Hi Friends,

Recently I was given a repreave from spine surgery. Bad news is I have a weak foot. So I decided to celebrate not having to spend a month recuperating from surgery by spending two weeks on Maui.

I have pared myself down to an M6 35 summicron, 50 summicron, 90 tele elmarit, 135 tele elmar and an M winder. Alond with a Rollie TLR 2.8D Planar.

After viewing Mike Dixons images with a DR Summicron, should I opt for that, or bite the bullet and purhcase an SLR and macro lens along with a telephoto lens. Or is wide angle more usable in this environment. I will be spending the first week hiking trails on the east side then spending the second week playing obnoxious eastern US tourist on the west side. These images won't be used for my upcomming exhibit at MOMA, just my interpretation of Hawaii. Any and all sugestions welcomed.

Love you Guys Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), March 20, 2002

Answers

Steve: I have a DR Summicron which I really like, but I honestly can't remember the last time I used the eyes with it. Since you already have a summie, it would seem redundent to get a dual range. If you're planning on some close-ups, it could be handy, but your particular style will be the deciding factor. For macro shots, an SLR is a better choice. I use a Nikon F-100 and a Sigma 105mm/f2.8 for that. Opinions vary! Have a great time over there! Let us see a few choice shots when you're back in the lower 48!

-- Ben Hughes (ben@hughesbros.com), March 20, 2002.

So what's so great about the DR Summicron over your regular 50 summicron? I'm sure that if you gave Mike your 50 he could make great images with it too. I think the kit you have now (35,50,90,135) is MORE than comprehensive enough to do what you want and that extra money should go towards film. The more film you shoot, the more your chances of capturing that "quintessential" moment... and that moment is worth more than all your camera stuff put together.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 20, 2002.

While a DR-Summicron and eyes are much more compact, you won't get the magnification or framing accuracy you'd get with an SLR and true macro lens. If you really want to do macro with the M, a Visoflex might be better for the job.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 20, 2002.

As far as macro using the M system, the 50/2 DR takes you only to 1:7 magnification (at the closest distance of about 19-20 in.). The Visoflex III with the 65/3.5 Elmar lens (with universal focussing mount) allows you to focus from infinity down to 1:2.5 with corner-to- corner high definition (it was specifically made for macro work). With an extension tube (I think its code no. 16471) or with the bellows II, you can get to 1:1 or larger.

This is a workable system for macro using an M camera, although the SLR is obviously more convenient.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 20, 2002.

Here is a comparison by a "lens connaisseur" between the current Summicron and the DR:

The bokeh on the DR is relatively sucky. If you really want to play with blur, find yourself a SUMMARIT. In daylight at mid apertures, the "look" of the DR and the current Summicron you have are almost identical. The current Summicron is a tiny bit sharper and the DR is a tiny bit smoother but you really have to look to see it.

-- Mitche Alland (malland@mac.com), March 20, 2002.

Thumbs down on the DR from me as well. I had one, and the close focussing capability was more a novelty than a useful feature for me. I didn't like the OOF rendition, it flared in any kind of backlighting, and it was soft wide open. I sold it within the year.

Do you (want to) shoot a lot of macro? If so, and SLR is the way to go. I had very good luck with the Tamron 90/2.8 SP macro lens. couple it with a lightweight body and you should be pretty happy. Do you want to do tele longer than 135? Then the SLR becomes a requirement. If 135 is OK, stick with the Leica - you'll get nicer slides with that Tele Elmar than you will with most (any?) SLR lenses.

I know that Maui is mostly about flowers - a buddy went a few years back with an F5 and a 200 Micro, and brought back some breathtaking pictures. However, if you're only marginally into the flower thing, you need to ask yourself if you want to cart along a whole extra system just to do that.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), March 20, 2002.

A picture is taken primarily by the photographer, not the lens. I really think that I have to ask Mike Dixon to take pictures with my old lens and wait for the results before I develop a desire to spend lots of money.

Unfortunately I guess that Mike (sorry to cite you all the time, but you were mentioned above) wouldn't have the time and patience to show each one of us that it is the photographer, not the lens who takes the pictures. I guess that even my Yashica 35-ME would give extraordinary results in Mikes hands and only mere average ones in mine.

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), March 20, 2002.

The 50-DR isn't the answer for closeups. If you're not doing macro work already, why start now? You have a great setup. Go, have fun, keep it simple. The pictures will be there, no matter what.

-- Mark Sampson (MSampson45@aol.com), March 20, 2002.

I have pared myself down to an M6 35 summicron, 50 summicron, 90 tele elmarit, 135 tele elmar and an M winder. Alond with a Rollie TLR 2.8D Planar.

You have a bad foot and you're taking all that gear (plus possibly an SLR)?

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), March 20, 2002.

steve:

the reccomendations seem to be going against the dr. since you did not specify a budget, i will suggest a good clean leica sl along with a 60 macro and a 400 telyt. i own the sl and the telyt and they are impressive. all of this can be purchased used.

good luck

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), March 20, 2002.

