot at f/5.6 with a 45 yo Elmar 135/4.
Had to shoot it 3 times before i found out the right focussing distance.
FWIW,
Best,
LCT
The pic below (full frame and 100% crop) has been shot at f/5.6 with a 45 yo Elmar 135/4.
Had to shoot it 3 times before i found out the right focussing distance.
FWIW,
Best,
LCT
rvaubel
Well-known
LCT
Man O' Man... is that your ATMOS? I got my wife a Reverso 10 years ago, best thing I every did. She finally understood what GAS was.
Rex
Man O' Man... is that your ATMOS? I got my wife a Reverso 10 years ago, best thing I every did. She finally understood what GAS was.
Rex
Phil_Hawkes
Established
Thanks for that info LCT.LCT said:
Do you have any comments on shooting the 135 from a further distance... say 15+ metres?
Cheers,
Phil
LCT
ex-newbie
rvaubel said:
Yes but it's out of gas for now...
Takes as long as Leicas to get it repaired i'm afraid.
Best,
LCT
LCT
ex-newbie
Phil_Hawkes said:
Same i'm afraid.
As well as the Leica CL or even the 0.58x Leica M (sans Visoflex), the R-D1 is not made for 135mm lenses actually.
It does not mean that all your pictures will be blurred for sure but your success rate will be low at wider apertures than f/8 IMHO.
BTW it's not quite sure if the Digital M will have a 135mm frame either so i would take my time before purchasing a 135/3.4 if i were you, unless you intend to use it on a film body of course.
Best,
LCT
Last edited:
edlaurpic
Established
I purchased a 135 f/3.4 for use on my M bodies and have occasionally used it on the R-D1 i previously owned. I took very few pictures with it, mostly because I find that a 90 is all I ever need for the subjects I usually shoot.
That said, I did take some time to shoot a series of photos of my son's Brittany pointer retrieving by prefocusing on a spot on the lawn and then snapping the shot as the dog "flew" over it.
Here is one of the photos, which is a favorite.
Ed
That said, I did take some time to shoot a series of photos of my son's Brittany pointer retrieving by prefocusing on a spot on the lawn and then snapping the shot as the dog "flew" over it.
Here is one of the photos, which is a favorite.
Ed
Attachments
Phil_Hawkes
Established
Thanks for the comments.
Even though the comments were negative; for some reason (or for lack of reason
) I decided to give the 135/3.4 a go. I fully expect that I won't find the lens as useable as I would like at max aperture. I fully authorize the contributors to this thread to give me a public whippping if I EVER complain
Now I just have to wait as the lens makes it way across the Pacific to Australia.
Phil
P.S. As some background about this purchase: I have been saving up for a couple of months towards buying a 2nd hand modern Leica lens as a reward/incentive (for myself) for reaching a tough deadline at work. I was planning on the 50 Asph Summilux to add to my noctilux or a 35 asph'lux to replace my pre-asph 35'lux. Just when I was almost decided on one of those two, I heard of an upcoming dancing event hat I'll be photographing.
For that event, the 35 or 50 would not offer significant opportunities over what I already have, while the 135mm will hopefully allow me to get some nice closeups (provided I can get a good balance of focus-ability and speed). Now I am just hoping I haven't made a really dumb decision!!!
Even though the comments were negative; for some reason (or for lack of reason
) I decided to give the 135/3.4 a go. I fully expect that I won't find the lens as useable as I would like at max aperture. I fully authorize the contributors to this thread to give me a public whippping if I EVER complain Now I just have to wait as the lens makes it way across the Pacific to Australia.
Phil
P.S. As some background about this purchase: I have been saving up for a couple of months towards buying a 2nd hand modern Leica lens as a reward/incentive (for myself) for reaching a tough deadline at work. I was planning on the 50 Asph Summilux to add to my noctilux or a 35 asph'lux to replace my pre-asph 35'lux. Just when I was almost decided on one of those two, I heard of an upcoming dancing event hat I'll be photographing.
For that event, the 35 or 50 would not offer significant opportunities over what I already have, while the 135mm will hopefully allow me to get some nice closeups (provided I can get a good balance of focus-ability and speed). Now I am just hoping I haven't made a really dumb decision!!!
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Just out of curiosity, what are you planning to use for a viewfinder?
I should say that I've got a 135mm f/2.8 Komura and have used it on my R-D 1 for photographing dancers onstage, with mixed results. The problem wasn't so much focusing accuracy, which can be handled fairly well if you're careful, but that it was really difficult to make sure that my Tewe zoom finder (the only thing I had that can handle the 135's 206mm effective focal length) was pointed exactly the same direction as the lens. There has to be a bit of play in the accessory shoe to allow accessories to slip in and out easily, but this also allows the finder to point slightly offline compared to the lens. This was my biggest problem using this combo.
