Best 50mm LTM lenses

[fredus]

Hi there,

 

I'm having an interest for old lensese lately and would like to know

if your opinion what would be my best best for a Leica 50mm LTM ...

Between a summitar and an elmar ... what would you choose ?

(regardless of speed ...)

 

Fred

[robweatherburn]

Hi Fred - I have both lenses - elmars uncoated and coated - and coated Summitars. I also use old Summars, but - as in all photography - and Art - much depends on what you want to achieve.

 

I find I use my Leica I more than any other camera these days, and it's fitted with its original standard uncoated elmar. I like this combo because of its lack of size and bulk. For colour work, I use an UV filter, but am happy with the way the uncoated lens captures and registers light, without overdoing contrast and colour. That said, a lot of photographers won't agree.

 

My Summitars and Summars are on my IIIb and IIIf - both fine lenses; - I love the effects of glow - and flare - that I can achieve with the Summar.

 

So to answer you - try them both and see what suits you. You can find good examples of both - and they're not going to break the bank.

 

 

Cheers

 

Rob

[leslie_cheung]

Both are good though neither would be my first choice. Summitar would be easier to use

while the elmar is smaller and cooler looking.

[awahlster]

5cm f2.8 Elmar my 1958 version is stunning.

[adrian bastin]

Fred.

 

If you want a coated one, whatever it is try to get one with coatings intact ; it's obvious when it's there but not when it's missing - if you see what I mean. For uncoated Elmars, it's the older the better, for colour.

[stephen_w.]

Ltd. edition 50/1.4 LTM 'lux. Hard to find, but you asked for the best.

[adrian bastin]

Let me clarify that: When you're buying a coated lens, the coating on the front is obvious ; if it's not, then it's not there. And if it's not there I think it upsets the colour ballance a bit.

 

A chap who gave us art students a crash coarse in photography (1960s) believed that old, old lenses aquired a coating, naturally. I can well believe this ; if you have ever dug up a very old glass bottle, in the garden, the glass surface has started to stratify, giving a rainbow, or even a gold colour. Be interested to hear others' thoughts on this.

[robweatherburn]

Adrian - that's an interesting - and fascinating - idea about the acquired coating on very old lenses.

 

I have an original 50mm elmar on my 1930 Leica I, but it shows no signs of natural coating. I love the way this lens renders colour - perhaps just suits my eye - but I hope the attached image - one of the first I took with this lens and camera - will show something of its capabilities.

 

I shot almost into the sun to get some idea of possible flare and glare, but even with the reflected glare from the sea and sand, it did a wonderful job. (I've posted these shots earlier - to try and express my enthusiasm for this old uncoated lens.)

 

I also have a 1935 Elmar with cleaning marks to the front glass, yet it still does a great job. I'll keep an eye out for one with naturally acquired coating.

 

Rob<div></div>

[robweatherburn]

Same setup<div></div>

[blakley]

A 50/2 LTM Summicron is a better lens than either of these, but rarer and more expensive. The VC 50/3.5 Color-Heliar is (IMO) better than all three, but the least compact of the bunch, and a bit of a pain to use, as it's a little difficult to tell if you've fully extended it and it's too easy to bump the aperture ring out of position (plus it takes weird filters).

[karl_keung]

a coll. summicron strkes the best balance between performance and handling, it is not

pricey, takes standard E39 filter and hood, does not obstruct viewfinder of my IIIf. The RS

Elmar is fine too, but difficult to use and its accessories are exotics, valoo etc.

[adrian bastin]

I agree with Karl and Bob, the Summicron is the one to go for. If you get a very early one, though (up to the low 1000000s) it will have a yellow tint which will warm colours a bit. It's not the easiest lens to use but when you get it right the results fantastic.

 

Adrian

[mukul_dube]

Fred, since you named only the Summitar and the Elmar, I shall speak only of those two. The Summitar is more prone to flare and is made of soft glass. Some call it a "variable contrast" lens: soft at large apertures, more contrast on stopping down. The Elmar is a good bit smaller, and its simpler construction is an advantage. It is the lens which made Leicas famous. Either is a compromise, one way or another, neither is "best" for everything. Get both if you can, and hoods for them. The coated versions are generally held to be better, but their coatings too can be delicate.

