LTMs Those 50's 50s

[owen w.]

About those 50's 50s.

<p>

In my recent adventures leading to the purchase of a Leica IIIa, I

received some very valuable advice here. I would like to ask a few

questions regarding the choice of an LTM 50 lens.

<p>

I've been haunting the E-place, wasting an extraordinary amount of

time watching (or in losing attempts) to acquire a reasonably priced

LTM 50. That, however, is not the subject.

<p>

I've been looking pretty much equally at the Elmars, Summitars and

collapsible Summicrons, as I understand the point of keeping the whole

package as small as possible. As I have yet to succeed on any of

these, I still have time to ask about experience and preferences from

those who know these LTM lenses well.

<p>

Several here suggested the Elmar as THE lens for the small LTM bodies.

Harry, in the thread on longest owned bodies, noted that, while he

occasionally used a collapsible Summicron, he preferred the Elmar.

Huw has also mentioned an affinity for the Elmars in previous posts.

<p>

I'm just curious as to why, if you had the choice among these three

types of lenses, the choice seems to go for the slowest lens. The

size of each of these lenses seems pretty close, in that all collapse

into the body. When extended, the two S lenses have a larger front

element, but don't seem to be that much bigger.

<p>

Basically, any of these lenses are good (I've read Erwin's compendium

and S. Gandy's opinions, among others), and the prices don't seem to

be that far apart (but can be, he said from a very limited knowledge

based on a few weeks wasted on E-prey). So, I'm really curious why

the Elmar seems to remain the lens of choice for the LTMs.. Or, is it?

<p>

I guess the starting question is: Given a 50's Elmar against, say, a

late, coated Summitar, why would one prefer one over the other? Are

the fingerprint/signatures sufficiently distinctive to go for the

Elmar? Over the collapsible Summicron, as well?

<p>

If one has the choice of an f/2 lens or an f/3.5, (among these lenses)

why choose the much slower lens? When you know that you won't (really

can't) use flash, then it would seem you'd really want those extra

stops available, no?

<p>

I happily admit to being an LTM neophyte, and am trying to learn. My

IIIa body has yet to arrive (it will be carried by a pal from the US

to Thailand next month), and I've never actually held an LTM body, nor

any of these lenses.

<p>

I have 2 CLEs, 2 M-bodies, and 10 M lenses, but my oldest Leica lens

is from the mid-70?s, and the slowest (24, 28, 90) are f/2.8. I

sometimes find these f/2.8 lenses to be slow. Do I assume that the

small bodies can be hand-held to even lower speeds, and so is the

f/3.5 not such a limitation? Or, you just mainly use it outdoors in

brighter light where the f/3.5 is no restriction? Somewhat dumb

questions, but I've admitted to being a slow learner.

<p>

I really appreciate the advice and suggestions.

<p>

Thanks,

<p>

Owen

[monsoonphoto.net]

Have you considered the CV 50/2.5? It's reasonably compact. Richard Small, a member of this forum, loves the lens on his Leica screw-mount. Run a search for his posts. I think the lens offers the best compromise between size and speed.

[ronald_moravec1]

To an inexperienced person, the image will look the same from any coated lens. Buy your lens on size required and how fast you want it to be and first and foremost, condition.

 

The internal haze on any will destroy the fine optical properties.

[peter_evans4]

<p>A pretty safe bet for an inexpensive, moderately compact 50mm lens of high quality: Canon 50/1.8.</p><p>A rather less safe bet for a cheap, compact 50mm lens that may be of high quality but may not (depending on your luck): the <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/mattdenton/photo/cameras/industar-22.html">Industar-22</a>, the Soviet knock-off of an Elmar 50/3.5. I have one that cost me very little, and it produces fine results, but I use it little because I find it a bit fiddly and it wouldn't collapse properly within the bodies I use most. But I suppose I'd say the same thing about an Elmar.</p>

[vidom]

