Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/05/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Most of my macro work is done with the Viso II or III and a 65 Elmar, which I find to be a very fine lens. If I need more distance between me and the the subject, I use the lens head of my 135 Hector or even the 200 f4 Telyt. The Hector is Excellent and the Telyt is very good. kw >I would appreciate it if folks would comment on the various lenses used >for Macro & copy work in the Leica system. I have a M-2 with in addition >to the usual 21, 35, 50 & 90mm lenses, a Visoflex II and bellows and a >Leicaflex SL with 35 & 180mm lenses > >The only remnant of my Nikon outfit is an F body and a 55mm:2.8 Micro >Nikkor, the only Nikon lens I have owned which has been really >satisfactory. The only thing is this is another heavy body to carry >around for a limited use. > >I have been told that the Visoflex is preferable for copy work over the >Leicaflex & R series due to being a 100% view focusing screen. > >I have an adapter for the 90:2.8 & 65:3.5 lenses for the bellows, Is >there one for the old style 90:2 Summicron? If there was would the lens >be any good for copy work? Which 90:2.8 are they talking about on this >adapter & would it be a good copy lens? > >I do both a fair amount of both copy work and field work: copying flat >art for my wife and a couple of friends and photographing botanical >details with the macro lens as semi-abstract images... I rarely go >close enough to want an extension ring on the Micro Nikkor. > >What are the differences among the versions of the 60:2.8R? Do they >focus as close as the Nikkor (1:2) before resorting to extension tubes? > >Thank you for wading through my ramblings, > > - John Lowther - ---- Ken Wilcox Carolyn's Personal Touch Portraits Davison Middle School preferred---> <wilcox@umcc.umich.edu> 600 Dayton, Davison, MI 48423 <kwilcox@genesee.freenet.org>