Which next lens (Show and tell: Older and 'Lux lenses)

[mary_thull]

I am looking for my next Leica lens. I use an M3 with a 50 Summicron DR,

35 Summicron and 50 Summarit (rarely). I have been through many posts and much

information here -- my head is spinning. I really need to SEE some examples of

various lenses at work, with emphasis on portraiture. (Unfortunately many of the

examples on earlier posts are no longer available as links)

 

I am interested not only in a another perspective for portraiture with shorter or longer

lenses, but in seeing the different footprint/characteristics of older lenses and 'lux

lenses shot wide open or close to it. Tack sharp lenses are not a primary concern.

 

I am leaning towards a 75 Summilux or older 90 Summicron. Or maybe a '35 lux.

(Insert picture of spinning head here ...)

 

So would you please post your examples if you have them. I just need to look now. I

am hoping that this will help.

 

(PS: I also use a 500C/M Hasselblad so if anyone has some of examples there of those

great portrait lenses at work, please do share.)

 

Thank you very much, in advance.

 

Mary

[michael_kastner]

An age-old question so here's an age-old answer. (I have no photos opened here so that's my problem.) It all depends on what you'll be shooting at. E.g. if it is mostly portraits of a single person or an arch in a church, a 90 or 75 would be fine. If it is more often a small group of 1-2-3 persons, a 35 would be better. If OTOH it is a tomb or a whole grave yard, a 28 or 24 or 21 would be best.

[george_conboy1]

How about an old LTM Nikkor 85mm f2? It's reasonably fast and has given me good results with good "bokeh". Cheap, too.<div></div>

[al_kaplan1]

I'll second the 85/2 Nikkor idea! In addition to being a great lens it's corrected for nearer subjects. It's HEAVY though compared to my 90/2.8 "long" chrome Elmarit. Compared to the first edition 90 Summicron it's short and light, well, short!

 

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/nikoleic.html

[mary_thull]

Excuse me: I meant "the different optical FINGERPRINT/characteristics of older lenses

and 'lux lenses" not, "FOOTPRINT."

[Uhooru]

Whenever I see this question I always tout the Voigtlander 90 APO-Lanther. Very sharp, nice out focus features, and steady through the whole range. Plus small and light. Also relatively inexpensive.

[kent_tolley2]

pre-ASPH 90mm Summicron<div></div>

[neil_swanson]

This was taken with the 75mm 'lux @1.4 by the light of a 40w bulb on TX<div></div>

[neil_swanson]

This is the latest version of the 90 2.8 Elmarit. Taken on TX, window light at

1/60th @2.8<div></div>

[furcafe]

Another vote for the 85/2 Nikkor-P for a short telephoto. If weight is a problem, & the chrome Nikkor is on the heavy side (lighter black version is very difficult to find in LTM), you can always look for the Nikkor's "ancestor," the Carl Zeiss Jena 85/2 Sonnar in LTM--it's rare & on the expensive side (a couple hundred $$ more than the Nikkor), but is made of a lightweight alloy. All of the Nikkor lenses made in LTM are @ least pretty good for their era & many are better than their Leitz equivalents. Another option in classic glass is Canon's line for their RF cameras.

[furcafe]

BTW, I'm far from a great photographer, but if you're curious as to the general "look" of many of the classic RF lenses, you're welcome to check out my pix <a href="http://not.contaxg.com/user.php?id=17&page=user_folders">here</a>, where I've organized everything by manufacturer.

[stephen_w.]

The 75 'lux is a GREAT lens. You don't have anything faster than f2, so 1.4 will be useful, especially for the telephoto end (and you don't have a tele yet either). 1.4 at the 35 lens is less useful because 35's are easier to hand hold at slow speeds.

[gee-bug]

An Example from the 75 Summilux @f1.4<div></div>

[SolaresLarrave]

Ever considered an old, very old Elmar 90/4? I don't know exactly what you mean by fingerprint of footprint but let's hope this amateurish portrait helps you a bit. BTW, the lens I used was made in 1936.<div></div>

[djl251]

Here's a link with some shots with various 50 amd 90mm lenses including the 50mm Lux

(which is nothing special to me I'm afraid). If it were me I would go for the 75 Lux (which I

don't have). It seems that you are pretty well set with the 50s

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=362016

[marinus1]

<center><p>summilux pre asph 35mm wide open:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1481388-lg.jpg"><hr>

voigtländer color-heliar 75mm: <br>

<img src="http://home.planet.nl/~rooi0802/barna/c13.jpg">

<hr>

voigtländer 35mm ultron 1.7 <br>

<img src="http://home.planet.nl/~rooi0802/barna/16.jpg">

 

</center>

[andrew_lee2]

35 pre-aspheric Summilux. Links from older threads: <p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=11622784" >link</a> (LeHuray)<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=11633484" >link</a> (Hitt)<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=11783184" >link</a> (me)<p>

<a href="http://www.konermann.net/leaves.dusk.jpeg" >link</a> (Konermann)<p>

<a href="http://www.konermann.net/gallery/violinist.jpeg" >link</a> (Konermann)

[andrew_lee2]

Neil Swanson, I like your photos.

[arnklit]

I love the pre-ASPH Summicron 90/2. It's a bit heavy but handles very well. It also has enough inertia to allow for very slow shutter speeds without too much shake. See the following for a natural low light portrait. F2 at 1/15 sec.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1783374

[jonathan_reynolds]

VERY nice Voigtlander shots, Marinus DR!!

[mary_thull]

Thanks for all the input/photos. They are all great shots and excellent links --

immensely helpful.

 

Here's to hoping I can stick with my decision. (Summilux 75.)

 

Mary