Collapsible Options

D

david.elliott

Well-known
Local time
6:37 PM
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
1,558
Hello all,

I was recently out and about with my newly acquired M3 and nokton 50/1.5.

The 50/1.5 is pretty dang big and I would like to have a smaller 50 to carry around. I think my cv 35/2.5 has seriously spoiled me.

While the 50/3.5 is tiny, I definitely need at least f/2.8 as my max aperture.

So, first off (and somewhat as a side note), how much smaller are the summicrons than the nokton? Any comparison shots. I checked flickr but wasn't able to find any.

Really, I am looking more at collapsible options.

I am discounting the summar because it is prone to flare from what I have read and I dont want to have to use a big ole hood. And I am discounting the summitar because swirly bokeh just isnt my thing.

That seems to leave me with the collapsible summicron and the elmar. Are there other options? The 50/2 heliar just doesnt seem to collapse much at all. It doesnt really look that much smaller collapsed than extended.

If there arent other options, how do the collapsible summicron and the elmar compare?

Just looking for your general opinions, no intense discussion of technical optics required. ;)

What would your choice be out of the realm of collapsible 50mm lenses?

Thanks.

-David
 
The smallest of the M-mount being the v1 50f2.8 Elmar is a good choice. Quite sharp and with medium contrast - but prone to flare, so you would need a hood.
The Elmar 50f2.8 vII is probably the best of Leica's collapsible offerings. It rivals the Summicron 50 and IMO surpasses it in mid f-stops.
A slight odd-ball and somewhat difficult to find is the Hexanon 50mm f2.4. Superior to the Elmar vII wide-open and equal at the mid f-stops. Screw-mount so it needs an adapter.
I am not a great fan of collapsible Summicrons - I find them a bit "flat" in their rendering.
The f2.8 minimum does put a bit of restriction of your choices though. If you can live with f3.5 - the M-mount 50f3.5 is extremely good - in many ways better than the f2.8 vI and smaller than all of them would be the LTM Red Scale Elmar 50f3.5 (but with a f-stop control that can drive you nuts!).
Of course, the best of these is the Voigtlander Heliar 50f3.5 LTM so it needs an adapter. It is one of the best 50's of all time. It used to be available with the Bessa T only - but is coming out this September as a lens only in nickel finish. Dont know the price and how many will be available (limited run) - but check with Stephen @ Cameraquest as he will be bringing them in. I doubt you will have any problem with a 1/2 stop slower lens - particularly as you have the f1.5 when the lights dim.
 
I agree. The f/2.8 Elmar is the clear choice. The Summitar and the collapsible Summicron do not offer advantages, given that f/2.8 is fast enough for you.
 
The cv 50/2.5 is very small, not much larger with its hood than the collapsible Summicron without a hood, collapsed. I just got one and find it to be a very nice match for an M. The Elmar collapsed will be smaller I am sure, but just a thought if you would like a small non collapsible option.

P9260236.jpg

P9260237.jpg
 
rover said:
The cv 50/2.5 is very small, not much larger with its hood than the collapsible Summicron without a hood, collapsed. I just got one and find it to be a very nice match for an M. The Elmar collapsed will be smaller I am sure, but just a thought if you would like a small non collapsible option.
Click to expand...
Second that. A real dinky little thing, and no slouch at capturing the light either. Pleasing bokeh as well. Since both my 35 and 28mm are sub f2, I don't really miss the 50 not being as sensitive. f2,5 isn't half bad either.
 
I am a fan of the collapsible Summicron. f/2 works for me, and they come in extremely cheap; around $300 for one without cleaning marks. The modern Elmar-M, which is used to have, is a great lens, with that Tessar design, but it's less of a classic look than the Summicron. I have a lovely book by John Hedgecoe of Henry Moore at work, nearly all of them taken with an M3 and summicron collapsible, and I think the shots look fantastic.

That's not to say, that I wouldn't buy a ZM collapsible Tessar 50/2.8 if they brought one out...
 
