leica old glass favourite (pre 1970)

<p>Trying to decide on my first leica lens (nikon user). If you could select your favourite lens from the following list and motivate your answer, this would make my choice easier:</p>

<ul>

<li>elmar 50/3.5</li>

<li>summitar 50/2</li>

<li>summar 50/2</li>

<li>summicron coll. 50/2</li>

<li>hektor 28</li>

<li>elmarit 28</li>

<li>super angulon 21/4/3.4</li>

<li>elmar 35/3.5</li>

<li>summaron 35/3.5</li>

<li>summaron 35/2.8</li>

<li>elmar 90/4/2.8</li>

<li>elmar or hektor 135</li>

<li>summarex 85</li>

<li>summaron 28</li>

<li>summicron 35/2</li>

<li>summicron 90/2</li>

</ul>

<p>Thank you!</p>

I enjoy using wide angle lenses on my Leicas. Favorites are

21 mm Super Angulon on M cameras and 3.5 cm

Summaron on Barnacks.

Summitar 50/2

<p>Glenn: any reason for NOT wanting the 28mm?<br>

Martin: why not Elmar or Summar 50mm lengths? </p>

<p>Whole books have been written on this subject! This one<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Leica-Lens-Practice-Choosing-Lenses/dp/1897802013/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330956648&sr=8-1-fkmr2">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Leica-Lens-Practice-Choosing-Lenses/dp/1897802013/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330956648&sr=8-1-fkmr2</a><br>

is cheap and would be an excellent investment if you are moving into Leica. The obvious answer would be "The same focal length as you like using on your Nikon". If you want the classic photojournalistic look, a collapsible Summicron would probably have the edge - some of the lenses you list are poor performers by today's standards (like the 28 mm Hektor), others like the Summarex are super-expensive collector's items which live in glass cases! By and large "Summicron" is Leica-speak for "best", but it is impossible to comment on all the lenses you list here.</p>

<p>21 to 90 is a wide range for a first lens. Perhaps a 35 or 50 is your best first choice? The Elmar 50mm f2.8 (1950s through early 1970s) is a very good lens, although outdistanced for fine detail rendition by the later (1995?) Elmar-M redesign and the even better Summicron (versions IV or V). However, I had very good experience with my original f2.8 and have some nicely detailed B&W prints using it at moderate apertures, and it had an excellent 15 bladed diaphragm, compared to the 6 element one of the modern Elmar-M. </p>

<p>35 Summaron 1:2.8--one of the best Leitz lenses ever! A not-so-well kept secret anymore. Attached to a M2 -- the classic Leica combo. IMHO.</p>

<p>ARTHUR: I forgot about the 50/2.8, thanks.<br>

DAVID: I had a look at this book; wish there was a similar one covering the older lenses<br>

PAUL: 35mm, closest to the view angle of the human eye; my favourite lenstype in nikon; ever compared it with the elmarit 35/2.8 for the old flex? So much cheaper, but not compatible with the rangefinder camera I believe. </p>

<p>What focal length do you normally shoot with?</p>

<p>Michael: I love landscape; last year I tried out all of the older nikkor zooms (testing the common opinion that zoom lenses are inferior to their fixed counterparts). I found myself taking images within the 28-80mm range (partly because the zoom nikkors are limited to 28mm I suppose; with the exception of the bulky but admirable 25-50mm lens). In fact most of my shots are taken around the 35mm length. With my hasselblad I used 50mm and 120mm lenses; again 35mm and 80mm... </p>

<p>I often used a 50mm collapsing Summicron because it was compact. A 50mm f.2.8 Elmar tested much better, but I never owned one.</p>

<p>Apologies Jean-Marie, there is a book with the info you need, it's called the Leica Pocket Book:<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Leica-Camera-Lens-Pocket-Book/dp/0906447267/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1330962814&sr=8-7">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Leica-Camera-Lens-Pocket-Book/dp/0906447267/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1330962814&sr=8-7</a><br>

