Huss
Veteran
I found the M9/E clunky. But that completely disappeared with the M240. And those do not feel at all flimsy.
Meeting your heroes: What lenses have you lusted after only to not get along with?
- Thread starter NaChase
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 38
- Views 2K
I found the M9/E clunky. But that completely disappeared with the M240. And those do not feel at all flimsy.
Takkun
Ian M.
While I'd now disagree (prices notwithstanding!), I completely respect your opinion.
I switched over from Nikon the the M8 a while back and would agree it's a bit of an ergonomic nightmare and not a joy to use compared to a film M. Made a lot of great work with it and got to use my vintage lenses regardless, and while I know a maxim often heard is that it's about the lenses, not the camera, it doesn't help if you don't actually enjoy using it! The camera itself felt like it was milled out of a solid billet of brass (a nice feeling, especially while I use Nikon's lesser bodies), operating the digital controls was like going back to DOS. The shutter sound and complete lack of meaningful information displays (a necessary evil with digital) is what really made it feel cheap to me.
Moved up to the 262 this month and it's an absolute joy to use in comparison, especially that shutter and a menu that makes sense. I can see how the M10 with LV and an ISO dial might be of even more utility, but I don't regret skipping over the M9.
I was reading an article about the old Digital Modul-R of 2003, and was a bit shocked to see that the M9 even hadn't really departed much from it.
Side note, I did think it was a nice touch to use the Leica typeface for the display. For a company that values clean aesthetics, the M8/9 interface was shockingly ugly.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
The Nikkor AF 50 1.8 D.
Although it is my main lens for all my Nikon SLRs I find it to have very harsh contrast and distracting bokeh when used wide open. Every other 50mm lens I used is more pleasing. I still go ahead and use it though, maybe I should invest on the 1.4 maybe.
Although it is my main lens for all my Nikon SLRs I find it to have very harsh contrast and distracting bokeh when used wide open. Every other 50mm lens I used is more pleasing. I still go ahead and use it though, maybe I should invest on the 1.4 maybe.
bayernfan
Well-known
Agreed, the M9 did feel clunky, particularly the buttons and controls. The screen was low-res and awful (even for menu use). The M240 is far more refined and a great deal more enjoyable to use.
aizan
Veteran
The 35mm Summicron ASPH let me down with its bokeh behavior in settings with lots of backlit foliage. No regrets selling it on.
Takkun
Ian M.
Bill Pierce started a thread a little while ago about the utility/value of faster vs slower lenses and that got me thinking about this; I owned the slightly earlier non-D version of the 50/1.8 and still own the pre-AI 50/1.4. Wildly different renderings, and while that could be chalked up to a 30 year gap, I noticed a similar distinction between the AF 85/1.8 and 1.4 versions.
While I don't know if I fully trust the veracity of a website called 'ilovehatephotography,' this article mentions that the 50/1.4 is a Planar formula but the 1.8 a Tessar-type lens.
That explains a lot of the optical difference aside from max aperture (and the build, obviously) between the two.
froyd
Veteran
Another vote for the 50/2 Zeiss Planar.
I'm a big fan for the Zeiss Contax G lenses, so I was looking forward to similar performance from the ZM line. At least for the Planar, the magic dust that Zeiss sprinkled on the G lenses did not make it on the M-mount, and to top it off, the ergonomics did not appeal to me one bit. On paper I thought the 1/3 stops and focus nub would not be a big deal, but in practice i hated them.
I'm a big fan for the Zeiss Contax G lenses, so I was looking forward to similar performance from the ZM line. At least for the Planar, the magic dust that Zeiss sprinkled on the G lenses did not make it on the M-mount, and to top it off, the ergonomics did not appeal to me one bit. On paper I thought the 1/3 stops and focus nub would not be a big deal, but in practice i hated them.
stompyq
Well-known
Konica Hexar AF. I've tried this camera on and off 6 times (that's 6 cameras). Mostly on account of the rabid following it seems to have both here and on the rest of the internet. Just meh. Nothing special. limited and dated with a mediocre lens compared to whats available. Wish I had kept mine though considering how insane the prices are right now
Huss
Veteran
Also the feel of the shutter release button on the M9 is one of the worst I’ve experienced on any camera bar my old Zenit 12sd.
