I wonder what experience people have had of using e.g. 75f1.4/90f2 on M6 bodies - I have heard mixed reports about the viability of handling, framing etc. I want a setup for dance photography, rehearsals and some inconspicuous photojournalistic wedding photography. I used to get by with a Contax rx and 85 1.4 which was great...but lens was flare prone and viewfinder (despite, or perhaps because of dioptric correction) was never really sharp and often images were soft (not a problem that I've ever had with any of the other (many) slr setups I've had before or since.) I have to say, on another issue, that some of the advice re: the magnification of the m6ttl vf seems a little dubious to me - I think so much depends on the shape of your face and whether or not you wear glasses : trying to see the whole 35 frame (at once) on a 0.72 meant having to force the camera so close to my eye that my eyelashes were pressed against the glass of my spectacles - after a while leaving smears! Seeing the 28 frame was out of the question. Despite this I love using leica rangefinders and I perversely refuse to return to slrs. So, I suppose my 2nd question relates to add on v/fs for when I need to use a 35 or whether it's better to "scan" accross the frame and not even attempt to see the whole picture "in one go". By the way, I love this user group - extraordinarily altruistic for this late in the age, and I look forward to your responses.

ps For what my opinion is worth, I prefer Robert Appleby's photographs to Harvey's - I think they are more strongly composed (I think DAH relies a little too much on light and...sometimes, I have to say I get a little bored of the 35 mm perspective - it can be slightly "quiet" for my taste. Somebody please tell me who Appleby works for/where his work is published...

pps. Sam Abell seems to have gone over to Canon in the latest Geographic...

-- Stephen Jones (stephen_jones_et_al@hotmail.co.uk), February 10, 2001

Answers

Stephen, I have no problem using my 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit on my M6 or M2. The bright-line frame is still large enough within the finder to permit effective composition. The same would, of course, be true of the 90 Summicron. I can't comment on the 75mm from an experience standpoint because I don't have one. However, judging by the looks of the finder frame, I think I would find it a very useful focal length. I would like a slower 75mm, like f/2 or f/2.8, from a size, weight, and cost standpoint. There is a non-Leica 75mm f/2.5.

In looking through the finder frame for the 135mm f/4, I feel that the finder area for framing is too small. Of course, the 135 f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit has the optical converter that lets you use the 90mm frame area. But the lens is bulky to store, and at this focal length reflex viewing begins to be advantageous; so I have 135mm only for my R4.

Let me recommend a useful Leica-M accessory: contact lenses! They help a lot with 28mm and 35mm lenses. Though at my age I then have to wear reading glasses to adjust the camera . . .

Alternatively, how about a .58 model for your 35mm lens? Contacts are cheaper, though.

Best Wishes,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 10, 2001.

90/2 and of course 2.8 are fine on any Leica M but the frameline shows much less than actually gets on film at distances over about 5m. I use the preselector lever to call up the 75 frameline to frame the 90 at infinity, it is almost exact. I have no trouble with the 135 frame, I suppose I'm used to it. I also have brightline finders for 90 and 135, which I use for landscape. They're really unbeatable, giving life-size images, but of course they're no good for fast focus-and-shoot. I found two helpful solutions for the 35 framelines in the 0.72 M6: one was buying a pair of glasses with flexible frames and the "featherweight" lenses which are thinner. Pressing the M6 close enough to gather in the 35 frame is much easier. I don't have a problem with my eyelashes smearing the lenses, but if I did I imagine that could easily be remedied with a little careful trimming with a very blunt scissors ; ) Second, I find that if I keep my eye centered in the finder looking straight ahead, my peripheral vision picks up the entire 35 frame, whereas if I scan, part of the frame is always blocked. As owner of a Hexar RF where I can see the 28 frame, I must say I still prefer the add-on viewfinder. A 28 has the "wide angle look" which the accessory finder simulates. The camera's finder frames it ok but the results are often spatially much different than what I saw in the finder.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 10, 2001.

My findings are a bit different than both Bob and Jay's. I have all but given up on using anything longer than 50mm on my M's. It is not the framing, or the focusing accuracy, but for me the overall balance of the lens / camera combination. While I can exceed the "one over" rule with my standard and wide angle lenses, I can't seem to stabilize the telephoto for handholding as easy as I can with an SLR. This might be because I am a left-eye dominate shooter, and it is more pronounced during vertical shooting. With an SLR, I hold the lens in the "Y" formed by the thumb and index finger of my left hand, while keeping the shutter release up. The weight of the camera body balances the lens, and I consistently can use 1/60th of a second with the 105mm Nikkor. On the rangefinder camera, the above grip doesn't work for me, because the bracing hand obstructs the main viewfinder window. I tried to use the camera with the shutter release down, but then my bracing hand covers the rangefinder window. During horizontal shooting, it is not a big problem, but for people, I like to go vertical for effectively using the whole piece of film... no dead space. I also tried to focus horizontal, then recompose vertical, but this slows the process, eliminating the "speed" of a RF Leica.

