Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Advice sought for LTM 50mm lens selection
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Decisions Decisions!

I have had, and sold, both the pre-war CZJ Sonnars, 1.5 and 2.0. While they are both nice lenses I just wasn't thrilled with the performance of the uncoated glass. Besides you get almost exactly the same from Jupiter-3 and Jupiter-8, at less cost and with coatings.

I have also decided to get out of the Contax mount so will be selling the Helios-103, Jupiter-8 and the Contax to NEX adapters. (I have one Kipon and one adapted from a Kiev camera.) Also going to sell the collapsible Canon 1.9/50. The 1.8 isn't much larger and significantly outperforms it. Once these are sold I may re-visit those other Japanese 50s, or maybe not. How many LTM 50mm lenses do I really need?

I did order a Canon LTM 1.5/50, an improved Sonnar with more modern coating, just to keep a Sonnar in the kit.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
although the collapsible and rigid lenses have the same numbers of elements and components, the designs are by no means identical.


Stephen, what do you mean with "by no means identical"?

The form and number of lenses and groups are totally identical according to specification (Gauss-type). So the only difference could be coating or material of glass. The rendering is also quite the same, though the rigid version is known to be the "sharper" lens compared to the collapsible one. The NF version is simply the more versatile version nowadays for the use on digital cameras because of the close focus capabilities which have never been very good on RF lenses compared to SLR lenses and nowadays the NF version used may be cheaper than the "normal"/rigid version what I've seen on the Leicashop prices here in Vienna.


Hi Thomas, -I may have misled you slightly by writing that the collapsible and rigid versions have the same number of components - the collapsible version has a cemented doublet at the front, whereas the rigid version has two very slightly separated air-spaced elements. Actually, I think the old Leitz literature would also mis-lead you, as they were dilatory in revising the illustrations in their bochures. The history according to Erwin Puts' defiitive Leica Compendium 3rd edition, pages 460-462 is this:

The collapsible design was prepared as early as 1949 and used an unspecified variant of the then newly introduced lanthanum glasses being made by Chance Brothers in England. [My research in Chance's own archive confirms that they were selling such glasses at that time] When Schott subsequently offered other lanthanum glasses, the lens was redesigned and eventually put on sale in 1953. This was essentially a modernised Summitar (the optical schematics in Leitz own publicity material looked pretty much the same, but of course they only show the layout). Fairly soon after the collapsible Summicron appeared, the factory began a series of re-designs which took advantage of more types of lanthanum glass and - interestingly - the wider throat of the M bayonet to enlarge the diameter of the rear section to improve illumination.

Looking at the drawings in Puts' book, the difference between the two layouts is immediately clear. However, as late as January 1964, Leitz were still using the drawing of the collapsible version in their brochure 11/34e. I think they might have used the Summitar drawing for the collapsible lens in mid-1950s catalogues, but can't prove it ! Intriguingly, the 1965 reprint of the 4th edition of Morgan and Lester's Leica Handbook shows a another drawing for the Summitar on page 74 which has a completely different front doublet.

Puts also makes the point that the Near Focus and regular versions "have identical optical cells and so have absolutely identical performance" - something which my own experience in general photography bears out. As for relative performance he comments that "This [rigid] Summicron captures a level of very fine detail that is beyond the recording capabilities of the predecessors".

Despite having had its optics widened to benefit from the M mount, a number were made in screw mounting. Sadly, the astronomical prices they now fetch must put most folks off buying one. The price of NF models fell because they couldn't be used on the M8 and M9 (maybe the later ones as well) on account of the mechanical construction of the rear mounting which came into contact with part of the cameras' interior.

Apologies for this lengthy explanation, but it might clear up some common misconceptions.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@Stephen,

Thanks for the explanation. In essence I knew already that the rigid version is the better one. However, I didn't know about their actual differences.
Your explanation for the drop of the prices for the NF version makes sense. I didn't think about that compatibility issue.
However, it's still a little bit too costly for me as I am only a poor retiree... Wink
Nevertheless, the collapsible version isn't bad as well. Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DSC01569-2 by unoh7, on Flickr


Just wondering, what's the lens on the M6 in the background? Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
yes, exactly.

