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
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:34 pm    Post subject: Advice sought for LTM 50mm lens selection Reply with quote

I am currently considering purchasing one of the following LTM mount lenses.

Chiyoko 2.8/50 Super-Rokkor
Yashikor 2.8/50
FUJINON L 2.8/50

I haven't been able to find a lot about any of these on the internet beyond confirmation that each is/was a high quality, well thought of lens. What I am really looking for is whether any of them should be avoided or would render images distinctly different from the LTM 50s that I already own, which are:

Canon 1.9/50
Canon 1.8/50
Summitar 2.0/50
Industar 61 L/D 2.8/50
FED 50 3.5/50
Jupiter-8 2.0/50 (Contax)
Helios 103 1.8/53 (Contax)

The lens, if I do buy one, will be used primarily on a Sony A7II or Sony A6000. However I now own a Canon 7 and am running my first roll of film through it. If it turns out that the camera is functionally sound and that I can learn how to take acceptable photographs with it I will be using any lens I buy on that camera also.

Thank you in advance for any insights you can provide.


Last edited by newst on Thu Aug 13, 2015 4:22 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think that you would improve anything if you are looking for those lenses bearing in mind what you already have.

Really an improvement would be either a Summicron 50/2 or the Voigtländer Nokton 50/1.5. Maybe the Jupiter-3 as a budget version would also be a nice addition to your present collection.

Those lenses you listed are not really state of the art and because of their rarity not really cheap as well. Especially the Yashicor is almost impossible to find as only aprx. 5.000 copies have been produced around 1960.

So I am not really sure if your wish list is the best idea. Wink

Just my 2 cents.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seeing as you have the Helios-103 the Summicron wouldn't be an upgrade, the Helios is a copy of the Summicron and just as good.

With the Industar, Jupiter and Helisos you already have first rate examples of tessar, sonnar and planar types so buying something else more expensive is pretty much only justified by rarity and label value.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thank you both. I don't want more lenses with the same basic design and image quality simply because they have a different nameplate. I just didn't know whether any of the the three listed choices may have had a unique configuration not covered by my current lenses.

I may look into a J-3 or perhaps a Canon 1.5/50. Otherwise I guess I'm set for 50s.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope, only the Nokton (my most favorite 50mm RF lens) is different due to it's aspherical element. There are not so many different lens designs available. Not even in the SLR class of lenses, although there is much more choice.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have J3, J8, Canon 1.8, Helios 103, Industar LD 53, and CV 40. I use them on the A7 except the Helios.

My J3 is a very nice lens on the A7 , sharp in the center but it is never sharp in the corners and on the borders. A stopped down J8 is better in this respect. It might be my J3 sample but as a consequence it is not a versatile lens.

How do you mount your Helios 103 on the A7 ? I have two samples waiting for a solution with a reasonable price.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are two ways of mounting the Helios-103. First it to transplant the optical block into the M39 barrel of a Jupiter or Industar 50.

The second is to remove the helicoid and mount from a broken Kiev body and fit it inside a NEX-M39 adapter.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
There are two ways of mounting the Helios-103. First it to transplant the optical block into the M39 barrel of a Jupiter or Industar 50.

The second is to remove the helicoid and mount from a broken Kiev body and fit it inside a NEX-M39 adapter.


There is a third option: Click here to see on Ebay, though it's not the cheapest. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

memetph

memetph wrote:
I have J3, J8, Canon 1.8, Helios 103, Industar LD 53, and CV 40. I use them on the A7 except the Helios.

My J3 is a very nice lens on the A7 , sharp in the center but it is never sharp in the corners and on the borders. A stopped down J8 is better in this respect. It might be my J3 sample but as a consequence it is not a versatile lens.

How do you mount your Helios 103 on the A7 ? I have two samples waiting for a solution with a reasonable price.


