[Leica] Neica Leikon system - the SL - II 20mm/3.5 and 180mm 3.4 APO

[drodgers at casefarms.com (David Rodgers)]

Howard,

Thanks I look forward to any feedback you might have on the Voightlander
20/3.5. I thought about a used 19 Elmarit. From what I've seen, it would
be roughly 5 times the cost of a new 20/3.5. There's also the size
issue, as you mention. 

Finally, if I'm not mistaken, for the 19 to work on an FX body I think
some filing of the lens is required, albeit minimal. As you know, with
most R lenses using a Leitax adapter doesn't require any modification to
the lens, outside of unscrewing the base. I did have to file out the
Leitax adapter very slightly so the diaphragm lever wouldn't rub on the
28. I didn't actually file the adapter, but just used some 400 grit
sandpaper. (Note to self: better to modify the adapter than the lens). 

The reason I'd go with a 19 R is that I like consistency. For instance,
I can switch from one R lens to another and they operate and feel pretty
much the same. I bought the 50/2 cron for that reason. I have 45P and
50/1.4 Nikkors. They each feel differently from the 28 and 90 Elmarits.
And the 50/1.4 is AF, which adds another dimension. 

My fondness for consistency might seem odd. But when I get accustomed to
something it becomes second nature and I can photograph away with giving
much thought to the equipment. It depends on what it is, but even a
slight difference can throw me...until I get used to it...then it throws
me again when I move back. I also have to trust my equipment, and Leica
lenses deliver. 

Moving from a D700 to an M6 and back is a big adjustment. One reason I'm
glad I don't have an M8 is that I'm forced to shoot film if I want to
use a rangefinder. Shooting film is sort of like working out. A lot of
times you really don't feel like doing it, but once you do it you're
glad you did :-). 

We talk about digital and film interchangeably, but they're light years
apart, if you ask me. Very different mediums. Like using charcoal is
different from using oils. 

I don't swap out lenses a whole lot. With digital it goes back to fear
of getting dust on the sensor. I like zooms for that reason, but I think
I photograph better with primes. 

I could probably live with just a 50mm lens (on a full frame sensor).
That's the angle of view I'm most comfortable with. Second would be 28,
give or take. 

The 20/3.5 just looks interesting :-) 

Also, I enjoyed your images! 

DaveR


-----Original Message-----
From: H&ECummer [mailto:cummer at netvigator.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:59 AM
To: lug at leica-users.org
Subject: [Leica] Neica Leikon system - the SL - II 20mm/3.5 and 180mm
3.4 APO

>
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:50:01 -0400
> From: "David Rodgers" <drodgers at casefarms.com>
> Subject: [Leica] The Neica Leikon system expands
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
>
> Two lenses I may get in the future are the 180/3.4 APO and the 20/3.5
> Voightlander SL-II, although I'm quite content for now.
>
> Dave R

Hi David,
Congrats on the expansion to your Neica Leikon system!
I have both lenses you are considering and think you will
find them very suitable on the D700. The tiny 20/3.5 (just picked up
from Joseph Yao last week) performs about as well as my 19mm Elmarit V1
and is 1/4 the size if you look at them in terms of front elements. It  
has the
advantage of having the Nikon Chip embedded in it so auto aperture
can be used.
Pictures with the 180 APO on the D700 are here:
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Howard+Cummer/R+lenses+on+Nikon+D700/
Let's see more pictures!!
Cheers
Howard