Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Another set up (with my Micro Viso):
Visoflex on M9
- Thread starter Ronald M
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 32
- Views 8K
Ben Z
Veteran
I can only offer my observations with the equipment I have (M8 and Canon 20D/5D-I), and like Jaap said, in the end it comes down to a matter of personal taste, eg. I have never found the prints from the Canon files any less sharp than prints from the M8 when both are processed with workflows geared specifically for each.
I have used the 400/6.8 (what I call the Trombone Telyt) on the M8 (Viso-III masked down for the crop) which gives an effective 530mm. And I've used that lens on the 20D (effective 640mm) and 5D-I. The IQ on the M8 and 20D are both excellent at lower ISOs, but given the lens's slow speed and somewhat ungainly ergonomics I like to use as high a shutter speed as I can, therefore the 20D's superior lack of noise at ISO 800 and 1600 gives it an edge (plus it's a lot less cumbersome vs the Visoflex setup). On the 5D, the Telyt's pronounced field curvature is more evident due to the larger image circle, and I would expect that to hold true with the M9 for the same reason. Still, the performance and utility of that lens is so good that I sold my Canon EF 400/5.6L. PS I use a 72-67 stepdown on the front lens-retaining ring threads, and a 67mm IR filter for the M8, but an E49 with the male threads ground off (or the glass transposed into a Series-7 mount) would work in the rear slot. Two added advantages of using the lens on a Canon are that I can use AE (never seemed to get it to work well on the M8 just after the mirror trips no matter how carefully I adjusted the trip arm of the Visoflex), and also the very good EF-1.4x Canon teleconverter, which I own, rather than having to buy an expensive Leica 1.4x-APO-R.
My only other Visoflex-capable lens is the 135mm Tele Elmar head on a Universal Short Focus Mount. I have used that also on the M8+Viso-III (180mm effective), and both the 20D (216mm effective) and 5D-I. There isn't much that can be said about the 135 T-E other that it is sharp and contrasty and near-APO quality, even wide open. I have only one other prime 135mm lens to compare to that I can mount on the Canons, an old Nikkor f/3.5, and as expected, the Leica lens is far better in all respects. I have the Canon 28-135/IS and 70-300/IS but although they are great performers they are not L lenses, let alone not primes. The hassle of un-doing the lens head and the baffle and switching to the short mount is enough of a drag that I rarely do it, so for the most part the T-E is used directly on the M8. I have an old Canon rangefinder 13.5cm shoe finder whose eye relief is such that because of my glasses, limits me fortuitously to an almost exact 180mm view.
I have used the 400/6.8 (what I call the Trombone Telyt) on the M8 (Viso-III masked down for the crop) which gives an effective 530mm. And I've used that lens on the 20D (effective 640mm) and 5D-I. The IQ on the M8 and 20D are both excellent at lower ISOs, but given the lens's slow speed and somewhat ungainly ergonomics I like to use as high a shutter speed as I can, therefore the 20D's superior lack of noise at ISO 800 and 1600 gives it an edge (plus it's a lot less cumbersome vs the Visoflex setup). On the 5D, the Telyt's pronounced field curvature is more evident due to the larger image circle, and I would expect that to hold true with the M9 for the same reason. Still, the performance and utility of that lens is so good that I sold my Canon EF 400/5.6L. PS I use a 72-67 stepdown on the front lens-retaining ring threads, and a 67mm IR filter for the M8, but an E49 with the male threads ground off (or the glass transposed into a Series-7 mount) would work in the rear slot. Two added advantages of using the lens on a Canon are that I can use AE (never seemed to get it to work well on the M8 just after the mirror trips no matter how carefully I adjusted the trip arm of the Visoflex), and also the very good EF-1.4x Canon teleconverter, which I own, rather than having to buy an expensive Leica 1.4x-APO-R.
My only other Visoflex-capable lens is the 135mm Tele Elmar head on a Universal Short Focus Mount. I have used that also on the M8+Viso-III (180mm effective), and both the 20D (216mm effective) and 5D-I. There isn't much that can be said about the 135 T-E other that it is sharp and contrasty and near-APO quality, even wide open. I have only one other prime 135mm lens to compare to that I can mount on the Canons, an old Nikkor f/3.5, and as expected, the Leica lens is far better in all respects. I have the Canon 28-135/IS and 70-300/IS but although they are great performers they are not L lenses, let alone not primes. The hassle of un-doing the lens head and the baffle and switching to the short mount is enough of a drag that I rarely do it, so for the most part the T-E is used directly on the M8. I have an old Canon rangefinder 13.5cm shoe finder whose eye relief is such that because of my glasses, limits me fortuitously to an almost exact 180mm view.
Last edited:
Bébèrt
Established
Telyt 560 f5.6 on the M9 gives some severe vignetting.
Car at about 1000 meters (3280feet)
M9 + Visoflex III + Televit + Telyt 560 f 5,6
Car at about 1000 meters (3280feet)
M9 + Visoflex III + Televit + Telyt 560 f 5,6
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Are you sure it's not the hood? It's an obvious question, of course, but sometimes one can overlook the obvious..
Cheers,
R.
Ronald M
Veteran
Thank you all.
Bébèrt
Established
The Telyt 560 and 400 have a built-in hood and therefore should not be the cause of the vignetting only if the original design had been wrong.
In 1979 these lenses where made with a max aperture of 6.8 and this might indicate there was something wrong.
(not just the curvature field but maybe also the vignetting)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Trying out the 280/4.8 Telyt-V first version on the M9 today. The lens is not supposed to be very good, but I think the results are excellent, especially the saturated colors it produces. Good bokeh too.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
OK: not just obvious but wrong. Strange! I'm now going to see if I can borrow them to see what happens with my M9. Again, I'm not calling you wrong for an instant: I'm just VERY puzzled and want to see what happens with the MP and M9 side by side.
Cheers,
R.
Bébèrt
Established
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Got III for M-E today from west end of Canada, camera store in Victoria, BC.
With Jipiter-3.
To increase the distance I used Nikon F to M adapter with Vivitar zoom on it:
Indoors with natural light requires ISO2500 and 1/15 for handheld:
Outside it is less critical:
With Jipiter-3.
To increase the distance I used Nikon F to M adapter with Vivitar zoom on it:
Indoors with natural light requires ISO2500 and 1/15 for handheld:
Outside it is less critical:
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
That looks fun Ko.Fe! Much more fun than cutting up collages...
How bright is the finder?
How bright is the finder?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
😉
With f22 and overcast it is mission impossible.
f8 and wider with same overcast light is fine.
I will try do build the rig for LED light panel.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
With some non prestige enlarger lens via close up ring.
Same flowers as above:
1.5mm wire:
No bugs. Snow is coming on this weekend...
Same flowers as above:
1.5mm wire:
No bugs. Snow is coming on this weekend...