There is a Russian entrepreneur who is taking the mount from old Kiev cameras and adapting it to NEX/E-Mount. They aren't as pretty as the new Kipon or Camdiox adapters but they work fine (it is what I am using) and cost around $50 US rather than $250 US.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/UNIQUE-Contax-RF-Nikon-S-Mount-to-Sony-NEX-E-Mount-Adapter-GIFT-FAST-Lens-/151776433524?hash=item2356949574

He provides a free lens with the adapter. This was the source of my Contax mount Industar 26.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting he sent you an I-26. Such a beast in Contax form does not exist, so he probably used the I-26 barrel for another project and had the parts to make a Contax I-26 left over. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Interesting he sent you an I-26. Such a beast in Contax form does not exist, so he probably used the I-26 barrel for another project and had the parts to make a Contax I-26 left over. Smile


That is what we eventually decided.

http://forum.mflenses.com/industar-26m-in-contax-rangefinder-mount-t71174,highlight,%2Bindustar.html


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Seeing as you have the Helios-103 the Summicron wouldn't be an upgrade, the Helios is a copy of the Summicron and just as good.


The rigid (chrome) version is a different lens altogether and was made in screw mount . . . a shame it sells for what seem to be astronomical prices these days Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scsambrook wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Seeing as you have the Helios-103 the Summicron wouldn't be an upgrade, the Helios is a copy of the Summicron and just as good.


The rigid (chrome) version is a different lens altogether and was made in screw mount . . . a shame it sells for what seem to be astronomical prices these days Crying or Very sad


The Leitz Summicron with Near-Focusing Range type 2 (rigid, 1956-1968) is said to be the best version:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f2-dr.htm

However, I only have the type 1 Summicron (collapsible, 1953-1960). But it's not bad as well.

Both share the same optical formula (7/6).


PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

newst wrote:
memetph

memetph wrote:
I have J3, J8, Canon 1.8, Helios 103, Industar LD 53, and CV 40. I use them on the A7 except the Helios.

My J3 is a very nice lens on the A7 , sharp in the center but it is never sharp in the corners and on the borders. A stopped down J8 is better in this respect. It might be my J3 sample but as a consequence it is not a versatile lens.

How do you mount your Helios 103 on the A7 ? I have two samples waiting for a solution with a reasonable price.


There is a Russian entrepreneur who is taking the mount from old Kiev cameras and adapting it to NEX/E-Mount. They aren't as pretty as the new Kipon or Camdiox adapters but they work fine (it is what I am using) and cost around $50 US rather than $250 US.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/UNIQUE-Contax-RF-Nikon-S-Mount-to-Sony-NEX-E-Mount-Adapter-GIFT-FAST-Lens-/151776433524?hash=item2356949574

He provides a free lens with the adapter. This was the source of my Contax mount Industar 26.


Thanks for the link. What do you say about the Helios mounted with this adapter on the A7 ? How does it compare to your Canon for example?


PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

memetph wrote:


Thanks for the link. What do you say about the Helios mounted with this adapter on the A7 ? How does it compare to your Canon for example?


The Helios works fine with the adapter. This lens was designed to be a sharper replacement for the Jupiter 8M on late model Kiev cameras. When they designed the sharpness into it they seem to have designed the 'swirly' bokeh out of it, similar to the transition from Helios 44 to Helios 44M-7. The shots from it look very much like those from the planar Canon 1.8/50.

Canon at F5.6



Helios at F5.6




Canon at F2.8




Helios at F2.8




PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:

The Leitz Summicron with Near-Focusing Range type 2 (rigid, 1956-1968) is said to be the best version:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f2-dr.htm

However, I only have the type 1 Summicron (collapsible, 1953-1960). But it's not bad as well.

Both share the same optical formula (7/6).


