Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I am also surprised to read that the lenses designed for 35mm have the coverage of the 645. 200mm is believable, but 90mm has to be a stretch, and I just unscrewed the optical unit off my 50mm DR, and tried. It didn't quite cover 6x4.5cm area, and I don't expect anything shorter than 50mm to have the coverage either (except maybe the PC lens). Another problem with shorter lenses is that they don't provide enough clearance for the mirror box. Regards, Gang Huang AT&T Bell Laboratories gang@mtdcr.att.com At 06:43 PM 4/11/96 +0100, joe b. wrote: >Unghhh prfft skrfffftttt! > >Once in a blue moon, I hear something that revises my understanding of >the universe I inhabit. > >So, some questions. > >(1) When you say you have these M lenses converted, what exactly do you >have done to them? Can this be done by fitting M lenses into a custom >made converter, or do the lenses actually have to be modified? > >(2) You refer to coverage on the negative. Is the coverage good enough >to use slide film in this setup without vignetting? > >(3) How do you select which lenses to do this with? What I mean is- do >you select those particular focal lengths for any reason to do with >compatibility with this format, or are they simply the focal lengths you >would want to use anyay? > >Anticipating some slightly different medium format photography... >-- >joe b. > >