«

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone has some actual experience using the Leitz
Telyt 400mm 6.8 as well as the Novoflex 400mm 5.6.

They seem to use the same lens scheme, so I'd imagine that the Novoflex
is also affected by Leitz's notorious curvature of field. The Leitz is
said to be usable at full aperture. How about the Novoflex?

I'd also appreciate any comments on how they compare in actual use: Ease
of focussing, transporting, allround practicality, etc.

Comments on the Leitz 560 vs. the Novoflex 600 would also be appreciated.

Thanks!

Chris

I have used both the 400 and 560 Leitz lenses. The COF is very minor (a
matter of a few inches at long distances, mere millimeters at close
distances) and not really a factor. Look here:

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_englis...hael+Scarpitti

There are a number of images made with the 560.

The Novoflex lenses are probably quite similar in quality.

Chris Loffredo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if anyone has some actual experience using the Leitz
> Telyt 400mm 6.8 as well as the Novoflex 400mm 5.6.
>
> They seem to use the same lens scheme, so I'd imagine that the Novoflex
> is also affected by Leitz's notorious curvature of field. The Leitz is
> said to be usable at full aperture. How about the Novoflex?
>
> I'd also appreciate any comments on how they compare in actual use: Ease
> of focussing, transporting, allround practicality, etc.
>
> Comments on the Leitz 560 vs. the Novoflex 600 would also be appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chris

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> I have used both the 400 and 560 Leitz lenses. The COF > is very minor (a
matter of a few inches at long distances,
> mere millimeters at close distances) and not really a
> factor. Look here:
>
>
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_englis...hael+Scarpitti
>
> There are a number of images made with the 560.
>
> The Novoflex lenses are probably quite similar in quality.
>

The older Novoflex lenses had a reputation for getting their sharp centres
at the expense of the edges - not as big a problem in the press and sports
use that made up their design brief as in using them for, say, wildlife
portraits or landscape. I can't speak from experience, and don't know if
later versions are different, but I have heard this opinion from more than
one person who did use them (one a specialist horse-racing photographer.)

Depending on the OP's intended use, this might matter more, or less. In any
case, I wouldn't want to put you off, just suggest something to check for
carefully if you get one to try out.


Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

> The older Novoflex lenses had a reputation for getting their sharp centres
> at the expense of the edges - not as big a problem in the press and sports
> use that made up their design brief as in using them for, say, wildlife
> portraits or landscape. I can't speak from experience, and don't know if
> later versions are different, but I have heard this opinion from more than
> one person who did use them (one a specialist horse-racing photographer.)
>
> Depending on the OP's intended use, this might matter more, or less. In any
> case, I wouldn't want to put you off, just suggest something to check for
> carefully if you get one to try out.

That's what I'm trying to do (try before buy is unlikely - but at least
get good information about them).

From what I've heard, the problem isn't sharp centre & soft edge, but
rather sharp centre OR sharp edge.

Intended uses: Wildlife (where I assume a single main subject - with out
of focus back & foreground - won't be affected by COF) and landscapes
(where COF may be decisive).

Also, given the limitations of curvature of field, I'd simply like to
know which handles better.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I have used both the 400 and 560 Leitz lenses. The COF is very minor (a
> matter of a few inches at long distances, mere millimeters at close
> distances) and not really a factor. Look here:
>
> http://www.ilford.com/html/us_englis...hael+Scarpitti
>
> There are a number of images made with the 560.
>
> The Novoflex lenses are probably quite similar in quality.
>

Thank you Michael,

From your pictures it's hard to tell if the COF is as small as you
claim (it's often difficult to distinguish which areas of the image lie
on a perpendicular plane), but - within the limits of online photos - it
seems that your 560mm photos do have good field coverage.

Did you take them at full aperture or stopped down?

So you really aren't a two headed ogre...
; )

Chris



> Chris Loffredo wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I was wondering if anyone has some actual experience using the Leitz
>>Telyt 400mm 6.8 as well as the Novoflex 400mm 5.6.
>>
>>They seem to use the same lens scheme, so I'd imagine that the Novoflex
>>is also affected by Leitz's notorious curvature of field. The Leitz is
>>said to be usable at full aperture. How about the Novoflex?
>>
>>I'd also appreciate any comments on how they compare in actual use: Ease
>>of focussing, transporting, allround practicality, etc.
>>
>>Comments on the Leitz 560 vs. the Novoflex 600 would also be appreciated.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Chris
>
>