Dragon + Leica M lenses - Whats your favorite leica m lens with Dragon??

[Dylan McLaughlin]

Any updates on this information?

 

[Les Hillis]

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?125400-Leica-M-Lenses-on-DRAGON-(findings)

Apparently the latest 35mm Summilux and the 24 Elmar had vignetting/colour distortions around the edge of frame when going wider than 4K WS.

Going by that, it seems the 35mm Summarit is still the widest you can go without getting optical distortions, according to what I've seen for myself on the MX and Dragon at 5K full frame (haven't actually checked 6K on the Dragon yet), even though it's now possible to physically mount wider M-mount lenses than that on the Dragon.

The Voigtlander 21mm Color Skopar and 12mm Ultra Wide Heliar also have the same vignetting/discoloration on the Dragon btw, but they did on the MX as well, so that's no surprise.

 

[Jean Wallez]

How about the 35mm Summicron?

 

[Les Hillis]

I don't know about the 35mm Summicron, it would depend on how the actual design of the lens compares to the Summilux.

That and other lenses may be alright, but I haven't seen them for myself.

I guess I shouldn't assume too much either way.

Phil Holland said there was a 24mm that mounted and looked alright on the Dragon for example.

Then again, RED themselves have always said 50mm is the widest limit for M-mount lenses, and that even then some 50mm designs might be problematic.

So...seems to be a matter of just having to try and see on a lens by lens basis.

Using a Leica-M to Leica-R adapter and going with the 19mm Leica-R could still be another wide-angle option.

 

[Chad Lancaster]

You could always go to a Leica store, I'm sure they will let you test the lenses there at the store.

 

[Charles Valantin]

Does anyone know which Leica M lens most recent version wider than 50 is working with the M mount please?

 

[Les Hillis]

Does anyone know which Leica M lens most recent version wider than 50 is working with the M mount please?

The f/2.5 35mm Summarit (not the newest f/2.4 version) is the only one I've seen that physically fits and doesn't need post correction. The latest 24mm Elmarit physically fits but has magenta coloured vignetting.

Here's a diagram showing what's happening with the M mount and the Dragon OLPF.



If the measurements in the diagram are incorrect, please let me know.

And if anyone would care to measure how far their rear lens elements extend beyond the bare metal bayonet section of their M-mount lenses (Leica or otherwise), could you please share the results. It looks to me like 6mm is the limit.

 

[Dylan McLaughlin]

This could be so helpful for the community. I asked RED about a maximum protruding rear element distance for use with Dragon, but they said they didn't have any of that information. With everyone out there doing test we could put this together. My M-mount comes in tomorrow, and will be using at Summilux-M 50 ASPH. Would love to eventually go wider but couldn't without extensive testing.

 

[Phil Holland]

This could be so helpful for the community. I asked RED about a maximum protruding rear element distance for use with Dragon, but they said they didn't have any of that information. With everyone out there doing test we could put this together. My M-mount comes in tomorrow, and will be using at Summilux-M 50 ASPH. Would love to eventually go wider but couldn't without extensive testing.

I've done extensive testing. You can mount many of the Leica-M lenses on Dragon, however, optical quality specifically on some the wide angle retrofocus designs can induce both buck smearing as well as discolored purple-ish vignetting. This is due to a variety of things, but it comes down to the microlens design on the sensor itself.

For instance I still own a 35mm f/1.2 Voigtlander and it experiences the discolored vignette, but not the smearing of pixel data. It's compact, fast, and suited my needs for a shoot and I've held onto it. I even had the rear protruding fins cut off so it fits nicer through the port on the OLPF.

You'll need to do a bit of testing to find out what's working for you wider than 50mm. The 24mm lux was nice and sharp, but I've discovered in testing that there are variances in some of the Leica-M lenses with slight manufacturing variations that not only effected the physical design, but also the optical performance. So it became rather tricky. Especially on the 35mm primes.

 

[Les Hillis]

As Phil said, people should check each particular copy of a lens to see if it physically fits, and if its optical side-effects can be adequately corrected in post, but anyway...

Here are some 'eye-ball and ruler' measurements for three of the wider M-mount lenses I've looked at.

These measurements are taken from the back of the bayonet section of the lens (which I think is the same size on all lenses) to the back of the rear lens element (or more precisely, the metal surrounding the lens element).

Focusing from near to far extends the rear lens element closer to the camera sensor, so two measurements are used.

Leica 24mm f/3.8 Elmar-M
Minimum focus = 4.5mm
Infinity focus = 5.5mm

Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6 Ultra-Wide Heliar
Minimum Focus = 6mm
Infinity focus = 6.5mm

Voigtlander 21mm f/4 Color Skopar
Minimum Focus = 5.5mm
Infinity Focus = 6.5mm

Both the 12mm and 21mm Voigtlanders extend approx .5mm too far for infinity focusing, but the rear lens elements of the ones I've tested have been physically modified to fit the MX and Dragon.

Would still be interested to get some other measurements if anyone's got a moment to have a look at their wider M-mount lenses.

Would be good to get confirmation of the mount and OLPF measurements I posted in the diagram above too.