I have had a pretty good success rate using a 100mm f/2 Canon lens on my R-D 1 for dance photography, and since this lens is more demanding of RF accuracy at maximum aperture than an 135/3.4, I think you probably can manage the focusing issue as long as your rangefinder is perfectly adjusted and you take some care in focusing. For example, use the "split-image" technique as often as you can (find a vertical line in the subject and line it up using the sharp edge of the rangefinder patch.) Also, repairman Don Goldberg has reported (and I can partly confirm) that some R-D 1 rangefinders have a slight "backlash" when you reverse focusing direction; this means that you get better focusing accuracy if you turn the focusing ring in one direction and stop when you get to the correct focus point, rather than sawing back and forth. This hasn't affected me with most of the lenses I use, but did make a difference when using the 135/2.8 Komura.
Good luck!
I should say that I've got a 135mm f/2.8 Komura and have used it on my R-D 1 for photographing dancers onstage, with mixed results. The problem wasn't so much focusing accuracy, which can be handled fairly well if you're careful, but that it was really difficult to make sure that my Tewe zoom finder (the only thing I had that can handle the 135's 206mm effective focal length) was pointed exactly the same direction as the lens. There has to be a bit of play in the accessory shoe to allow accessories to slip in and out easily, but this also allows the finder to point slightly offline compared to the lens. This was my biggest problem using this combo.
I have had a pretty good success rate using a 100mm f/2 Canon lens on my R-D 1 for dance photography, and since this lens is more demanding of RF accuracy at maximum aperture than an 135/3.4, I think you probably can manage the focusing issue as long as your rangefinder is perfectly adjusted and you take some care in focusing. For example, use the "split-image" technique as often as you can (find a vertical line in the subject and line it up using the sharp edge of the rangefinder patch.) Also, repairman Don Goldberg has reported (and I can partly confirm) that some R-D 1 rangefinders have a slight "backlash" when you reverse focusing direction; this means that you get better focusing accuracy if you turn the focusing ring in one direction and stop when you get to the correct focus point, rather than sawing back and forth. This hasn't affected me with most of the lenses I use, but did make a difference when using the 135/2.8 Komura.
Good luck!
Phil_Hawkes
Established
Thanks for your comments jlw.
I wasn't planning on using a viewfinder. I figured that if framing was so sensitive them I porbably won't have time to move from rangefinder to viewfinder before the dancer is out of focus again!!!
I was hoping to be able to approximate framing using the focussing patch as a reference point. I'll let you know how that goes.
I don't think I have focussing backlash. My cameras seem to be focussing really well at present.
Phil
I wasn't planning on using a viewfinder. I figured that if framing was so sensitive them I porbably won't have time to move from rangefinder to viewfinder before the dancer is out of focus again!!!
I was hoping to be able to approximate framing using the focussing patch as a reference point. I'll let you know how that goes.
I don't think I have focussing backlash. My cameras seem to be focussing really well at present.
Phil
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Phil_Hawkes said:
That should work pretty well. Recently I was asked to photograph some podium speakers at a museum, and that was the approach I took.
I knew where the speakers were going to be -- behind the podium -- and I was also constrained to a fixed point in the audience. So I took one shot using my best guess as to composition, noting where various "landmarks" in the scene fell in relation to the viewfinder's RF patch and framelines.
Then I previewed the test frame on the R-D 1's LCD and noted how much of the actual scene was in the picture. After that, all I had to do was make sure I had the camera aimed the same relative to the "landmarks" and that the intended subjects were within the part of the scene that would be in the picture.
It sounds awkward, but once you get used to it, you can frame pretty tightly with confidence. I'm attaching one of the pictures from the museum shoot: It shows kinda-famous wildlife photographer Thomas Mangelsen discussing his somewhat-famous "Catch of the Day" photo. This was with the 100/2 Canon lens; I was using an auxiliary viewfinder, but the surroundings were so dark that it wasn't much use, and I had to fall back on the "landmark/preview" method of framing.
This might seem like a restrictive way to work when you're photographing dancers, and in a way it is -- but if your shooting environment is anything like mine, usually there will be only a few areas with really photogenic lighting, good sightlines, etc., so your choices of framing would be somewhat restricted no matter what.
Attachments
ducttape
Established
If that's restrictive I'd like to see your 'easy' shots! You nailed that podium picture perfectly, imho. Thank you for sharing that one.