The shorter lenses are no problem because of the weight / size in relation to the petite body... the lens needs no additional support. Additionally, the focusing tabs on the lenses keep your hands on the body, allowing a single finger to control the focus and aperture ring. Even for vertical compositions, I use the exact hand position for the shorter lenses as I do for the horizontal ones.

For me, as much as I love my 90mm Leica lens, I have settled on a Nikon FM2 and a 105mm f/2.5 for my planned tele shots, while a second camera, the M6 with 35mm Summicron, covers my normal / wide shots. This two camera outfit work for me better than putting up with the fiddling of the long lens on the M6. About 75% of the time, I just use the Leica, unless I know I want to do a tight headshot. At the risk of being blasted, the 105mm Nikkor is an outstanding lens, and I don't feel that I am giving up anything by using it. Any optical disadvantages, (I don't think there are any), are made up in the handling.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 10, 2001.

I use to work more on long lenses (90,135) with my M3, now I use a 90/2, in my M3, and is fine, for sure short lenses feel better in M bodies (35,28,50,21), any way I try to use as many lenses as I have so Iīm familiar with all, but 35 is now my main, some thimes I think in selling all and buy a 35/1.4 asph, By the way I agree on Stephen words about Appleby work; I just love the foot of the girl in his cover image, unfortunately I canīt find that in most of the rest of his portafolios.

-- rwatson (al1231234@hotmail.com), February 10, 2001.

"I think so much depends on the shape of your face and whether or not you wear glasses : trying to see the whole 35 frame (at once) on a 0.72 meant having to force the camera so close to my eye that my eyelashes were pressed against the glass of my spectacles - after a while leaving smears! "

Stephen I have the same problem, more with my eyebrows which are getting bushier with age. My solution is - and this drives my wife crazy - to trim them with my beard trimmer! Since I'm fair haired this makes it look as if I don't have eyebrows - but my glasses are clean! I'm also considering Lasik surgery, but have my doubts. In the end I get along well with shaved eyebrows and glasses.

The lengths some people will go to...

Rob.

-- Robert Appleby (laintal@tin.it), February 10, 2001.

Stephen,

I think the best thing about using the 90mm 2.8 on the (regular) M6 is that the developed negatives/transparencies always look so much better than the scene you remember when looking through the viewfinder and composing with those meager little framelines. At least to me, the subject being framed with the 90's famelines looks so damned small in the viewfinder that it takes all the pleasure out of composing. And forget using the 135mm with its even tinier framelines.

Al's observation about the lack of the focussing tab is another one of my criticisms of the 90 2.8 Elamarit, particularly his description of wanting to support the body with part of your focussing hand while using just a finger or two to manipulate the tab. Without the tab you have to fully gasp the 90's ridged focussing ring, which is a bit on the stiff side, with both the index finger and thumb to accurately focus it. There is very little support for the body. And with vertical compositions it feels even more unwieldy.

Consequently, I find myself using the 90 less than I want to. And when I do, it's more of a hit-or-miss process, not the carefully thought out process I usually go through with the 50 or 35.

-- Sergio Ortega (s.ortega@worldnet.att.net), February 10, 2001.

I should clarify that I no longer own a 90/2, I agree that operating this lens in vertical leads to inevitable covering of the finder windows with hands. I use the 90/2.8, current and thin Tele-Elmarit, 135 APO-Telyt and E39-version Tele-Elmar with no problem re: vertical shots. I also have no problem turning the focus rings with the side of my finger, and do not long for a focus tab.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 10, 2001.

I would have to agree with Al about the handling of the 90 on an M body. Nethertheless it is not a major problem, it just requires more care. I find that my 90/2 APO has a stiff focussing ring especially up close when doing portraits and rather than try to focus it I tend to just move back or forwards a fraction until the eyes are in focus. I have had more than a few fuzzy shots until I learn't to do this. This lens is really too sharp for portrait work too. I rue the day I sold my Nikon F2AS and Nikkor 105/2.5 lens, one of the best portrait 35mm lenses ever made, razor sharp stopped down but very slightly soft wide open with beautiful out of focus rendition.