 

[Josh K]

Haven't used it on Dragon but in general the 75/2.5 Summarit is a really great one that doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves.

 

[Lee Saxon]

This could be so helpful for the community. I asked RED about a maximum protruding rear element distance for use with Dragon, but they said they didn't have any of that information.

Of course they do. The distance from the mount flange to the sensor is a piece of information they literally couldn't build the lens mounts without knowing. Did you ask a Bomb Squad rep? It's been my experience that they won't tell you anything that isn't already in the manuals. But if a Red Team poster on this forum notices your question, they'll be able to answer it.

 

[Les Hillis]

That may be true, but the Leica M-mount flange focal distance (27.8mm) isn't what Dylan was asking about, it's the distance to the OLPF holder that sits in front of the sensor.

Sticking a ruler in and having a look, my guess is it's 12.5mm. Even just eyeballing it like that should make it clear whether some lenses will fit (or reach infinity focus) or not.

 

[Dylan McLaughlin]

Thinking that it would be helpful to have information like what Les provided here, so that those of us with limited access to M Lenses can measure rear protruding elements to see if they will be able to focus to infinity. Obviously this is only the first step to determining whether or not the lens is usable with the Dragon system, but it's a good start. Eventually we'd need to build information about lenses that have unusable color distortion, vignetting, etc.

Point being, there is potential to have a community accessible resource on this. Right now it seems everyone has to do their own testing, which is maybe for the best in the long run. Idk.

Thanks to the folks that have already been contributing this info.

 

[Dylan McLaughlin]

I don't have an M lens with a protruding rear element, but looking at the Dragon OLPF housing, I'm wondering if RED designed this specifically to be able to fit M lenses? The circular part of the OLPF frame seems just perfectly the right size the accommodate the rear element.

 

[Phil Holland]

I don't have an M lens with a protruding rear element, but looking at the Dragon OLPF housing, I'm wondering if RED designed this specifically to be able to fit M lenses? The circular part of the OLPF frame seems just perfectly the right size the accommodate the rear element.

Yep. I specifically asked Jarred back when Dragon wasn't exactly released yet, but testing was going down. The new OLPF and sensor box have been designed to be more compatible mainly with cinema lenses that feature protruding rear elements and a byproduct of that is damn near every Leica-M Mount lens can be mounted. There's a few exceptions, but it's very different from say the Mysterium-X port.

 

[Dylan McLaughlin]

Thanks Phil. Very smart redesign from the MX port.

So now I'm wondering, and this was briefly mentioned but never clarified, is there a difference in tolerances between the original Dragon STHL OLPF and the new Dragon interchangeable OLPF?

I imagine if there are differences they are very very minor, but sounds like maybe enough to make some M lenses unusable (like 1/2 mm)

I'm wondering about this because it would affect my decision to upgrade to interchangeable OLPFs or not.


(Wouldn't it be nice to just play at the RED HQ for a few days? Could really clarify all of my pondering.)

 

[Phil Holland]

Thanks Phil. Very smart redesign from the MX port.

So now I'm wondering, and this was briefly mentioned but never clarified, is there a difference in tolerances between the original Dragon STHL OLPF and the new Dragon interchangeable OLPF?

I imagine if there are differences they are very very minor, but sounds like maybe enough to make some M lenses unusable (like 1/2 mm)

I'm wondering about this because it would affect my decision to upgrade to interchangeable OLPFs or not.


(Wouldn't it be nice to just play at the RED HQ for a few days? Could really clarify all of my pondering.)

Or you could ask Reduser or your Bomb Squad Rep

The ports themselves aren't very different in terms of spacing and measurements between the "OG" and new Interchangeable OLPFs. The OLPF spec distance is the same.

Now, I wouldn't recommend this, but we will be seeing more and more custom OLPFs coming out and some might find tweaking the bushing panel for special uses and weirder lenses. So if you do have something that is slightly too wide, it will give you a few more millimeters, but it will likely effect image quality on lenses that don't have such a far back protruding element. This is a 1% of a 1% thing and it's for the tweaker crowd really. But there's possibilities.

For the time being the port design is pretty damn nice and compatible with a great deal of lenses and mounts.

As Jarred once mentioned, the Leica-M Mount is a bit of specialty item. It's usable. And heck, the Noctilux and other fast 50mm primes look damn amazing. However, the wide angle lenses are where the performance issues come into play, but that's more due to the extreme retrofocus design and the way the light fills the micro lens buckets up on the sensor. Which a lot of cameras that aren't part of the Leica-M system seem to struggle with as well.

 

[Dylan McLaughlin]

Again thanks Phil.

I guess the ultimate answer is being prepared for multiple lens systems. Seems that's the beauty of shooting on Red.

I just received the Summilux-M 50 ASPH, and wow it is very nice. Mostly loving how incredibly small and lightweight it makes the camera. Very useful for one man run & gun. Would be really happy with just one more solid wide angle. Either the 24 or 28.

 

[Jordan Buck]

Does anyone know if Voigtlander 35 1.4 fits and focusses to infinity?
I just dropped the cash on one for my M6 - debating wether to drop the money on an m mount as the small run and gun feel with these great lenses would really help with some of the stuff I shoot.