PRJ
Another Day in Paradise
I solved my Rollei TLR buy/sell/buy/sell/buy/sell problem by buying a Zeiss Ikoflex with a Tessar lens. It isn't worth enough to worry about it sitting in a drawer, and I have a decent TLR if I ever want to channel my inner Newton/Avedon. I think I've put one roll of film through it in the decade since I got it.
Mjd-djm
Established
Yep, I didn’t rate that camera either. I was surprised by how distinctly average it was.
drew.saunders
Well-known
When I got my first Leica, an M6 from Don Chatterton, it came with a 50 Summicron, and, although it was a fine lens, the optical assembly came loose from the focusing helicoid while on a trip (making for surprisingly few out of focus shots, as it settled into place if the camera was level or pointing up, and it failed at Yosemite, where you do a lot of pointing up!).
Leica NJ fixed it for a very reasonable price, but it wasn't really the most solid feeling lens after, so I eventually sold it after getting a CV Nokton 50/1.5 LTM (since replaced by the M version, but just for the closer focus, there was nothing wrong with my first Nokton). I tried an Elmar 5cm/3.5 from the early M days (not an LTM), and it was also fine, but I sold it in favor of a modern 50/2.8 from the late 90's, which I really like.
This may make me sound like a lens swapper, but those are the only Leica or Leica-mount lenses that I've sold, all the others I've kept.
Leica NJ fixed it for a very reasonable price, but it wasn't really the most solid feeling lens after, so I eventually sold it after getting a CV Nokton 50/1.5 LTM (since replaced by the M version, but just for the closer focus, there was nothing wrong with my first Nokton). I tried an Elmar 5cm/3.5 from the early M days (not an LTM), and it was also fine, but I sold it in favor of a modern 50/2.8 from the late 90's, which I really like.
This may make me sound like a lens swapper, but those are the only Leica or Leica-mount lenses that I've sold, all the others I've kept.
Huss
Veteran
I still have mine but I am very disappointed in how awful it is in controlling lens flare. My Asph 28 2.8 is great, so what gives?
bayernfan
Well-known
even with the hood in place?
90mm "fat" Tele-Elmarit... Bought new in 1968, carried a lot but little used. Strangely enough I like 75mm, and 85mm is a favorite on SLR but somehow the 90mm gets no love on my RF cams. Don't care for the handling/focus action and the 90mm frames are quite small in the M2. I still have it, not sure why!
Buying a zoom for an SLR almost guarantees disappointment. Heavy, slow, not so great optically. A short-to-medium always seems attractive but fails in use. Longer zooms are just too big. Short zooms like 20-35mm seem more useful. The only really good zoom I have ever had is the wide-to-normal 55-100 f/4.5 for Pentax 67. Weighs a ton!
Buying a zoom for an SLR almost guarantees disappointment. Heavy, slow, not so great optically. A short-to-medium always seems attractive but fails in use. Longer zooms are just too big. Short zooms like 20-35mm seem more useful. The only really good zoom I have ever had is the wide-to-normal 55-100 f/4.5 for Pentax 67. Weighs a ton!
Mute-on
Well-known
My experience precisely, on both the rangefinder and SLR fronts.
Most embarrassing is that I own both a chrome fat 90 T-E and a chrome 90 Elmarit M. Other than mounting them on a body once or twice, neither has ever been used to take a picture. Pathetic, I know, but I am equally loathed to sell them in case I get an urge to use a 90 on a Leica M.
For me, the appeal of Leica M is for 50mm and wider focal lengths. Longer than 50 just doesn’t seem to feel right at all ...
Yep, even with the hood in place (speaking for myself, though I'd place money on Huss's experience being the same). My new Ultron 35/2 is more than a worthy replacement for my Summicron 35mm ASPH so I'll offload the latter lens when I get a round tuit.
Huss
Veteran
Yep, even with hood in place and no uv/skylight etc filter.
Really really disappointing. It makes me wonder why the lens cost so much. I guess it all went into the nice feeling build and styling.