I find the 90 frame line on the .72 version ok but I would prefer the .85 version for tele work. If I wore glasses I would definitely want the .85 version and a .58 version for the 35. I use a correction lens on the eyepiece of my .72 and it's pretty good although I have lost a slight bit of magnification. The best solution would be to hire, if possible, a 90 or 75 and try them out.

-- mitch brown (leicameter@hotmail.com), February 10, 2001.

The advantage of the 0.85 for use with 90 and 135 lenses is overrated in terms of expanding the frames of 90 and 135mm. The increase in frame size is a factor of 0.13 which results in a less significant dimensional increase the smaller the frames are to start with. Ironically it is the 50 and 35 frames which are inflated the most on an 0.85 over the 0.72. The most significant advantage is the effective baselength, for more accurate focusing. But I used an 0.85 for a 75/1.4 and found the same % of soft shots wide open as with the 0.72. My 135/3.4 APO-Telyt focuses quite well wide open at 1.5m on an 0.72.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 10, 2001.

I don't have experience using the M6, but I have no trouble with handling or focusing the 90/2 on my M3. I won't dispute that others might not like the combination, but it's unfair to say that problems are inevitable.

Shot below was made with the 90 Summicron.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 10, 2001.

Nice shot Mike!

My comments were not meant to indicate that the longer lenses are not viable on a Leica M... obviously they are. I just think that not having to think about keeping the three windows on the front of the camera unobstructed by hand and fingers, allows the user to concentrate on operations (focus and aperture) and stability... and here I think the SLR shines.

For horizontal shots, like yours here, I have no problems at all with the M. For verticals, I'll pick the SLR if given the choice. If all I have is my Leica, the 90 will still get the shot... but as Sergio says, it is a bit hit or miss though.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 10, 2001.

I use the 90mm APO on my M6TTL .72 and have no focus-accuracy problems. Framing accuracy has not been a big problem for me with this system either(?) I will have to agree with Al... The 90 works just fine in the horizontal orientation, but requires re-positioning the left hand slightly for support in the vertical orientation, which slows you down on focussing a bit. With a bit of practice this has become almost second nature, but admittedly slower. (BTW see the earlier question about the focus tabs... I have temporarily added an electrical "zip-tie" to the focus ring of my 90. This gives you a "nub" to put your index finger on and focus with, and helps in the vert position too. This was only going to be a temporary test initially, until I found the ideal position for the tab, but it seems to work so well I may just spot glue it in place!) Anyway, I have found that more and more with all M lenses, I use the trick described above by Mitch - move in and out to match your subject for small focus corrections - when shooting a series of shots in low light this can be faster than some AF systems!

Jack

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 10, 2001.

Jack,

".. I have temporarily added an electrical "zip-tie" to the focus ring of my 90". That's one humdinger of an idea, I'm going to try it on my 90 and my late model tabless 50 as well.

-- mitch brown (leicameter@hotmail.com), February 10, 2001.

I'm not sure I get all of the heart-wringing about 90/2 lenses and Ms. I use the earliest 90/2 on an M3, and I find that it is nearly an ideal portrait combination. I think the M is perhaps better suited to short teles than to wide lenses because the framelines work more like cropping squares when you can see outside of them. Plus, the 90 and the 75 lenses focus very close (for M lenses), so you can actually exclude enough extraneous crap to make an effective portrait composition in candid circumstances.

AND, dance photography is where I've had the most success with M action photography. The click of the shutter tells you which part of the action you've captured, and with music playing there's no way they can hear you.

Yes, the 90/2 is enormous and makes you conspicuous. I'm willing to live with that for the flexibilty it allows you with f/2.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), February 11, 2001.

I tend to agree with Al on the issue of telephotos on rangefinders. When I use a wideangle, it usually is because my intent is to show my subject in context to its surroundings and the window of the rangefinder is suberb for this. But when I use a tele (usually a 90) I want to close in and seperate my subject from its surroundings and concentrate on it (the subject). For this I find the groundglass of the SLR and its ability to show what's in focus and what's not invaluable. This plus the fact that there isn't the surrounding area that is visible around a rangefinders framelines lets me get more of a feel of what the resulting image is going to look like. For this reason when I use a 90 it's usually on my R3. But at the same time if I could only take one camera, it would still be the 'classic' M plus 35/50/90.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 11, 2001.

Thank you all very much indeed for the kind and rapid responses- these really are very much appreciated. I love the photograph from Mike Dixon - very much the kind of "caught moment" that I try to capture (with limited success...) in my dance photography. Please keep the answers coming...(It's incredibly difficult to get real (i.e. from actual practitioners) advice on anything but Nikon and Canon...

-- Steve Jones (stephen_jones_et_al@hotmail.co.uk), February 11, 2001.