First of all, size does matter. Summitar and Summicron lenses are much bigger and heavier and they increase the bulk of the whole package quite a bit, both collapsed and in working position. From a performance point of view, like all tessar-type lenses the 3,5 Elmar is soft wide open but sharp enough when stopped down to 5,6 or more. The "fingerprint" of the first gen. coll. Summicron and the Summitar is quite similar. They are very soft wide open anywhere in the picture except in the very middle, but both have better performance -most of all better contrast - at 3,5 than the Elmar in my experience. At 5,6 or smaller apertures you won't see much difference between any of the above - at least I don't. All of these lenses are still a long way from the quality a modern lens design (such as later 'Crons) can deliver, so if you want super sharp at all apertures with a LTM lens get a Cosina/Voigtlander.

[markkd]

have a look at these threads as well.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BQEO

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BrCl

[vidom]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AGO3" >Here</a> is my own comparative test of my own LTM (and M) 50s. I have to add that the bad marks my collapsible Summicron got may have been caused by errors on my side (maybe it wasn't de-collapsed correctly); further tests gave satisfactory results very close to those with my Summitar, which confirms what Erwin Puts writes about these two.

[owen w.]

Thanks. The links were all good, too.

<p>

My main connection is kaput, so I'm on and off. The size issue is there. If I wanted a modern ultra sharp lens, I've a pretty wide range of the ASPH lenses in M-mounts. It's a IIIa from 1936. The Summars are just too soft, although if a really clean one were to appear in front of me, I'd jump just for the chance to try it. Something about the authenticity of the instrument has an appeal in the experimentation.

<p>

The suggested softness of the early gen coll Summicrons and Summitars has a certain appeal. I'd like to try that, too. I find I often leave my current M-50/2 and 1983 Summilux behind to use my beater Cron from 1977. My Rokkor 40/2 is sharp on a CLE, too.

<p>

The trick, as people are pointing out, is to find clean glass at a reasonable cost.

<p>

Still, the weight and size are also part of the discussion. I have to get my wi-fi link back up before I can even go back to watching. Sigh.

<p>

My thanks for observations, preferences and stories.

<p>

Owen

[awahlster]

Well, You have completely missed one of the best 50's 50's the 5cm f2.8 Elmar It is a later 50's coated lens with an excellent rep. My own example is a beautiful lens sharp yet smooth and with an e39 filter thread easy to put a hood on or filters.

 

I have even seam tests using it as an enlarging lens and compaing it favorably to macro lens 20 years newer.

[MTC Photography]

The Summitar stop down to f/3.5 performs much better than Elmar 3.5 wide open. The Summitar has still two stops reserve for lower light condition.

[peter_evans4]

<p>The very reliable <a href="http://kevincameras.com/">Kevin</a> has <a href="http://kevincameras.com/gallery/albvd13">an "excellent" (Canon) Serenar 50/3.5</a> for $195. (<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Cckj">About this model of lens.</a>)</p>

[Aoresteen]

Welcome to the LTM world! I use a '52 Summitar which I just love. Sherry of Golden Touch is reported to use one on her M5 so that says a lot.

 

The only issue I've found with the Summitar is using filters and shades. I had SK Grime make a custom adapter to 39mm filters and it also works with the Leica metal shade (12585?).

 

I would buy the best one you can find and have Don or Sherry CLA it. You will be happy! Good luck!

[jtk]

Everybody with a 1/11/111 NEEDS an Elmar (or Fed). It's a historic piece, after all. Given the prewar vintage of your body, maybe you especially need an uncoated example.

 

Elmars collapse much flatter than the others and that fiddly aperture adjustment gizmo is actually very good industrial design...with all the others your aperture can be inadvertantly changed.

 

LTM 'cron glass is likely to be in mediocre condition...high odds of fungus.

 

If you plan on using filters, Elmar's a hassle. But you didn't get a IIIa fearing hassle, did you :-) It's a manly man's camera, unlike all those Hermes items.

