Leica Leica Vario-Elmar R 75-200

rflove

Veteran
Jul 13, 2014
Picked one up for under $200 and the adapter for around $30. It's a very nice long lens for the M240 when using the EVF... Here are a few random shots to try it out for the first time.


-
 

rflove

Veteran
Jul 13, 2014
Tried a shot of the moon tonight..... Used a good tripod over the concrete sidewalk. Cropped it and added a bit of sharpness as well.

 
D

dalethorn

Guest
Tried a shot of the moon tonight..... Used a good tripod over the concrete sidewalk. Cropped it and added a bit of sharpness as well.

View attachment 3640
It looks like it could be really good, but enlarging it for any detail, it's pretty much just a blur. It could be the forum post removes the detail.
 

rflove

Veteran
Jul 13, 2014
It's hard to get more detail by enlarging that image. 200mm does not give a large enough file. After cropping and a bit of PP, there is not much left to play with... I shot the same image about an hour earlier with the EM-1 but it really doesn't do any better except for the IBIS which makes up for any movement induced blur. I will try to get my hands on a decent 300mm or longer vintage prime and see if I can get the results I used to get with the 300mm zooms native to M43.....
 
D

dalethorn

Guest
That made me think - almost all major parks in the U.S., and even a lot of regional parks, have naturalists who carry 30-60 power spotting scopes by Swarovski and others. If you had an attachment for those and set up an appointment, you might get an interesting shot that way.
 

rflove

Veteran
Jul 13, 2014
That made me think - almost all major parks in the U.S., and even a lot of regional parks, have naturalists who carry 30-60 power spotting scopes by Swarovski and others. If you had an attachment for those and set up an appointment, you might get an interesting shot that way.
Yes, I have seen shots taken through telescopes of various types. I actually bought a Celestion brand telescope and the various adapters to attach the EM-1 to it. Lamentably, using the telescope turned out to be more difficult and produced much worse IQ than all the other combinations of body/tele-lens that I have tried. Probably the telescope was not of good enough quality and/or without enough magnification... Also, setting up and aiming the telescope proved to be quite a difficult thing, at least for me since I did not have the experience and knowledge to do it. I also discovered that the telescope needs to be set in a very stable surface, i.e. a concrete pad. And preferably not subjected to any thing more than the gentlest breeze... keeping the focused moon blur free and clear was not easy...
 
D

dalethorn

Guest
I think the telescope magnification has to be kept pretty low - on the order of 10 to 30 power.
 

rflove

Veteran
Jul 13, 2014
I think the telescope magnification has to be kept pretty low - on the order of 10 to 30 power.
Could be... I know that I had total lack of success with the telescope for astral (lunar I guess) photography. Actually, I had a heck of a time just aligning it enough to look through it. I think the telescope was of a fixed magnification. I can't tell you details about it now since I gave it to the Salvation Army some weeks ago...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest threads

Top Bottom