I did see one go for 126USD with no haze but some minor scratches.

Here is an interesting thread:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70348

Topcor-S may be another maker you would like Smile

and here is your old rokkor Smile with great looking hood

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chiyoko-Kogaku-Minolta-Super-Rokkor-50mm-5cm-f2-8-fit-Leica-screw-LTM-/161792956811?hash=item25ab9c998b


The Fujinon 50/2, The Super Rokkor 50/2, and Topcor-S 50/2 are all great lenses, The Fujinon 50/2.8 should also be very nice.
I have to get my Super Rokkor 50/1.8 repaired, Sad
The Super Rokkor 45/2.8 also gets good reviews, I'd like to try one out.
The silver Canon 35/2.8 works well on my NEX-7 & A7r.
Topcor also made a 50/1.5, and an early version under the name Simlar.
The Helios 103 is great value, and a very sharp Sonnar, I also like the Canon 50/1.2
All of the above are very well made, the 103, is not as solidly built.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
meanwhile wrote:

Just wondering, what's the lens on the M6 in the background? Very Happy


That's my red-scale elmar collapsed into the M6 Smile

you have to take a deep breath when you do it on the M9 Wink


DSC08945 by unoh7, on Flickr

Thomas, you are jaded!!

CZJ 50/1.5 nothing special? OMG. Why on earth do you think there are so many clones?

Jupiter 3 is the same? And cheaper? Only in theory. In reality it is so much harder to find a clean J-3, and it's certainly not going to be cheaper in LTM than the CZJ is in Contax mount (where most of the perfect ones are). I'd love to have a nice J-3 for a good price. Somebody find me one please Smile


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikkor 50mm f/2 LTM is a very nice lens for cheap with close focus abilities. This is a huge benefit IMO compared to most other 50mm m39 lenses Wink


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:

Thomas, you are jaded!!

CZJ 50/1.5 nothing special? OMG. Why on earth do you think there are so many clones?

Jupiter 3 is the same? And cheaper? Only in theory. In reality it is so much harder to find a clean J-3, and it's certainly not going to be cheaper in LTM than the CZJ is in Contax mount (where most of the perfect ones are). I'd love to have a nice J-3 for a good price. Somebody find me one please Smile


Maybe a little bit. Wink

If my memory serves me right I just paid apprx. 60 Euros plus shipping when I bought my J-3 in LTM in excellent condition from a dealer in Latvia a couple of years ago. I have to admit that I started to collect RF lenses BEFORE the A7 was released and Russian lenses haven't been very popular for Leica users in my part of the world. Nowadays you are most probably already out of luck. I've just checked the actual offers on evilbay and was rather shocked. I wasn't aware of this enormous raise of prices. I wouldn't buy one for present day prices; neither the original nor the clone.

That's only my personal rating and I am well aware that some folks have different feelings about those lenses.

But let's face it: The Sonnar is a design from 1931. There are better lenses available than this dinosaur. Compare it with a Summicron 50/2 or a CV Nokton 50/1.5 (my personal favorite RF fifty for the time being).

If you consider also SLR lenses, then you have additional options available. The downside would be the size (incl. adapter).

At the end of the day it's as always mainly a matter of taste.

I've already planned to compare all my RF fifties with some better SLR ones. Curios to see if my judgement will change if I look at comparable pictures in pixel peeping mode. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thomas says
But let's face it: The Sonnar is a design from 1931. There are better lenses available than this dinosaur. Compare it with a Summicron 50/2 or a CV Nokton 50/1.5 (my personal favorite RF fifty for the time being).

