[Leica] SL II 20mm /3.5

[cummer at netvigator.com (H&ECummer)]

On 5 Jun 2009, at 2:08 AM, lug-request at leica-users.org wrote:

> From: "David Rodgers" <drodgers at casefarms.com>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Neica Leikon system - the SL - II 20mm/3.5 and
>       180mm   3.4 APO
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
> Message-ID:
>       <DC4B73A4105FCE4FAE0CEF799BF84B36052E95DE at 
> case-email.casefoods.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;     charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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.

I would go for the 20 - the 19 is about equivalent but I haven't done  
extensive testing


>
>
> 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).

My 19 Elmarit Version 1 fits without modification - the newer version  
doesn't fit

>
>
> 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 :-)

Suggest you try one when available

>
>
> Also, I enjoyed your images!

Thank you Cheers
Howard

>
>
> DaveR