Relative quality of Rangefinder LTM Manufacturers

Gatorengineer64 · Joined: 26 Oct 2017 Posts: 279

I want to upgrade my knowledge of Relative Rangefinder lens quality. I know all lenses arent created equal but to generalize quality levels from what I understand

1) Zeiss / Leica / voigtlander
2) Canon Minolta Nikon Konica Topcon
3) Soligor / Kyoei / Komura

How would you put in other vendors, and do I have anything noticeably wrong?

jmkmva · Joined: 25 Nov 2010 Posts: 78 Location: MidAtlantic US

Generalizations? I do not know if these classifications will help.

For example, What generation Voigtlander? Also, specific lenses may not follow this above classification hierarchy as often as one would think. One lens that I used was a Canon 50mm f1.4 ltm. It was no second tier lens.

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

Price ranges apply to your classifications too - there are exceptions to the hard classifications when price is considered, however, it suffices in many cases.

luisalegria · Expire: 2018-01-18

The other factor to consider is collectors interest.
In the case of older RF lenses this probably drives prices more than anything.

Gatorengineer64 · Joined: 26 Oct 2017 Posts: 279

Let me look for shootability, and image quality / bokeh, and lets say value, under $500

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

Maybe I'm out of touch, $500 should purchase the best of rf lenses shown here at mflenses. Research!

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary

lol
In general, I think the quality of RF lenses are a bit better than SLR lenses, the few I've worked on were marvels of engineering, for example my Super Rokkors are completely different than their SLR lenses, individual elements have a metal ring around the perimeter that sets their distance between each other by how thick it is, vs a ring holding the element against a ledge milled in the body.
QC also seems to be better, probably has to do with getting the plane of focus to match the RF patch.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

What about the Russians? The Jupiters are copies of the Zeiss pre-war Sonnars and Biogon and are very fine lenses.

IMHO, any M39/LTM collection should start with the Jupiters, nothing else gives the same bang for your buck.

Sjak · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 696

Yep, the Jupiter 8 is cheap&cheerful, the Jupiter-11 is a good 135, and the Jupiter-3 50mm 1.5, although not cheap, is probably the cheapest option for a fast rangefinder lens.

But there are more commie-rangefinder lenses. Industar-lenses that were sold on/with FED's are also quite good, and even very very cheap. The Industar-22 50mm 3.5 gives a very typical vintage rendering.

Lomography released a new version of the Jupiter-3, as I understood with modern coatings and a slight re-design, which has been very well received with reviewers and also users on e.g. youtube. And a slightly improved closest focussing distance (1m for the original, 0.7m for the new one) https://shop.lomography.com/en/jupiter-3-plus?country=de

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Lomography are a rip-off company, I'd never give them any business. Zeiss still sell the 1.5/50 Sonnar so that would be a far better choice.

Sjak · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 696

Given the (sometimes dark) history, the Jupiters (and many other soviet-copycat-lenses) can be considered rip-offs (or worse)
I have no personal experience with (or commercial interests with) Lomography, so cannot tell whether it is a rip-off or not.

Just checked the Zeiss, actually the price surprised me (expected it to be more in "Leica-spheres")

I noticed the currently sold Sonnar has different specs than both old and new Jupiter 3 (different number of elements and groups, different min.focus distance,...); maybe Lomo made changes due to copyright-considerations? Or did Zeiss meanwhile change the design of the lens they sell as Sonnar?

This site suggests the current Sonnar is based on an old prototype: http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_1841.html maybe that explains the differences?

coase · Joined: 08 Aug 2016 Posts: 99

Gatorengineer64 · Joined: 26 Oct 2017 Posts: 279

Well so far I have had a 50 F2 summicron, Dual range that I wasn't impressed with, that IMHO was beat by a Topcon rangefinder 50F2 for sharpness and bokeh at less than half the price. I ha Voigtlander wide Heliar that IMHO was not very good at anything and that was replaced by a Tamron Adaptall 17 at 4x the size and a quarter the price obviously not a rangefinder. I had a Minolta Rangefinder 28mm? with whitespot syndrome that I liked but didnt think was hitting on all cylinders.

My goal is to have a small travel kit of RF lenses.... I have a 50, I have a Canon 135 in the mail, and I picked up a cheap Kyoei 135 (with a known fungus problem), for my medium long. Someday I will get a 200. Right now my interest is in something in the 28-35 range, and something 80-90 ish (I had a bad Elmar, but I think that was just a trashed lens, so I cant judge that.

My hope in posting this was to find some perhaps less than well known japanese or German lenses that wouldnt break the bank.

I also like shooting RF glass, as the feel of the precision is just different for me than SLR vintage.... Not sure if this makes sense.

I never would have discovered some of my less than well known SLR lenses if I didnt muck about like this, and fish for suggestions.... Thanks

Mark

Sjak · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 696

The Tele-Elmarit 90 is a very light lens (240g only), and highly regarded. So is e.g. the Summicron-90, versions II and III (later too, but those are much more expensive), though heavier and larger than the Tele-Elmarit-90. These lenses can be found under 5-600 euro with some patience and negotiating. The Summicron is almost 2-lenses-in-one: great subject isolation and background blur wide open, very sharp when closing down. I currently own the R-90 2.0 but intend to trade it for an M ver. III.

Just outside the 28-35-range, I really like my Summicron-C 40mm, tiny lens, very discrete, it's one of the lenses I use the most.

Wider RF-lenses tend to be more expensive than (near) 50mm versions. I only have a Voigtlander 15mm I, which I find very convenient while travelling, my other wides are SLR or native mount lenses.

But my taste may be different than yours of course, and your camera possibly is different too.