The 7th or8th edition has the best lens info, unfortunately they're out of print and people are asking stupid money for them. I recommended the wrong book before, I thought it was the same as the one above, but as you say it concentrates on new lenses. If you invest £7.98 in this older edition of the Pocket Book, I don't think you'll regret it!</p>

<p>JIM Isn't the 50/2.8 collapsible too? And cheaper?<br>

DAVID Thanks, that's more like it!Love the looks of it, looking for one right now. It is nice to get user opinion too, though.</p>

<p>Over the years I've owned 6 from your list -- so it really comes down to what fl you want for your first lens, what price are you willing to pay, and what rendering do you want. I loved the Summaron 35/2.8 and used it for about 20 years...lovely rendering slightly soft in the corners. I then moved to the Summicron 35/2.0 ASPH which was razor sharp across the field and had significantly increased contrast...but I haven't used it for 3 years now, and just sold it to a buyer in HK. I still have my collapsible Summicron 50/2 as it has that older lower contrast rendering, while still sharp. I prefer the 135 Tele-Elmar over the Elmar in this focal length, and have owned 3 of them over the years. The Elmar 50/2.8 IMHO does a better job to my taste than the 3.5...but both are good lenses in this fl. I've owned several 90s including the old Summicron 90/2.0 with the removable head for use on bellows or slr bodies, the 90 Elmarit and a recent Summicron 90 APO ASPH. The later is incredibly sharp and contrasty, but too big and heavy for my situation, as was the old Summicron 90. I much prefer (and continually use) the 90 Elmarit, it is sharp, medium contrast, and the head is removable for use on my bellows and other slr bodies. I think Leica lenses are really overpriced - new or used. I generally prefer used lenses if the condition is good and they are selling for 75% or less than new. Good luck with your choice.</p>

<p>STEPHEN For landscape in black and white the summaron would do I suppose; doubt if the 3,5 is much different from the 2,8.? I try to avoid razorsharp, clinical looking pics so the modern lenses are out for me. The 35/2 pre asph is probably already too sharp? The 90mm lenses seem to have very little DOF (judging from the dof scale), were they designed with a portrait lefunction in mind? Did you use any of your lenses for B/W landscape? I agree on the price issue, seems like I am going to eat a lot of bread and sardines in the foreseeable future!</p>

<p>I particularly enjoyed using my 35mm f/3.5 Summaron with my screw mount Leicas. Sharp and compact.</p>

<p><em>I try to avoid razorsharp, clinical looking pics so the modern lenses are out for me. </em><br /> Looks as if you're heading towards a 1950s 35mm lens! The 35mm Elmar is just too old, performance nothing special, very hard to find one in good condition, uncoated only. The 3.5 and 2.8 Summarons are roughly equal in performance, 3.5 easier to find, you might as well go for the later version that takes the screw-in (E39) filters - 2.8 version is very nice (I've owned both) but hard to find and expensive. 2 points that might save you money - the 2.8 50 mm Elmar is highly rated, regarded as almost equal to the Summicron, BUT if stored pointing straight up the Elmar will suffer oil vaporising from the iris diaphragm and depositing on the back of the front element - quite messy! The f2 Summar was Leitz's first f2 lens, uncoated (except for very rare exceptions) BUT made of soft glass which if cleaned carelessly scratches easily (most examples these days are wrecked). You might find a 35mm Canon Serenar for less money than a Summaron - optically they are fairly similar.</p>

