Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The first one (Amateur Photo) I read - and the article itself talked about low finder magnification being a factor. I think the real issue is that the travel for 1m to infinity is 1/4 turn, vs 1/2. It gives you the opportunity to overshoot the subject. But that's more of a design tradeoff to allow faster focusing. One thing that I didn't like about the 90/2.8 Elmarit-M was that the travel was too long (ditto for the 90/2). The vignetting (in the article, "falloff") was not listed as much of a problem in PopPhoto. And as a potential design issue, it is not a quality control one. It's something the bedevils all wideangles. - ------------ Dante Stella On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, John Collier wrote: > Amateur Photographer had focusing problems with a 90/2.8 while PopPhoto had > none. PopPhoto had vignetting with the 28/2.8 which persisted through out > the whole aperture range while others have claimed that the lens is the > equal of the Leica. That is two which come to mind without digging. > > John Collier > > > From: Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu> > > > > What was the problem with the lenses? That's the first I've ever > > heard about that. Of course, it's getting hard to separate statistics > > from innuendo with this thing... All test reports I have seen put the > > lenses at top of the pile, giving deference to Leica. Aside from the > > RF-infinity rumblings and the "too easy" lens release, I have seen nothing > > in the way of complaints. Some infinity problems may be attributable to > > other things. > > > > I think Mikiro is right - if there are problems that can be > > adjusted, it's not a big deal. If I had to pick a QC problem, it would be > > an RF out of adjustment and not bad meters, light leaks, and > > self-disassembling rewind cranks (all seen on this list with M6s). > > > > Personally, I wouldn't buy any rangefinder without an opportunity > > to test it in person. The Hexar RF, although similar in design to the M > > finder, does not have the easily accessible screws for adjustment. Hence, > > it is safest to pick it up in person and not to ship it around. > > > > On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, John Collier wrote: > > > >> The focusing problems that I have read about, are not limited to Leica > >> lenses, they also affect the Konica lenses as well. There seems to be a bit > >> of a quality control problem with the Hexar RF and its lenses. I have read > >> both praise and damnation from unbiased sources and little rhyme nor reason > >> to explain the differences in opinion. > >> > >> John Collier > >> > >>> From: Ernest Nitka <enitka@twcny.rr.com> > >>> > >>> Dante - Many thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts down on "paper" > >>> - I very much appreciate this effort. After posting the question I came up > >>> with some hypothetical responses myself > >>> -ernie ur getting old ( true 'nuff) and so are your eyes > >>> -50/1 is tough even with M6 classic > >>> -how do your work horse lenses compare and does the DOF even wide open at > >>> f/2 cover up the problem? The answer is that with 35/2, 35/1.4 and 50/2 > >>> seemed to be close enough for the DOF to handle when open all the way open. > >>> Also brought out the M4 to check and all three ( M4, M6 and hexar) were all > >>> reasonably close. > >>> > >>> Perhaps a tempest in a teapot so long as I don't shoot 50/1 or 90/2.8 wide > >>> open. On the other hand when I presented the problem to my wife (standard > >>> issue leica spouse -"what the hell do you need another camera for") her > >>> response is that If I need a Hexar lens to test I should just go out and buy > >>> it - so there may me a silver lining to this cloud. > >>> > >>> Now for the inverse ? Anyone have problems taking Hexar lenses and using > >>> them on M bodies? > >>> > >> > > >