sam_m
Well-known
Does anyone currently own both the CV Skopar 2.5/50 and either a 2/50 hexanon or summicron? I have the hexanon but would like something more compact/shorter. If so could they post a picture of them mounted on a camera to show the difference in size/shape etc? Also any comments on handling between the hexanon and skopar would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Sam.
Thanks,
Sam.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I don't. I have a 50/2 hex, but not CS. I think the Hex is bigger. Maybe check the lens size thread.
.
.
BigSteveG
Well-known
the Hex is just slightly smaller than 50 lux pre-asph (46)
ferider
Veteran
I don't have the 50/2.5 but assume that it is only minimally larger than
the 28/3.5. So I did a quick&dirty comp of Hex and 28/3.5. Hope that
helps.
Depending on the version the Summicron is comparable in length to the Hex but
probably a bit thinner.
Roland.
the 28/3.5. So I did a quick&dirty comp of Hex and 28/3.5. Hope that
helps.
Depending on the version the Summicron is comparable in length to the Hex but
probably a bit thinner.
Roland.
ferider
Veteran
Just checked, the 50/2.5 is 8mm longer than the 28/3.5 but about the same diameter.
sam_m
Well-known
Thanks Roland, I just checked the specs myself and found the hexanon is 43.5mm long (according to my user manual) and the skopar is 33.6mm long (from b+h's website, only place I could find the number published). So 10mm shorter is the answer. Not sure it would be worth the investment for that, but I will need to bite the bullet to truly find out I think.
ferider
Veteran
Not sure what you shoot with, but if it's a normal M body, and you want the
smallest lens, I would consider the classic 50/2.8 Elmar - has a great signature
too and is pretty flare prone. Cost US 300 or less in good condition used.
Roland.
smallest lens, I would consider the classic 50/2.8 Elmar - has a great signature
too and is pretty flare prone. Cost US 300 or less in good condition used.
Roland.
funkydog
Well-known
sam_m
Well-known
ferider said:
Flare prone??
funkydog said:
Thanks, that elmar does look mighty compact.
funkydog said:
Keep in mind that the CV has its hood in place in these pictures and the other lenses are without hood. For casual strolling with your camera at the ready to shoot the CV should look more compact with this in mind.
Well, unless that hex has a retracting hood, I think it does.
tachi
Member
CS 50mm f2.5
CS 50mm f2.5
I have this lens, overall the built is indeed very solid! Please see my photos taken with this lens :
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1382
If you don't need the extra stop to 1.4, as in the case of 40mm f1.4 SC, I think this lens is pretty good.
CS 50mm f2.5
I have this lens, overall the built is indeed very solid! Please see my photos taken with this lens :
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1382
If you don't need the extra stop to 1.4, as in the case of 40mm f1.4 SC, I think this lens is pretty good.
Krosya
Konicaze
If you want compact - Minolta Rokkor 40/2 or Summicron -C 40/2 are good options, I think.
sam_m
Well-known
I probably should have given some more info as to why I want a more compact lens. It's not because I'm trying to hide, or be more conspicuous (a lens 10mm shorter isn't going to help much there I don't think). I generally carry my camera (m6) without a strap and in a small satchel bag (I have a few to choose from but mainly a Domke F6 or 803) and having a thinner profile will should make it easier to put in and out of the bag! Image quality is secondary to handling for me, if it doesn't feel right in my hands, it doesn't matter how sharp it is, I'm going to be missing shots.
sam_m
Well-known
Krosya said:
Maybe, but I'm looking for a 50 at the moment.
Krosya
Konicaze
sam_m
Well-known
Krosya said:
They do look compact, and I am a fan of that focal length, but I'm really trying to restrict myself to 50mm for a while, while I get to know it.