Thomas - although the collapsible and rigid lenses have the same numbers of elements and components, the designs are by no means identical. However, the optics of the Near Focusing (NF) version are identical with those of the 'normal focusing' rigid model and the stories of the superiority of the NF type probably originate in the sales patter of 1960s photo-store assistants who gleefully encouraged customers to buy the more expensive version by adding a little extra 'gilt on the gingerbread'. I have happy memories of those times and can truthfully tell you that I couldn't ever see any difference in the results. The NF version was never an easy sale, it was quite a bit more expensive than the other one . . . Wink


PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
However, I am not willing to spend more than 1.000 Euros for the rigid version for just a little improvement over the collapsible one which is probably not even noticeable during normal photography, i.e. on the final picture.
At the end of the day I believe that I like the CV Nokton 50/1.5 a little bit more anyway. Wink
Most probably the aspherical element of the Nokton makes the difference. Not yet sure.
Though, I have to admit that my "new" Voigtländer Ultron 50/1.8 in M42 comes at least very close.
I will do some comparisons when my energy comes back (I am suffering from the heat these days). I am already curios to find out the differences of my 50mm RF lenses and at least some selected SLR primes in 50mm.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LTM lenses are expensive if they are excellent, I did bought expensive KIEV-CONTAX adapter and now I able to use less costly and stunning Nikon and Zeiss lenses.
Russians has not much price tag difference between LTM and KIEV mount.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve, I think you have a great nose, and these three I find very interesting.

You are in tall grass, looking at lenses which few have any experience with, so I would be very wary of advice which purports to know these lenses.

If it was me I would go for the FUJINON L 2.8/50, if you can find one.

That would be the jewel of your entire collection.

also, as you obviously love these old 50s, at some point you may want to find a pre-war CZJ 50/1.5. In LTM these are pricey and beat up, but very common, clean and cheap in Contax mount and easily adapted to the Sony.

Here's one:

DSC02414 by unoh7, on Flickr

another cheap fantastic 5cm is the Nikkor 50/1.4


DSC01569-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

and these two lenses illustrate how silly it is to say: oh, x and y have similar designs, why would I want y?

They have very similar designs and are very very different lenses.


Last edited by uhoh7 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:38 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Ex-Fujinon-50mm-f-2-8-Leica-screw-mount-L39-LTM-fuji-50-fit-M3-M8-935-/221850961071?hash=item33a75904af
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-Near-MINT-FUJINON-L-5cm-F-2-8-Leica-LTM39-w-Filter-From-Japan-/301711770337?hash=item463f6c42e1


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


Last edited by uhoh7 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:03 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

that is not much for a top lens.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really enjoy my Jupiter 3.

I think the super would be my next choice.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

newst wrote:
memetph wrote:


Thanks for the link. What do you say about the Helios mounted with this adapter on the A7 ? How does it compare to your Canon for example?


The Helios works fine with the adapter. This lens was designed to be a sharper replacement for the Jupiter 8M on late model Kiev cameras. When they designed the sharpness into it they seem to have designed the 'swirly' bokeh out of it, similar to the transition from Helios 44 to Helios 44M-7. The shots from it look very much like those from the planar Canon 1.8/50.


Thank you. Those shots seem to confirm my experience with my Canon 1.8. This lens is very contrasty. The Helios looks a bit "washed " in comparison.
I have the early version of the Canon . It needs to be stopped down at f11 to be sharp all over the frame ( FF). I find the bokeh very nice and not busy or swirly at all, very different from my Helioses SLR.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, the CZJ Sonnar 50/1.5 is nothing else than the Jupiter-3 but more expensive. Nothing special at all.

The Nikon 50/1.4 would be the better lens compared to this two Sonnars as it's an advanced design compared to the old Zeiss and Jupiter pre-war designs.

I wouldn't expect the Super Rokkor 50/2.8 to be very special with it's 5/3 design. Even so the Fujinon 50/2.8. However, only a direct comparison would tell you the truth. It seems that nobody did that before. At least I didn't find anything like that in the web. Maybe you buy both and perform a test yourself. Wink

The faster F2 versions of the Rokkor and the Fujinon are said to be quite decent performers. However, they are considerably more expensive too. Even so the Topcor-S which was built for the Leotax, but it's rather expensive too. There are quite good picture examples from these lenses if you search a little bit around.

My recommendation is still the CV Nokton 50/1.5 aspherical which can be found not too expensive in the first LTM/M39 version and this lens definitely renders differently because of it's aspherical element. I like the very soft and smooth transition from the sharp to the unsharp regions of this lens which is rather unique and there are barely any visible CA's in the pictures, not even fully open. However, as always mainly a matter of taste.