jonoslack
Active member
HI Guy
I've found a titanium one at an 'interesting' price - ex demo with full warranty . . . . what do you think?
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Why I love Fedex.....
- Thread starter Terry
- Start date
I've found a titanium one at an 'interesting' price - ex demo with full warranty . . . . what do you think?
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I would go for it . I have the asph and it is amazingly sharp. I have seen Jack's pre in action and wish i had it sometimes . Butter
If it is around 1500 US than I would say that would be a good starting price for a unit with the sliding hood.
BTW i shoot my 75 lux uncoded all the time with a IR filter on and IR on in the menu so that should be the same with a 50mm. If it was 35mm than maybe but 50 is safe area
If it is around 1500 US than I would say that would be a good starting price for a unit with the sliding hood.
BTW i shoot my 75 lux uncoded all the time with a IR filter on and IR on in the menu so that should be the same with a 50mm. If it was 35mm than maybe but 50 is safe area
jonoslack
Active member
Thank you Guy - I'll dither . . . it's more expensive than that, but not much, and yes, it does have the sliding hood, and it's titanium, and this is England, and it has the full Leica warranty.
Decisions decisions!
Terry
New member
Hi Jono,
I'm not sure which version the Titanium one is. Mine was the last one before the asph. It has closer focus than the older ones. Also, as Guy said it has a built in slide out hood. Mine was listed as mint 10- and is coded. It was $1695. Don't know if it is the best deal but I could probably spend a lot of time not finding another!!
I'm not sure which version the Titanium one is. Mine was the last one before the asph. It has closer focus than the older ones. Also, as Guy said it has a built in slide out hood. Mine was listed as mint 10- and is coded. It was $1695. Don't know if it is the best deal but I could probably spend a lot of time not finding another!!
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Terry
This is the same version (i.e. the type 3, last before aspheric). It's an 'ex demo' from a dealer and thus has a full Leica Warranty - of course, it's in the UK, so it's a little more expensive, but both the titanium, and the full warranty would make it a little more.
Is yours coded?
all the best
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Stay away magenta people, Jack is dangerous
Maggie O
Active member
I take it you never shoot wider than 50mm, then? Or do you like using cornerfix?I don't use the IRUV filters and don't bother with codes. Ever.
And my life is simple
Nope. One of my favorite lens is the 28 Cron and I also shoot with the 21 and CV12 a LOT...I take it you never shoot wider than 50mm, then? Or do you like using cornerfix?
I don't need corner fix cause I don't get blue corners cause I don't use the filters
As for the normal Leica falloff, I usually like it, or alternatively can easily correct it on LR/ACR if I want to get rid of it.
You have seen all my images from Moab, which include shots with the 12, 21 and 28, NO filters, NO cornerfix used on any of those. Can you even tell?
As for shots with people that wear black, I either correct it in post or convert those to B&W
D) But IF I was going to shoot say a wedding for pay AND they wanted color photos, I would add the filters... Or more likely, shoot it with my Canons :ROTFL:
jonoslack
Active member
LOL - Jack - Guy
I shot without filters until last May - but I thought that greens tended to be dodgy (too yellow) without (which isn't great for landscapes).
One thing I do know for sure is that you either use them for everything . . or not at all (at least, if you're as forgetful as me).
Which is why I don't have that nice 12CV
Still thinking 'bout that lens, I'll try for a discount
simonclivehughes
Active member
Jono,
I use the 12mm all the time without an IR-cut filter (and without any Cornerfix) and get great results.
Cheers,
I use the 12mm all the time without an IR-cut filter (and without any Cornerfix) and get great results.
Cheers,
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Same here just need to remember to turn off the IR menu option. Okay it's a pain
Maggie O
Active member
Well, that would explain the kinda funky reds you get in them! So, yeah, I can tell. All of my European photos were taken sans filters and I like the colors in them (especially after using Jamie's color profiles in C1), so even for me, it's not a problem.
But hey, I'm lazy and it's nice to have a streamlined workflow, so coding and filters are cool with me.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Damn it I just found 2 of these and no money. Thinking of selling my ASPH coded
Terry
New member
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the funky reds. In Jack's stuff from Moab I didn't see that at all. Also when I shot the cv12 and had lens detection off my colors were true. I know when I shot the tulips that led off this thread, without the filter the flower colors were sort of wonky and hence my conversion to B&W.
Maggie O
Active member
The reds in Jack's photos seem to be more intense than most M8 photos I've seen and maybe have a little purple cast in them. That's what I meant by funky.
There's a subtle difference between filtered and unfiltered colors, that to me, is obvious. I like both palates, so I don't see it as a problem anymore than Ektachrome is different than Kodachrome. I'd say that no filter is Kodachrome and filtered is Ektachrome, FWIW.
There's a subtle difference between filtered and unfiltered colors, that to me, is obvious. I like both palates, so I don't see it as a problem anymore than Ektachrome is different than Kodachrome. I'd say that no filter is Kodachrome and filtered is Ektachrome, FWIW.
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Maggie and Terry (and anyone else who's listening, but I'm always more interested in the ladies!).
As I say, I shot 'unfiltered' determinedly for 6 months, and in the end (and looking back on those photographs) I agree that the reds are 'funky' . . . but okay, but the greens are 'chlorotic' and not okay (at least, not for landscape).
I'm much too scatterbrained to switch between lenses, so it's filters for me.
I still can't decide about this lens though!
Each to their own I guess...
I do not see much difference in the reds at all. In fact, I find the raw converter makes more of a difference than the filters on red; LR accentuates it more than C1. However, I actually prefer the slight yellow pop in vegetation greens when unfiltered, finding them far more accurate than the filtered ones, which I see as rather heavily skewed toward cyan...
,
I do not see much difference in the reds at all. In fact, I find the raw converter makes more of a difference than the filters on red; LR accentuates it more than C1. However, I actually prefer the slight yellow pop in vegetation greens when unfiltered, finding them far more accurate than the filtered ones, which I see as rather heavily skewed toward cyan...
,