Nordentro · Expire: 2015-01-29

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I have the Canon 135mm M39 and the Kyoei Acall 135mm M39, neither is as good as the cheaper Jupiter-11.

Oldhand · Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: So far my experience

newst · Joined: 21 Oct 2014 Posts: 617 Location: Troy, MI USA

Personal opinion here, nothing scientific to back it up, but my two cent's worth...

Top tier, Leica and Zeiss. Best glass, best coatings, best performance. Most outrageous pricing but if you want the best, or bragging rights, go with them.

Next level, Voigtlander. Mechanically almost as good as the Leica/Zeiss lenses. Very good glass. Modern coatings. Some of these lenses have just staggered me with the image quality they produce, with the Nokton 1.5/50 and the Ultron 1.7/35 being two of my favorite all time lenses.

Next level, Canon and Nikon. While both companies produced excellent lenses these lenses are getting old. Coatings have improved considerably since these lenses were made. I have never owned any of their Nikon competition but the Canon LTM lenses I have owned have all been exquisitely built from chromed brass. Smooth operating lenses that just feel right in your hands. Trouble is they all weigh quite a bit more than their competition. Finally, some of the Canon LTM lenses have fogging problems.

The Soviet lenses are a different story altogether. You play the lottery every time you buy one unless you deal with a known entity like Fedka or have access to the lens before you buy. If the lens you buy was well built initially and hasn't been destroyed by amateur repair attempts it is likely to be excellent optically. The Soviet Sonnars, Jupiter-3, Jupiter-8, Jupiter-9 and Jupiter-11 can produce awesome images. The Jupiter-12 is a fine Biogon. The Industar line of Tessar derivatives are competant performers.

The issues, coatings and glass are older and have been superceded by more modern materials. The light aluminum bodies don't feel as substantial as their German and Japanese competition. Still, these lenses were built in the hundreds of thousands, are readily available, inexpensive, and capable of producing excellent images.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

Well, there really isn't much that I can add to what others have already written, except my perspective in finding economically priced, but good M39 glass.

I bought my first rangefinder out of a pawn shop about 33 years ago. It was one of Canon's most common rf cameras: a IVsb. Attached to it was a Kyoei Super Acall 135/3.5. I paid $75 for both. About a year or so later, I bought a 50/1.8 Serenar for not much money. Back then Canon rf stuff was cheap. I sold them all back in 1989 or 90, made a little off the sales. Canon rf stuff was still pretty cheap.

Fast forward over two decades. I decided I wanted another rangefinder. I'd owned a Leica IIIc briefly. It was a solid good camera, but I really liked the old Canon rangefinders better. So I started looking on eBay. Found a deal on a Canon IIIa (same as the IVsb, without the proprietary strobe rail) with a 50/1.8 Serenar. The camera/lens had been listed in the wrong area on eBay so it wasn't getting any interest. I ended up buying it for the auction minimum bid, which was $250. This was probably back in about 2012 or so. $250 was a good deal for that combination because I was seeing where just the lens was selling for close to that amount.

Okay, so maybe a year or so later, I come across some photo gear in a second-hand shop. There was a Tamron zoom and one of those preset T-mount 400/6.3s that used to sell for cheap brand new. And then there was a beautiful little 100/4 Serenar in its leather case with a finder. Paid $40 for everything.

Next, I decided I wanted to replace that Super Acall I sold all those years before, so I started looking. Found some on eBay and they were sort of expensive. Except for one that was being sold at auction. I was the successful high bidder for it. Don't recall what I paid for it, but it wasn't much -- maybe $75 or so. It came with the original presentation box (velvet lined) and a brochure showing all the available Kyoei lenses made back then. Just looking through that brochure was a treat.

Lastly, and most recently -- about a year ago, I started looking for a cheap 35mm for my Canons (I had a P by this time), and I found one that was attached to a camera -- another IIIa as it turns out. It was the 35mm f/3.2 Serenar. Came with a leather case and a finder. I picked up the camera and lens for $175. I honestly don't know how or why I managed to pick up that lens for so cheap, considering what it sells for by itself. The camera is in decent shape but its slow speeds are off. That's okay. I bought the set for the 35mm anyway. It is in very nice condition. I haven't used it much, but it certainly seems to be sharp enough when I mount it on my NEX 7. I still have a roll of film in the P where I used the 35 Serenar, so I'll have to wait and see how it works in the corners with a FF film camera.

Now, with all four of my M39 finds, I got lucky. None of the lenses have fungus or are cloudy in the slightest. In all cases, the glass is very clean. The reason why I am relating my experiences is to let you know that, if you're on a budget, as I am, the deals are out there. You just have to go looking for them. I have found several good deals on eBay by typing in a search for an item, but I always type in the search on eBay's home page. Sometimes a search will get restricted to the area you're in. And you'll miss things. Most of the deals I've found by searching from eBay's home page were items that were mis-listed. So no eBay bidders and/or buyers knew about them. Just something to keep in mind when you're looking for something.

l9magen · Expire: 2016-10-21

Nordentro wrote

Sjak · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 696

padam · Joined: 09 Oct 2012 Posts: 175 Location: Hungary

I can vouch for most of the Canon rangefinder lenses, the build is absolutely superb, much better than the Russian lenses. You take them apart and you can see why they are a much better copy of the Germans, they have that vintage-look, but better tolerances, with much less internal reflections (better contrast) than the Jupiter lenses.
But haze in not uncommon among them.

Although Leicas are still a bit better, even in screw-mount Razz

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Actually, my mint copy of the Canon 135 M39 has quite a bit less contrast than any of my J11s.