Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Holger: One thing I have noticed about the M3 is that there seems to be an issue about engagement angle between the focusing roller and the lens cam. It is my guess that if they are not completely parallel, the M3 viewfinder will show an error. I had a similar problem with one Leica lens and an M3 (both items worked perfectly with a host of other bodies and lenses). You might have the roller arm angle checked on the camera. My Hexanon 90 works perfectly with my M3 - focusing and on film. The other possibility is that you camera is just on the edge of proper rangefinder alignment, and adding the natural tolerances through the system, the RF is off. With a 90, the RF shows deviation long before you would see anything on the film plane. Dante > Dear LUGers, > > My name is Holger Merlitz and since a couple of months I have been a > "passive member" of LUG, just following the discussions as presented in > the archives. There was a Konica Hexar RF - Leica M compatibility thread > > coming up several times and I think I should share one observation which > > I have made recently when using the 90mm F2.8 Hexanon on my Leica M2: > > When focusing on a far distant object, I am not able to bring both > images > in the focusing window on top of each other. The lens, set on > 'infinity', just > remains slightly hyperfocal according to the rangefinder. This is not a > consequence of any rangefinder misalignment, as I have checked with my > other lenses (including Leica as well as Cosina/Voigtlander), which > perfectly > match the same object on 'infinity'. It is only the Hexanon displaying > such a mismatch, which is small: I estimate it to amount to 1/4 of the > width > of the 90mm framelines in my viewfinder. Under usual conditions it is > practically > invisible, but during my trip to Hong Kong, where you have those huge > neon letters > on top of far distant skyscrapers, it was clearly discernible, as well > as the > fact that my other lenses do perfectly match. > > I think the fact that I can't focus an object at infinity may indicate > that > the lens is designed to fit to a camera body with a larger lens-to-film > distance, is this correct? This would be in agreement with the claim > that the > Hexar RF body is actually 28.00 mm deep instead of 27.80 as the Leica M. > > Of course I don't know whether the observed deviation of 1/4 frameline > width > corresponds to 0.2 mm lens-to-film distance. Does any of you LUGers have > a clue? > > Does it have any effects on the image quality? Not that I have observed > any. My > images are nicely sharp, not only at infinity but at all distances. No > wonder > since the deviation of 1/4 frameline width is certainly well covered > within the > DOF of the F2.8 lens. But things may be different when using a Noctilux > or the > 75mm F1.4 on the Hexar body. As far as my 90mm Hexanon is concerned, > I am very > much satisfied with the performance of the lens and I do not worry about > any > potential tiny incompatibility. > > With regards, > Holger Merlitz, > Karlsruhe > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - ------------ Dante Stella http://www.dantestella.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html