Ahhh, Thomas, the Sonnar-Ninja-Assassin-Squad will hunt you down, even unto to the ends of the earth and the conclusion of time Laughing

It's true, though . . . (says he, packing a suitacase, putting on dark glasses and slipping away quietly without leaving a forwarding address)


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, the Sonnar is a design from the 1930s and my 85mm Triotar is an even older design. Both provide a unique image that I, on occasion, want to be able to capture. I might opt for the Canon LTM 1.5/50 over the CZJ 1.5/50 as it has more modern glass and coatings, but they both produce a Sonnar image. Had anyone ever designed an updated Triotar I would likely go for that also.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I looked for a Canon 50/1.5 for a long while, most seem to have issues with fogging/haze.
I still want a Nikkor 50/1.4 or 50/2 for their close focus ability, I wish more lenses did this, Leica 50/2 DR is another.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
I looked for a Canon 50/1.5 for a long while, most seem to have issues with fogging/haze.
I still want a Nikkor 50/1.4 or 50/2 for their close focus ability, I wish more lenses did this, Leica 50/2 DR is another.


One of the advantages of having too many lenses is that it supports the patience needed to wait it out until an acceptable lens at a reasonable price becomes available. It did take a while before I found an acceptable 1.5/50.

I do most of my photography using Sony mirrorless cameras. A good LTM accessory is an M39 to NEX adapter with a built in helicoid. Instant close focusing when required.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
Thomas says
But let's face it: The Sonnar is a design from 1931. There are better lenses available than this dinosaur. Compare it with a Summicron 50/2 or a CV Nokton 50/1.5 (my personal favorite RF fifty for the time being).

Ahhh, Thomas, the Sonnar-Ninja-Assassin-Squad will hunt you down, even unto to the ends of the earth and the conclusion of time Laughing

It's true, though . . . (says he, packing a suitacase, putting on dark glasses and slipping away quietly without leaving a forwarding address)


Laughing Laughing Laughing

BTW, my high altar for lenses never stood in Jena or Oberkochen. Rather in Braunschweig or Wetzlar.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I use my ltm lenses on the stock A7 and now the kolari modified A7.


The thick filter stack of the A7 series will also affect some of the 50mm RF lenses.

Of the ones I have (or tried).
The ones that are affected.
1. Summicron 50/2 v1 (collapsible)
2. Summicron 50/2 DR
3. Industar 22 (50/3.5)
4. Helios 103
5. J3
6. J8

Of the above list, the problem varies where they start to smear and at which f-stop they become acceptable.
The Summicron DR certainly becomes not much of an issue by f4.
Most of the Russians are problematic even at f8.

Of course some lens designs and vintage are mostly center sharp at wide open to 2 stops down anyway (eg. the Sonnar designs)

The ones that generally have little issues.
1. Canon ltm 50/1.4
2. Canon ltm 50/1.8
3. Industar 61 53/2.8
4. Elmarit 50/2.8 collapsible


IMO, the Kolari thin filter mod does help quite a bit for most of the 50mm lenses.

So much so that they are generally ok in the off center regions (ie. rules of thirds points) within 2 stops from wide open.
Edges and far corners may or may not become totally ok by f8 though depending on lens.
The cron v1 and the Industar 22 don't for example.
The Helios 103, however, responds very well and becomes largely problem free.


I'd say, go for the Canon 50/1.4 ltm if you want an older lens.
IMO, it works as well as a SLR 50mm on the A7 in most respects.
The problem is that its also getting nearer those sizes.

As for J3 vs J8, I think its often mentioned and I agree.
The J3 is more or less the performance of the J8 at f2.
f1.5 bokeh can be a bit wonky in some situations, and I find it more tamed somewhere past f2.
So if you won't need the f1.5, the J8 is the same performance for 1/10 the cost.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
newst wrote:
A good LTM accessory is an M39 to NEX adapter with a built in helicoid. Instant close focusing when required.