<p>Jean-Marie ...I'm not sure about the history of the 90s, but I remember in the 1970-80s loving the family portraits' renditions with a collapsible 90/4.0 I owned...but it was just a little slow for me. Definitely as you progress toward longer focal lengths the DOF dramatically narrows. Most of my Leica landscape type shots were done over the years with the 35s and most were done with Kodachrome (shed a tear). About 10-11 years ago I added an M6 to my stable and did some B&W landscape shots in the winter when I tested it out...most of the shots, as I recall were with the newer 50/2.8 Elmar. High contrast between the trees and snow and that lens just nailed everything as it appeared....I was impressed, as my collapsible 50 Summicron on the same shots had much less contrast. Around 2006 I began trying to determine which lenses I was going to keep and which ones to sell, as I had 5 50mm lenses and I realized I wasn't using them to their potential. I ended up keeping 2, although I hated the redundancy...I kept a Summicron (Ver VI) from around 2003 and the old collapsible Summicron (Ver I) from 1954. It was tough to get rid of a 50 Summilux from 1959, but I wasn't using it enough to justify keeping it and the offered price for it was right, and a lot more than I originally paid. Honestly, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the 50s you mentioned...just be aware of the issues cited by others before you commit to buy.</p>

<p>If it's a screwmount, you really ought to start with a 50mm lens, so you can use the finder. Of course, the brightline finders are so much better than the built-in finder, but then the camera isn't as small.<br>

I'm partial to a Summar as a jack-of-all-trades, since it's still small, you can use the cheap FIKUS hood, and you even get "emergency use only" f/2 speed. (Keep it at f/4 or smaller when you want sharpness.) If you have a really clean haze-free and scratch-free one, it is not flare-prone in my experience.<br>

Summitar is more general purpose, but no longer small.<br>

Problem with 50mm Summar, Summitar, and Summicron is finding a GOOD one. Front glass is flint glass, insanely soft. Coatings are soft, can be readily removed when lens cleaned with any pressure. Internal haze often present, unpredictable if you can get it out on a soft-coated lens.<br>

Extra challenge with Summicron is the thoriated element in early ones that turns brown. Has to be bleached every decade with UV light.<br>

That's one advantage of the 50/3.5 Elmar -- the front element isn't soft. Easier to find a good one.</p>

 

<p>Hi Jean-Marie<br>

According to your said preferences I would say your natural choice should be the summicron 35/2.<br>

There are two versions pre-1970, the last produced from 1969, and it seems the latter version may outperform the first but according to the critics this one would be better than both the summarons.<br>

Depending on the camera, I would go for one with the "eye" or not (The TTL M6 will not accept this focusing piece). </p>

<p>35mm f/2.8 Summaron for me. Simply use it with the aux finder in the accessory shoe. Sure, it's bulkier, but far better than the built-in finder on an LTM (Barnack) model.</p>

<p>DAVID: The 35/3.5 seems a messy performer if the comments in the threads are anything to go by. But then you discover the images of Ravilious and think: wow, where has the flare gone? Seemingly he doctors his images very creatively in the darkroom? Thanks for the tip on the 50/2.8. I know exactly how leaking lenses can frustrate from my micro-nikkor 55/2.8!</p>

<p>JOHN SHRIVER I haven't found a summar advert as yet that does not mention 'cleaning marks' on front element. <em><strong>Do they come coated</strong></em>? And what's with that hideous <em><strong>boxy hood</strong></em>? The summar is for an outsider like myself an intriguing lens: there seems to be only those who love and those who loath it?</p>

<p>You could also do a search here for favorite lens, there should be about 3 hundred threads if you don't get enough opinions on this one.</p>

<p>STEPHEN Thanks. That's the kind of experience based advice I need. I mourn the demise of ektachrome, and even more the fact that I did not make more use of it when it was available. In Belgium we used Agfa-Gevaert film and it wasnt until my father bought me roll of kodak for a schooltrip to Italy that I knew that it existed! I remember all of us gazing at those lazure blue skies on the slidescreen after I returned.<br>

<em><strong>The collapsible 90/4: is it as prone to flare as the rigid one?</strong></em> I keep on reading that the rigid 90/4 and I suppose 90/2.8 as well does not handle heavy contrast at all, in spite of the front element being recessed so deeply and being coated? With our bright slies on this side of the equator I cant see it being of much use for landscape. And did you not find the <em><strong>perspective of the 50/2.8 limiting</strong> </em>after being conditioned so long to the 35's?</p>