[dan flanders]

When I had only a 3.5 Elmar I would occasionally find myself snookered by its limited speed, so I yearned for a faster lens. As my fortunes improved I satisfied my yearning and obtained the faster lenses. Reflecting upon many past year's needs I realize that the exptra speed was needed only a small percentage of the time and that I am using the limitations of the Elmar to a far greater extent with the additional speed of today's films. Today we can use f4 or f5.6 and capture pics that we could not have made forty years ago with the fastest lenses available. Thus I suppose my needs (and aspirations) seem to have made a full circle. My most used working outfit is essentially what I started with sixty years or more ago; a IIf with a RS Elmar, even though I now own faster lenses and more modern bodies. All the acquisitions and experimentations have been fun and enlightening, and I don't regret the expense and effort, but it is ironic that my old Leica III and its 'bloomed' lens (though lost or retired)is capable of satisfying most of my photographic needs.

[Troll]

The comments about "soft" Leica lenses at full aperture are greatly exaggerated. Even wide open they're damn (sorry, Tony, they're darn) good. They're just even better stopped down, and newer models are generally better than the older ones. Constant repeating of this falsehood gives newbees the wrong impression, who pass on the bad information as thought it were gospel.

[owen w.]

It's a manly man's camera..

<p>

Ahh. I Love That.

<p>

Thanks for the comments.

<p>

I am pleased to hear from Harry, as he has the long perspective. I too am relearning, although more often unlearning, lessons from years ago. It's part of why I really appreciate this forum. The Elmar 2.8 would be nice, but rarely shows up and then commands a dear price. Me thinks I'm a bottom-feeder hoping to find a cherry in an off week. (Yeah, yeah. Dream on.) The personal experiences are more interesting than exacting details. The size does keep coming back to keeping an Elmar on the list. Deeply ingrained, Bad habits regarding the craving for faster glass keep interfering.

<p>

Another current thread shows nice Summar images, which underscore why I'll keep an inexpensive Summar on the possible list. I've seen one or two pass by on the e-place that were very nice looking.

<p>

I suppose I should wonder about limitations for use with my CLEs among these lenses. Not that it would matter much. I'll go hunt my files and see what I have.

<p>

I surely agree that the softness/sharpness is overwrought, although there are real differences. I think any of these, if the glass is clean, are good performers, and still probably better than me. I have the 90/2 APSH if I need razor fine (and all that bulk).

<p>

THIS IS A MANLY MAN'S CAMERA!

<p>

A lens of it's own era (or, as late as the fabulous 50's 50s) is called for. What I get may be more a factor of chance than actual choice.

<p>

What I really wish is that I could physically hold several of these things to compare bulk.

<p>

Local shop had a couple old 90s, both Elmars and Hectors, and a sad Summaron, but no old 50s nor III-type bodies. Oh, well.

<p>

Owen

[Richard Williams]

'THIS IS A MANLY MAN'S CAMERA!'<br>

<br>

Of course Real Men use <a

href="http://www.sky.sannet.ne.jp/seven-ss/camera/summicron50.htm">Radioactive

Summicrons</a> :-)<br>

[dan flanders]

Will someone who understands Japanese please tell us what was the conclusion of that disposition? Several years ago in the LHSA Viewfinder the matter of the 'radioactive' (thorium glass) Summicrons was addressed and the conclusion was that there was no health hazzard involved and that the coloring of the glass was much the same as adding a warming filter. Also that lengthy exposure to UV radiation would reverse the coloring process. Does this article in any way refute or reinforce those conclusions?

[les_lammers]

*The comments about "soft" Leica lenses at full aperture are greatly exaggerated. Even wide open they're damn (sorry, Tony, they're darn) good. They're just even better stopped down, and newer models are generally better than the older ones. Constant repeating of this falsehood gives newbees the wrong impression, who pass on the bad information as thought it were gospel.*

 

Bill,

 

I agree 100%. The older lenses are excellent, build quality, optically, and affordable enough to try the ones you are interesed in. Then you will know what works for you. Sell the ones you don't like. Have the ones you like CLA'd and be happy.