[wmwhee]

I have not used a summitar, but I have used a coated f/3.5 elmar and I liked it a lot. For time, I even used it with a m2 camera. Great little lens.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<img src="http://www.kbcamera.com/images/ebay/Leica50LTM.jpg">

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I bought the lens above several years ago from K&B camera (their image). It was purchased for filming with 16mm. I have a precision ground Leitz LTM to C mount adapter. The lens has alot of punch/contast at F2, compared to an older Summicron. This lens was made for the Japanese market, and sold new on Ebay several years ago. It works well on my Bessa R, M3 with adapter, Zorki's, but will not attach to my Lennigrad since the lens is too fat in diameter. The lens flange is sunk into the body with the Lennigrad. This is a heavy brass lens that has a chrome finish. Plus the famous lens hood you all love .:) Abit pricey too :)

[stephen_w.]

But Kelly, one would get an extra stop with the equally rare LTM 'lux.

[feli]

I would take the Summitar. It's almost as good as the Summicron (collapsible) and faster

and sharper than the Elmar. It's nice and compact on a LTM body.

 

Simply based on optical performance you can list them in this order. I own almost all of

these, so I speak from experience.

 

Classic Leica:

 

#1 Summicron rigid (extremely rare, but they exist.)

 

#1 Summicron collapsible

 

#2 Summitar / Summarit (softer below 5.6 than Summitar)

 

#3 Elmar 3.5/50 (the 2.8 is better, but not as good as the Cron)

 

#4 Summar

 

 

The Hecktor was a dud, as is the Xenon. The Summarit is soft wide open and sensitive to

flare, but is good for portraits or that glowing, romantic look. Same for the Summar. The

Elmars are very flare resistant and stopped down are quite sharp, especially the 2.8. The

Summitar is almost as good as the Summicron, even more so if it is coated.

 

Then there are the modern lenses.

 

#1 2/50 Summicron (current formula)

 

#2 1.4/50 Summilux (pre-ASHPH) / VC 1.5/50 Nocton

 

#3 1.4/50 Canon or 1.8/50 Canon

 

#4 1.4/50 Nikkor 2/50 Nikkor

 

#5 1.5/50 Sonnar and clones

 

 

Leica made a limited run of the Summicron and Summilux in LTM for the Japanese market.

 

There are others, but that's my short list.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Stephen; the #11619 wasnt really that rare once. They were on Ebay new for 2 years and rarely sold, with the price being dropped more and more to sell them off.

[frederick_muller]

Here's how I rate the screw-mount 50's:

 

1) 50mm Type 1 Rigid Summicron in LTM. 2) 50mm Collapsible Summicron in LTM 3). 50mm Type 3/4 Rigid Summicron in LTM (shown above - the Type 3 and 4 rigid are the same formula) 4) 50mm VC Nokton

[kelly_flanigan1]

The best bang for the buck is a Jupiter-8 5cm F2 if you are an experimenter, and can weed out a dud. It is one of the most consistant Russian lens I have used. ie if the dice are rolled the odds are decent you will get a reasonable lens. <BR><BR>The Nikkor 5cm F2 LTM is a great lens; the Canon 50mm LTM lenses are good values too.

[feli]

>1) 50mm Type 1 Rigid Summicron in LTM. 2) 50mm Collapsible Summicron in LTM 3).

 

 

This must be a typo. There is no Type1 Rigid Summicron.

 

The order is:

 

Formula #1: Collapsible

 

Formula #2: Rigid/Dual Range (DR)

 

Formula #3: First high contrast formulation, clip on hood.

 

Formula #4: Comes in two iterations, with clip on hood or current model with the

collapsible hood. The optical formula is identical.

[mo_larricese]

Try a Jupiter 8. If you don't like it, you can actually afford to throw it away.

[frederick_muller]

You are right, Feli, I just tend to consider the collapsible as a class all its own ... my fault for using my own personal taxonomy of Summicrons! Frederick's taxonomy goes like this:

 

1) Collapsible Summicron (prior to, and at the same period as the first Rigid, but a different formula. 2)Type 1 Rigid / Dual Range, which had the same formula 3) Type 2 Rigid which was in the '70s, black, with no focusing tab and a clip-on hood 4) Type 3 Rigid, which was in the '80s, black, with maybe 300 chromes made, with a focusing tab and a clip-on hood, 5) Type 4 Rigid (current model), with no focusing tab and a sliding, built in hood. I sometimes even consider the current model to be a Type 3 rigid as they are the same optical formula.

 

I suppose to avoid confusion, I should refer to the Collapsible as the Type 1, and the first rigid as the Type 2, more in line with your taxonomy.

[jim_thompson6]

To Rob,

 

Were your pictures taken on Kauai? I am quite surprised and impressed with the lens under such conditions.

 

As to the thread itself - I would agree with the responses regarding the Jupiter 8. A good one is well worth the inexpensive search.

 

Jim