A very nice concept is the original one from Leitz where you can use the removable lens heads of the 90 and 135 lenses with a suitable close focus Visoflex helicoid instead of the original one. In combination with the Visoflex adapter that gives you both lenses usable as normal up to infinity but with additional close focus macro capabilities. Visoflex adapters are ready available very cheap from China also for the NEX/A7.
I like that very much, especially for it's very smooth and precise operation.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hello Pilnholecam,
I am a bit surprised with your report about J3 and J8. I used them on a normal A7. I have many samples of the J8.
My J3 is never sharp outside of the center even stopped down. Probably it does not fit the A7 as you mentioned. But in the middle it is very sharp, sharper than every of my J8s. The J8 is not really a sharp lens , less than an Industar 53 LD stopped down for example but it is usable inthe corners.
In addition the J8 has ,in my opinion, the nicest bokeh. The J3 is slightly"busy" in comparison.
So I think that they are very different lenses especially on the A7.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@pinholecam

Sounds like you are really enjoying the Kolari mod. Smile

It drastically improves many SLR lenses as well, especially 35 and wider. My nFD 24/2 was terrible on the A7 and r, but is excellent on the a7.mod. This mod really turns the camera into an MFlenses' dream, I think.

As to the 50s, it seems many of the old ones loose alot when you get to the edge, the faster the worse it is. Certainly the sonnars do, but I wonder what is the best 5cm, pre.....say 1959....across the frame at 5.6 or 8?

I found my elmar also looses it at the edge somewhat in infinity landscapes, which surprised me.

What's the best old landscape 5cm LTM? I will drag mine out and do some testing. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only thing to surpass the original Sonnar 1.5/50 is the resurrected new version of the Sonnar 1.5/50. Yes there are sharper lenses and faster lenses and more hyped lenses, but nothing with a better combination of quality and character. Maybe the old Voigtlander Nokton 1.5/50 is a rival, who knows as it's rare and costs 5x as much.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
@pinholecam

Sounds like you are really enjoying the Kolari mod. Smile

It drastically improves many SLR lenses as well, especially 35 and wider. My nFD 24/2 was terrible on the A7 and r, but is excellent on the a7.mod. This mod really turns the camera into an MFlenses' dream, I think.

As to the 50s, it seems many of the old ones loose alot when you get to the edge, the faster the worse it is. Certainly the sonnars do, but I wonder what is the best 5cm, pre.....say 1959....across the frame at 5.6 or 8?

I found my elmar also looses it at the edge somewhat in infinity landscapes, which surprised me.

What's the best old landscape 5cm LTM? I will drag mine out and do some testing. Smile


Indeed, a mod that is worth it for me.
More so with my SLR lenses than I expected.

My thanks to you an other FM forums posters who posted so many samples to show that the mod works.


The Elmar I tried was a friend's copy and it impressed me.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
Hello Pilnholecam,
I am a bit surprised with your report about J3 and J8. I used them on a normal A7. I have many samples of the J8.
My J3 is never sharp outside of the center even stopped down. Probably it does not fit the A7 as you mentioned. But in the middle it is very sharp, sharper than every of my J8s. The J8 is not really a sharp lens , less than an Industar 53 LD stopped down for example but it is usable inthe corners.
In addition the J8 has ,in my opinion, the nicest bokeh. The J3 is slightly"busy" in comparison.
So I think that they are very different lenses especially on the A7.


I can't rule out sample variations with all these old Russian lenses.

Similarly, my J3 on unmodded A7 was only center sharp.
It becomes better on the off center at f5.6, but even by f8, there will be a hint of smearing.
This is better now with the modded A7.
I'd say that by 2 stops from wide open, the off center is fully usable.
I've not tried f8 for distant shots though.

The J8 bokeh is certainly nicer straight off, which is why my comment that the J3 is the J8 by f2. Very Happy
So basically for me, J8 is J3 for cheap if there is no need for the f1.5.

