It was described as being "modded" so perhaps someone took extra steps ensuring the adapter won't come off or they changed the mount.The Canon 50/1.2 original is LTM, so a simple adapter is all that is required.
It was described as being "modded" so perhaps someone took extra steps ensuring the adapter won't come off or they changed the mount.The Canon 50/1.2 original is LTM, so a simple adapter is all that is required.
Thanks Brian! The M9 is something as far as colors go. It's so old the idiosyncrasies feel like you're shooting a film camera. It really helped with putting the passion back into photography that has been lost over the past few years.One of my Favorite Threads.
Welcome aboard.
Great Camera- the M9. I've had mine for almost 12 years now. Just back from a walk, testing a new 50mm lens.
At F5.6- all three lenses will be sharp enough for any pixel peeping on the M9. Vignetting will not be an issue. Color correction and Geometric Distortion will be the biggest concern.
I would choose the 50mm F2 APO if doing primarily architectural details. I have all three of the lenses mentioned.
The M9 has high sensitivity in the UV range, best to use a good UV filter with any lens on it.
All the glowing reviews online and everyone here also made me select that as my first 50mm for M mount. Should be here in a few days!I think I'm going to go with the Lanthar (at least for now), everything I read about it seems to be stellar. Alot of the Voigtlanders are on sale except for the 50mm Lanthar, of course!
Eventually, I would like to get a 90mm and leica prices aren't so bad at that focal length, so maybe I can see about the so called "leica magic" for myself.
The stunning one for me on there M9 is the Summicron 90mm F2 from the early 1960s. It smokes the Summilux 75mm F1.4 for output as far as I've seen but is not as famed as that lens, possibly as it can be bought for about a tenth of the price. Alas, the dealbreaker for me was it's large (to me) size on an M which is why I couldn't bring myself to get one. That might not be an issue for you though.Eventually, I would like to get a 90mm and leica prices aren't so bad at that focal length, so maybe I can see about the so called "leica magic" for myself.
While I'd agree that any of the early 90mm Summicrons would be a very nice option, the two later 90mm f/2.8 lenses (the Tele-Elmar-M 90mm f/2.8 and the Elmar-M 90mm f/2.8) are both very nice lenses, and they're quite a bit smaller. That said, the short tele I really dig is the modern Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4 - that one offers a really great balance between optical quality (superb), size (completely manageable) and rendering - regarding the latter, it's quite a bit more appealing than even the very nice 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M, though I have to say that I prefer the drawing of the Elmar 135mm f/4 over both of them - but that lens is bigger, slower and still harder to nail focus with; it sports a Sonnar formula, though ...The stunning one for me on there M9 is the Summicron 90mm F2 from the early 1960s. It smokes the Summilux 75mm F1.4 for output as far as I've seen but is not as famed as that lens, possibly as it can be bought for about a tenth of the price. Alas, the dealbreaker for me was it's large (to me) size on an M which is why I couldn't bring myself to get one. That might not be an issue for you though.
Many thanks for the clarification; I do own the Tele-Elmar.I think the "Tele-Elmar 135/4" is the Sonnar design, 5/3 layout. The 135/4 Elmar is a 4/4, astigmat.