Third-Party Leica Thread Mount Lens Tests...Done!

bmattock

bmattock

Veteran
Local time
6:12 AM
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
10,654
Location
Detroit Area
View My Gallery
All:

With regard to the recent discussions on rangefinder lenses, I did some test shots indoors yesterday, processed the negs, scanned them, and now they're online for your approval.

The model is my dear wife, Ann-Marie - and a few shots of my cat, Pooka. Both were extra-ordinarily patient with me. Last time I posted a picture of my wife online, I got a remark about her 'unfriendly' expression - so be nice. She's very friendly, and very kind to have put up with this nonsense yesterday.

With all that said, hope you enjoy the pictures! I was fortunate to be able to reproduce the difference between a Leica Hektor 135 LTM and most other Japanese 135 LTM's. It's quite startling!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

My Third-Party Lens Tests
 
You really have been doing some shopping around for lenses. It might be worth mentioning that Steve Gandy (www.cameraquest.com) has comments on a number of Leica and non-Leica screw-mount type lenses that have appeared over the years. But no photos to show what the words mean!
 
dll927 said:
You really have been doing some shopping around for lenses. It might be worth mentioning that Steve Gandy (www.cameraquest.com) has comments on a number of Leica and non-Leica screw-mount type lenses that have appeared over the years. But no photos to show what the words mean!
Click to expand...

I depended a lot on Steven's website (also Karen Nakamura) to try to make some rational choices in third-party Leica screw-mount lenses for my Bessa R. I can't help it, I love a bargain, so I just keep buying those inexpensive (relative to genuine Leica) lenses and testing them out. I wanted to share that information in a meaningful way with all of you guys in case you find yourself in the same boat.

I just picked up another A. Schacht Travenar lens - this time, the 135mm f3.5 to complement my 90mm f2.8. I can't believe it - I got it for something like $60 on eBay, and it appears very much to have never even been mounted on a camera! The seller said the lens was 'clean' but I can't see ANYTHING on the lens, even with my bright light and 8x loupe! The threads were pristine until I screwed it onto my Bessa R for the first time - so I think it had never even been mounted on a camera! It's much lighter and shorter than my Canon Serenar 135 lenses, and I suspect that if it is anything like my other Schacht Travenar, I'm going to love it!

I realize that my lenses don't measure up to current standards in Leica lenses, but they were great for their time, and I really enjoy using them.

Thanks for responding, I was beginning to think no one cared at all!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Thanks for responding, I was beginning to think no one cared at all!

sorry bill!
i did take a quick look at the comparo shots and had planned to go back for a longer look see but never did.

your efforts and energy are much appreciated around here!

joe
 
Joe,

Didn't mean for that to sound as whiny as it must have done - I just recalled we had a spirited discussion about Hektor and Elmar and so on Leica SM lenses, so I got ambitious and set up what I thought was a nice lens comparo - and no one responded at all. I guess I figured no one really cared what the actual images from the different lenses looked like - just talking about them.

I hope someone got some use of the comparisons - it helped me, actually. I was surprised to see how different, for example, the Hektor lens looked compared to the others - but how closely it resembled my Canon FL 135mm SLR lens - seems strange.

I'll keep doing lens and camera reviews/tests and posting the results if anyone actually wants to see them.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Please keep up the good work Bill, seriously. You always come with new, useful and fun surprises to the forum, we would miss that for sure.

All the best,

Oscar
 
Thanks, Oscar! Very kind words!

My wife and I went out Sunday to get a few pictures with the Bessa R and the Canon SM 85mm f1.9 - I had a feeling it might be a nice portrait lens - because it's not hell-bent-for-leather sharp like the A. Schacht Travenar, but it has a pleasant softness to it.

I think I was right - this is a flattering portait lens. What do you think? Taken in bright light (that's why my wife's eyes are shut, I had her facing right into it), no filter, f4.0 at a distance of about 10 feet. Camera tripod mounted. Film was Kodak Black and White 400 (C-41).

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Last edited:
Bill, I missed this thread entirely. This is very nice work! I haven't collected lenses up to now, but this is giving me ideas...

