Which 50 LTM?

<p>I have a LTM body, am looking for a 3.5cm Summaron, have a 90mm f4 Elmar, and a 5cm f3.5 Elmar. I am wondering what other choices I have in LTM for a 50mm? I have some restrictive criteria though. The lens must take A36 screw on filters like my other lenses and it must be 1940s vintage. Is the Elmar 5cm my best choice here?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Hi Kent,</p>

<p>The topic has been addressed many times. Like you, I have the 3.5 Elmar which I like for its sharpness, portability and general resistance to flare (I haven't used a hood). Here is a link to a relatively recent discussion of the three options.<br>

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00AgA4?start=0</p>

<p>Elmar it is. I want compatibility with my A36 filters & hood, and resistance to flare is important to me. I'll pick up a coated version 1945--1949.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Good Choice<br>

Taken with the Elmar on a M8.2 no filter:</p><div></div>

I'm a big fan of the 50/1.4 Nikkor in LTM.

<p>I like Summitar 50 F2 for its higher speed</p>

<p>I really like the 50/2 Summitar. The bokeh is crazy (swirly and crystalline) but I use that to maximum effect. These two photos were taken with the Summitar. I especially like using it with wooded or twiggy backgrounds to accentuate the bokeh. You can click the images to see more image details in the tags.</p>

<p><a title="Late Summer Grass by Baisao, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8302/7860842678_0134ab2acb_c.jpg" alt="Late Summer Grass" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p><a title="Climber by Baisao, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8145/7161573485_59b82e6fec_c.jpg" alt="Climber" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>Look for a SUMMAR, preferably a coated one. I'm also picky about using the same filters on my lenses.<br>

While I love my late 50/3.5 Elmar, it's not in the same sharpness/contrast class with any of the Leitz f:2.0 lenses. For B&W the Summar is every bit as good as any of them. </p>

<p>I've tried the 50/1.4 Canon, Nikon, various russian, and the Leica Summitar. The fact is that these lenses are so old that it REALLY depends on what kind of shape the lenses are in. Any of these can be great, or not so great. Of the ones I tried, I went with the summitar 50/2. But it's not that it was better than the others -- I suspect it was just in better shape.</p>

<p>I might consider finding a reputable servicer and sending the lens you get to get it cleaned and serviced. If you pick Leica you may have an easier time finding good people who can service it professionally, including Leica if necessary. It only takes a tiny flaw in the focusing mechanism or the surface (scratching, fungus, etc.) to make a great lens less than great. With russian lenses there is a quality control issue as well. Since the designs are Zeiss prewar, some are superb and some are awful. It's kind of a crapshoot. </p>

<p>Naturally if you're made of money you can get some of Leica's current lenses in LTM on the used market. Those are great and super expensive. Voigtlanders can be good too, though I didn't like the 50/2.5 I had.</p>

<p>Voigtlander lenses are affordable and generally well-made. I have read such mixed opinions about the 50/2.5 that it gave me pause, and I never bought one. However, my 25/4 Snapshot Skopar is a fantastic little lens--if you are interested in wide angle with zone focusing.</p>

<p>Today I just bought a lens. It's a Summaron 35mm f3.5 vintage 1949! It will replace the Jupiter 35mm f2.8 I have. I have a vintage 1947 Elmar 9cm f4, and now all I need to do is replace my pre-1935 Elmar 5cm f3.5. Having all 1940s vintage is my first priority, and second is A36 compatible. Third is all Leica. I do like the image quality of some of the shots above, but I'm still thinking a 5cm Elmar is my best bet. I like the collapsible feature! The whole reason I shoot vintage cameras (I own them from several different periods--1914, 1937, 1951) is I want that vintage look and experience. Otherwise, I'd just shoot my Nikon DSLR.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

My favorite LTM lens is the Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton. The photos I get with it seem to fit in between what I get from

a Summicron and Summilux. However, the Nokton is a bit bulky compared to other LTM lenses. For a Barnack type

camera, I use an old LTM Summicron. The first versions have are made with a gold-colored lanthanum glass, and this

version is my favorite for black-and-white work.

 

When shopping for old lenses you must be very careful. Many old lenses were made with soft glass, and these lenses

often have many cleaning marks or scratches on the front element. Leica lenses are prone to getting internal haze on

the glass. This haze is very hard to clean off without damaging the lens coating. Some lenses have had the haze as

well as the coating removed, so the lens looks clean, but doesn't performs as well as a lens which has the coating

intact. Summitar lenses are prone to separation of the front elements, which are glued together. Separation looks like a

faint grey cloudiness in the glass near the edge.

 

The o,d Nikkor LTM lenses are good performers, and are usually fee of the haze problems. Just make sure that there

is no separation in the rear elements.