I to have a redundant 50 'cron and DR (Summarit in storage - too soft). The 50 (no tab) was <$300, a no-brainer; the DR came in a kit w/something else I wanted. Guess which is coming along w/me: the DR. The lenses have a similar profile, but the DR weighs much more. It's true, the eyes are only used for 0.5 m to 1.0 m, but its fun to play with - get closer. The build quality? Guess.

I also have a Viso II w/65, 1:3.5 (scalpel sharp), and 200 1:4.0 (also fun, when I stop traveling). These don't come with me.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 20, 2002.

Just a side comment about SLR Macro. I have the Nikon 60Macro, as well as the Tamron sp 90macro f2.5. both are excellent lenses, however, the latter is my sharpest slr lense I ever had. it has quite few advantages. first, with additional adapter you can put it on many different SLR bodies, so if you just need to add it to your M gear, you can use the superb tiny OM4 of olimpus. since it is a 90mm Macro, if you need real macro work you don't have to come as close to the subject as with a 50-60mm, so you don't end up hiding the light. the quality of that lense is amaizing. in fact, that is the lense that began my jurney for sharper lenses, and better out of focus characteristics, the jurney that ended up with leica (35lux,50cron,75lux,135apo). and this is the only non-leica lense I still find myself using.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), March 20, 2002.

just to give "credit", of course the statement about the tamron comes to second the comment by Paul above.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), March 20, 2002.

Steve,

First, congratulations on dodging the knife. Keep that up.

I spent some wonderful days in Maui years ago. It is an amazing place including a sunken volcano, an eroded volcano, an inactive volcano, tropical rain forests, pineapple plantations, deserts, cattle ranches, alpine forests and flora found nowhere else. There’s all kinds of landscapes, endless views. And oh yeah, sunsets.

There used to be ‘undeveloped’ (local) beaches on the south and north ends of the island. Really neat places. That was 20 years ago. They are probably golf courses by now.

I had one 35mm camera, lenses of 35mm, 50mm and 105mm. I never felt I wanted anything wider than 35, but I did wish for a longer lens. With your kit I’d probably be using the 135 lens and Rollie alot. Macro never occurred to me.

While you’re on the west side of the island, spend a half day to drive up to the summit of Haleakala. 10,800 feet as I recall. You can see the Big Island on a clear day. They close the summit when it’s cloudy, so don’t put it off till the last day. Trust me, it is good. And if you dive get a boat to Molokini.

Aloha,

-- Jeff Stuart (jstuart1@tampabay.rr.com), March 20, 2002.

Steve,

One inexpensive option to consider is a used Olympus OM-2n camera (manual and aperture priority) and one of the excellent Zuiko macro lenses, such as the 50mm f/3.5 or, if you're inclined to spend more, the outstanding Zuiko 90mm f/2 macro lens. The OM-2n can be bought very cheaply and is probably the best of the Olympus SLRs in terms of reliability. If you want a fully mechanical body, you could try an OM- 1n but you'd have to examine it carefully to ensure the shutter is still accurate.

Olympus OM cameras are smaller and lighter than Leica M cameras and are very sturdy. Just avoid the "non-professional" double-digit bodies like the OM-10, OM-20, OM-30, OM-40, which are not so well- made. Later, if you want to expand your macro equipment to included other lenses, bellows, etc., Olympus offers the best range of all manufacturers.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), March 20, 2002.

Thanks everyone for the input,

I am really trying to limit myself to the M system. I had a nice R8 kit but seldon used it. It has been 30 some years since I have been to a tropical environment and want to be sure I am ampaly equiped. Mike's images showed me an example of how close one can shoot with a DR Summicron. I do not like to duplicate focal lengths, but I was trying to stay within the M family. Looks like an SLR with a macro and a telephoto may need to be added. I do have a 90mm 2.5 Tamron kicking around here as well as a 28-80 3.5-4.2 SP Tamron zoom. I think I want to limit an SLR kit to $1000. to $2000. So an SL and an OM are under consideration. Any SLR tips are welcomed. As far as carrying all this equipment with a bum foot I can probably play the sympathy card with my wife an talk her into carrying most of my gear.

Regards

Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpomd@adelphia.net), March 20, 2002.

Steve, What, no 28mm? I'd leave the winder home and bring my 28. Why do you need a separate macro outfit on Maui? But if you just want to get something new, I think I would go with the SLR plus macro lens, as you will find it to be more versatile than the DR in the future.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 20, 2002.

Bob,

I don't know if I need a macro on Maui. Thats why I asked the question. I don't feel compeled to buy something new, I would just hate like hell to get there and say oh shit I wish I had a macro or telephoto. Tell me why I should consider a 28. I have been lusting for a 28 Summicron. And John I really like my 50'cron. It is my most used lens. I was just trying to find a way to get closer.

Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpomd@adelphia.net), March 21, 2002.