OT: one thing the tests show is how sharp those Canon FD lenses are. Those pre-EOS lenses were excellent.

Gene
 
bobinarabia said:
Thank your lovely lady for her patience.

Certainly a sharp lens with great bokeh, too.

Cheers,
Bob
Click to expand...

Bob,

My wife is indeed a patient woman - she married me, and I'm no prize! She just rolls her eyes and says "That's nice, dear" when yet another eBay find comes rolling into our small apartment. Thanks for the kind words!

As to the lens - the Serenar I used for this shot is ok sharp, but not sharp sharp, you know? However, I think it makes a good portrait lens because of that - I'm finding that for portraits, having the ability to clearly show all skin blemishes and so on may not be the best thing...hehehehe.

You're right that the bokeh is pretty. Funny thing, almost all my 1950's era rangefinder lenses have 12 or more aperture leaves, and so the f-stop circle is nearly perfectly round - whereas the newer SLR lenses and even the newer rangefinder lenses typically have 5 aperture leaves - and the bokeh is less nice. It's a shame that manufacturers can't afford to do it right anymore, except for Leitz, and I can't afford their level of perfection.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Gene said:
Bill, I missed this thread entirely. This is very nice work! I haven't collected lenses up to now, but this is giving me ideas...

OT: one thing the tests show is how sharp those Canon FD lenses are. Those pre-EOS lenses were excellent.

Gene
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, the 135 Canon FL lens is PRE-FD, it uses the even older FL mount and the lens itself is about circa 1962 or so. I got it cheap to mount on my Canon FX (a pre-FD-mount SLR), and I was amazed at how razor sharp it is. It certainly rivals my Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5, which is itself a 'cult lens' of some repute.

I have read it before, but I think the 'word' has never really gotten out - the early Canon FD mount prime lenses are perhaps one of the best deals to be had - I don't think that their lenses are rivaled even today, and they were made by the millions, so they are dirt cheap and not really 'collected'. I realize that this is off-topic, but I also know that many of RFF members are also SLR fans - so it bears repeating. I'm not bashing Nikon, but to me, the early Canon FD lenses were just amazing.

There is one fellow out there who writes an interesting piece called the '37th Frame' who swears that the best lens ever made for the money was the Canon FD (breech mount, not bayonet) 50mm f1.4. I've got one myself, have to agree that it's hot stuff.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Bill, this may sounds like another stupid question but did you have trouble focusing that 85/1.9 lens on your Bessa? To me it seems that this 85/1.9 lens need RF baselength of a Leica. Maybe it's just a myth?
 
Kris said:
Bill, this may sounds like another stupid question but did you have trouble focusing that 85/1.9 lens on your Bessa? To me it seems that this 85/1.9 lens need RF baselength of a Leica. Maybe it's just a myth?
Click to expand...

Kris,

No, I had no trouble focusing the 85 on the Bessa. I also had no trouble focusing the 135s, either. My wife was seated about 10 feet in front of me for this test. Perhaps if she had been closer, I would have had more trouble focusing.

I could be wrong, but I believe that the issue I have read about that you're mentioning has to do with focusing longer lenses at the very close end of their focusing capability - in other words, when you get up close and personal with a long lens, you need a wider baseline to get the focus correct.

If I'm wrong on this (and I very well may be), someone please correct me.

But I had no trouble focusing at all, Kris.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
I believe you're right, Bill. And at wide apertures, too. Close & wide really strains the accuracy of the RF, even though the RF gets more accurate for close subjects.

As a case in point, when the Bronica RF645 was introduced, they offered a 135mm f/4.5 lens for it. Some users quickly found they couldn't consistently return to the same focus point wide open at close distances. Part of it was normal manufacturing tolerances; some did better than others.

Dealer Robert White in the UK offered a custom matching service, where the lens was tuned for the customer's body. But Bronica withdrew the lens from production, recalled them, and changed the viewfinder framelines to agree with the 100mm f/4.5 replacement lens.

This brouhaha seriously damaged sales of this camera. They've been offering hefty rebates for over a year to move some product.

And the new 100mm lens's focusing ring will rotate further than the closest marked distance... this is a region where one may experience less reliable focus!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom