|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Jun 15, 2021 15:04:57 GMT -5
The Leica R to Nikon Z adapter arrived ( theM42 and PK got lost in the mail so i ordered them again) The Z will finally solve the index distance problem of the F and D cameras so now i can buy adapters and use (allmost) any make of lens on a full frame Nikon camera. Just had a brief test with the (German) summicron 50mm f2, nothing to show the world but very promising. First i'm going to finish the Canon 7 project and then i'll be concentrating on the Z, try some lenses on it and see how they perform. The main problem once more, will be to find the right subjects to shoot. The Z6 with adapter and the German Summicron next to the SL2 with the Canadian Summicron.  |
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Jun 18, 2021 1:20:22 GMT -5
When I ditched my PenF in favour of the z , I found that the canon EF to Z adapter could acommodate all of my R and Nikon glass that I used on my previous C 5d and an M to Z adapter accomodated my Leica optics. Since I got a MFT-Z adaptyer I recently I tried my old R to MFT adapters and despite the narrower mount neither the 16mm fisheye nor a longer one vignetted, but the OM 135macro did . (Explained in my posts ad Z on the rangefinder forum)
|
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Jun 18, 2021 11:07:20 GMT -5
When I ditched my PenF in favour of the z , I found that the canon EF to Z adapter could acommodate all of my R and Nikon glass that I used on my previous C 5d and an M to Z adapter accomodated my Leica optics. Since I got a MFT-Z adaptyer I recently I tried my old R to MFT adapters and despite the narrower mount neither the 16mm fisheye nor a longer one vignetted, but the OM 135macro did . (Explained in my posts ad Z on the rangefinder forum) These adapters are bliss here's my first test with the Z6 with Zto Leica R adapter and the Nikkor on the FTZ adapter: I've compared the Canadian R Summicron 50mm f2, the German R Summicron 50mm f2 and the Japanese Nikkor 50mmf2. At any aperture there's very little difference between these lenses at f2 the summicrons seem to be a bit better than the Nikkor, maybe the German Summicron is a bit more contrasty? i don't know.Money wise these summicrons cost about ten times more than the Nikkor maybe if the Nikkors were as rare as the Summicrons they would cost just the same... One of these days i'm going to take these lenses outside to do some more testing. here's the results from left to right the canadian, german and japanese. At f2  At f5.6  At f16  The test subject:  |
|
|
|
Post by belgiumreporter on Jun 20, 2021 6:19:04 GMT -5
Here's a comparison between two "macro" lenses: the Leica R Elmar 100mmF4 and the AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm F2.8 G ED. Now calling the Elmar a "macro" lens is a bit of a stretch as it will only go to 1:4 magnification while the Nikkor goes down to 1:1. To make the comparison fair i've set both lenses at 1:4 magnification. Now the Elmar isn't regarded as the best Leitz has ever produced and it shows. At f4 and f5.6 the Nikkor has a slight edge over the Elmar, at f11 the Nikkor outperforms the Elmar. Still the Elmar is a very well made lens and a joy to use because of its smooth operation, the Nikkor of course is a much more modern and an AF lens wich can't technically be compared to the Elmar. Price wise i guess the Elmar and the Nikkor can be found second hand at around the same price. Still should you want to counterfeite Euro bills, the Nikkor should be the one to go for   The images are uploaded in full res. on ingBB clicking on the image will bring you there. 
The performance of the Elmar is nothing to be ashamed of: Shot at f4 :  |
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Jun 20, 2021 7:01:49 GMT -5
No experience with more recent elmars, but did use one ancient one with Ilford FP3. In a less distant past I used the M.mount 90mmtele-elmarit (slim version) but discarded it due to lack of contrast in favour of the tiny apo-lanthar. Later I got an elderly Nikon "sonnar-type" 105 to use on the PenF and found it very good, but nowadays I use the 100mm apo-elmarit on the Z. Large and unwieldy and only 1:2 without the special extension, but reasonably sharp&contrasty for my purposes-the prices were commendably low at then time when people stopped wanting Rcameras and thought only chipped Nikon glass was useful.
p.
|
|