 

Les

[vidom]

Bill, Les,

 

I humbly disagree. In my experience there is a clearly visible difference between older and newer lenses, and the older ones are soft wide open, period. I know this first hand as I regularily use these lenses. It all depends on what you compare it with, how much you want to enlarge a negative and which part of the negative you are looking at. A Summitar or first gen collapsible Summicron has very high resolution in the middle wide open, but only there. The Elmar has low resolution and low contrast all over the picture wide open, but stopping down a bit helps a lot. You won't see much of this in very small prints, and it also helps if the important parts of the motive are in the middle of the picture. That said, slight softness may improve many pictures and give very nice effects (such as the famous Leica glow or the mystic 3-D-quality a Summitar is supposed to have), so all of this doesn't mean those old lenses are bad.

[raymond_tai]

Over the years I have wasted a lot of time and money for the perfect 50mm ltm for my Bessa R then the IIIf. I have in my collection various Industars, Jupiters, Canons, Elmars, Cosinas and such. The most expensive was the current Summicron in LTM which I sold because it was too heavy on my IIIf. Right now my favorite is the coll. Summicron. It is fast, relatively sharp, not too big and good with color film. Performance wise the CV 50/2.5 is the best with a really useful tab to boot but the Summicron has that Leica character. If I didn't have any lenses I would get the CV; it is just a no bull good performing lens for $250. In the end it is really a matter of taste. I have two uncoated Elmars and they are great above f/4.5; the Canons are really good with b/w. The Soviet lenses are built like crap but functional. Sometimes saving money can cost you more in the end.

[dstate1]

I own and use the Elmar 3.5, Summar and Summitar in addition to the current generation Leica lenses. The term "soft" is a bit misleading when describing the performance of these lenses....It makes you think "out of focus" or "blurry". Not so.

 

A clean, properly assembled Leica lens of any vintage is capable of producing sharp photographs. Period. The problem is actually FINDING one in that condition...Nearly all have been mis-assembled by unqualified repairmen, fogged or scratched.

 

While the FULL APERTURE performance of the Summar, Summitar and early Summicron lenses is not up to modern standards, stopped down to f2.8-3.2 they make beautiful black and white images, and the Summar in particular has very even sharpness across the frame and better field flatness than the Summitar.

 

What they DONT do well is make beautiful COLOR images, because they just dont have the kind of color saturation that modern lenses have. Uncoated Summars are real flare monsters on hazy days and trying to correct for this in color processing just leads to blown highlights and inky shadows.

 

For general users who stick with 400asa films the Elmar will cover nearly any situation, and have an extra bit of contrast that will make color images pop. Need speed, go for the Summitar/Summicron, but make sure they are absolutely clear or you will pay in flare.

 

 

Regarding the CV 50mm 2.5: I've owned two of them and they were both stinkers. Flare, quality control issues and just plain low resolution made me ditch the lenses. For such a modest spec lens it should blow the old lenses out of the water...it does not. My coated Summitar is a better lens.

[r s]

Your IIIa deserves to be used with a lens from its own era.

<br>

I've been looking more and more at getting a IIIf or IIIg lately and it were me I would get the Elmar 50/3.5 - it would make for a very classic look and a very able user.

[russell_brooks]

These older lenses work great for B&W. Why? because the small amount of veiling flare will lift the shadows without destroying the highlights. And remember printing paper can only handle 5 to 7 stops of light anyway. You need and want the compression these lenses give! Go over once to the film forum and read how much effort people go through to reduce contrast. Two baths, extended processing, etc... Just go for the older lenses and dont point them towards the sun! That's how I learned it as a kid. And FWIW, all the moaning about the Summar can cheese off as well. I checked mine with my Epson R-D1 and guess what? The focus is off. And not on the Epson (since it focuses all my m-mount lenses fine) but on the Summar - so how much of my Summar's softness is due to it needing to be recalibrated? I mean the front glass unscrews! It's all over the place! So FWIW I really like my 50s f3.5 Elmar. And I just got a collapsible cron and it's with a good repair person to make sure I'll get a good working lens. I'm sure it'll be fine and even better than the over-corrected "modern" lenses.