I do find that J3 'comes to life' from 1 stop down wide open.
Perhaps bigger OOF highlights too vs J8 (as is common between larger f-stop lenses and smaller ones of the same FL)

At f2.5 of f2 which I find it just 'right', bokeh and drawing style.
20150426-DSC01813 by jenkwang, on Flickr

wide open, where I find bokeh is a bit wonky and the periphery OOF highlights just gets too 'clipped' for my liking.
20141229-DSC07954 by jenkwang, on Flickr


Here is J8 with close up helicoid adapter and at f4
20150807-DSC05503-1 by jenkwang, on Flickr
No more issues with the 'rules of thirds' area anymore.
Also, notice that the same plane of focus on the left and right edges (the leaves) are not smeared.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You had a bad copy of the J3. A good one is better than a J8.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ uhoh7

Tough problems. Wink

My old Minolta AF 50/1.4 is tack sharp from edge to edge when mounted on my 24MP/FF Sony A850 as from F5.6. Most probably my "new" Voigtländer Ultron 50/1.8 in M42 for apprx. 50 Euro too (not yet testet).
No existing fast lens is able to achieve that fully open, that should be clear anyway.

Maybe you should try one of those lenses on your A7mod. instead.

I cannot tell anything about my RF lenses on FF as I use them solely on my Ricoh GXR-M where the edge to edge sharpness is much easier to reach. Additionally it was specifically developed for the use with RF lenses contrary to the A7. Consequently it's achievable on the GXR with most of my RF lenses, except some old Russian Tessar copies. I haven't tested the Jupiters for edge sharpness up to now but I suspect that they will be also far below the Summicron or Nokton even on APS-C.

However, I don't think that any lens from the 50's of the last century is able to achieve that on FF. The best lenses of this time have been by far the Voigtländer Ultron 50/2 and the Leitz Summicron 50/2. If the Summicron doesn't deliver really edge to edge sharpness at 5.6 on the A7 (as reported by Pinholecam) then forget the rest or try one of the SLR lenses mentioned before.

Finally it appears that even with the Kolari mod the A7 is far away from being perfect for RF lenses. Obviously a Leica would be still the better choice. I prefer to wait and see. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
The best lenses of this time have been by far the Voigtländer Ultron 50/2 and the Leitz Summicron 50/2.


Not true. Contarex Planar 2/50 surpasses both in resolution by a meaningful margin. Leica went for high contrast, Zeiss, in the Planar 2/50 went for flatness of field and a high level of correction of astigmatism.

http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/zeiss/page67.html



Look how flat the curves on the Planar 2/50 are, that would be a very impressive performance for a lens made today but this design is from the 1950s.

The Summicron-R 2/50 comes nowhere near matching this performance:



The Ultron and Summicron are very good, but so are the contemporary Nikkor 2/50, the Schneider Xenon 1.9/50 and a few others. However, the Contarex Planar 2/50 is something special.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Not true. Contarex Planar 2/50 surpasses both in resolution by a meaningful margin. Leica went for high contrast, Zeiss, in the Planar 2/50 went for flatness of field and a high level of correction of astigmatism.


Ian, I was in this context specifically speaking about the RANGEFINDER lenses of the 1950's !! Obviously you have overlooked that or mixed it up with 50mm instead of 1950. Uhoh7 was requesting info about RF's from that time too:

I don't think that any lens from the 50's of the last century is able to achieve that on FF. The best lenses of this time have been by far the Voigtländer Ultron 50/2 and the Leitz Summicron 50/2.

The Summicron M type 2 from that time (introduced 1956) is one of the best lenses ever and by no means comparable to the Canadian R SLR lens (late 70's ?) which you presented here. This R lens is slightly below the Planar/Ultron of the same time.
In the same context I mentioned the Voigtländer Ultron 50/2 from the 1950's which was at that time even above the Summicron of the same time.
The Planar didn't exist in the 1950's.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh dear. Yes, the Planar existed in the 1950s, you need to do some research!

You say the Summicron=R is just below the Planar/Ultron of that time.

Look at the graphs - the Planar completely outclasses the Summicron-R

Now you change it to being about RF lenses. The Summicron-M isn't better than the Contarex Planar 2/50 either.

Drop the bias about Leitz and Voigtlander and some sensible discussion may become possible.

Likely this is some stupid national pride thing with Voigtlander beginning as an Austrian company and Leitz being bought out by Austrians.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4