Tom A said:
The smallest of the M-mount being the v1 50f2.8 Elmar is a good choice. Quite sharp and with medium contrast - but prone to flare, so you would need a hood.
The Elmar 50f2.8 vII is probably the best of Leica's collapsible offerings. It rivals the Summicron 50 and IMO surpasses it in mid f-stops.
Click to expand...

So, would I still need a hood for the v2 elmar?

Also, is there a difference optically between the modern elmar and the earlier v2 elmars? The modern ones seem to go for around $500-600 whereas the earlier ones go for $250 to 400.

Tom A said:
A slight odd-ball and somewhat difficult to find is the Hexanon 50mm f2.4. Superior to the Elmar vII wide-open and equal at the mid f-stops. Screw-mount so it needs an adapter.
Click to expand...

I would like one, but they dont turn up to often. I know I failed to specify a budget, but this one is unfortunately out of range. I havent seen them go for anything less than $700 in the last six months or so.

Tom A said:
I am not a great fan of collapsible Summicrons - I find them a bit "flat" in their rendering.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about flat as in contrast or flat as in making images pop? The elmar photos I have seen seem to have a more 3d rendering.

Tom A said:
The f2.8 minimum does put a bit of restriction of your choices though. If you can live with f3.5 - the M-mount 50f3.5 is extremely good - in many ways better than the f2.8 vI and smaller than all of them would be the LTM Red Scale Elmar 50f3.5 (but with a f-stop control that can drive you nuts!).
Of course, the best of these is the Voigtlander Heliar 50f3.5 LTM so it needs an adapter. It is one of the best 50's of all time. It used to be available with the Bessa T only - but is coming out this September as a lens only in nickel finish. Dont know the price and how many will be available (limited run) - but check with Stephen @ Cameraquest as he will be bringing them in. I doubt you will have any problem with a 1/2 stop slower lens - particularly as you have the f1.5 when the lights dim.
Click to expand...

I probably shouldnt go so low as f/3.5. Most of my photos, particularly my vacation photos, are shot indoors at around ISO 1250, 1/30th to 1/60th and between f/1.5 and f/4.

Thanks Tom.
 
rover said:
The cv 50/2.5 is very small, not much larger with its hood than the collapsible Summicron without a hood, collapsed. I just got one and find it to be a very nice match for an M. The Elmar collapsed will be smaller I am sure, but just a thought if you would like a small non collapsible option.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comparison, and comparison photos Rover. That really is quite small.

How do you like the bokeh? Comparable to the 35/2.5?
 
Paul T. said:
I am a fan of the collapsible Summicron. f/2 works for me, and they come in extremely cheap; around $300 for one without cleaning marks. The modern Elmar-M, which is used to have, is a great lens, with that Tessar design, but it's less of a classic look than the Summicron. I have a lovely book by John Hedgecoe of Henry Moore at work, nearly all of them taken with an M3 and summicron collapsible, and I think the shots look fantastic.

That's not to say, that I wouldn't buy a ZM collapsible Tessar 50/2.8 if they brought one out...
Click to expand...

I havent seen a collapsible summicron that inexpensive for a while. :)

That would be a neat ZM lens. Wonder if they would make a collapsible.
 
You might want to consider the Minolta 40/2 M-Rokkor (or Summicron, although I think the Minolta is better since it uses a standard filter size) as a compact compromise between the 35 & 50mm fields of view.
 
Consider the modern Elmar-M. Really great rendering, very sharp, and needs no hood (unless in extreme situations); less flare than it's older parent.
 
furcafe said:
You might want to consider the Minolta 40/2 M-Rokkor (or Summicron, although I think the Minolta is better since it uses a standard filter size) as a compact compromise between the 35 & 50mm fields of view.
Click to expand...

Aww but that wouldn't fit my M3 framelines! And I can't see outside of them with my glasses. :(
 
I have only shot two rolls with the lens so far so I can't fairly say. I have read that the bokeh is quite nice.
 
You can use the 50mm framelines & just imagine a border around it, roughly equivalent to the entire VF in the M3. To deal w/the eye relief problem (I can see most of the area around the 50mm frames in the M3 w/my glasses, but I feel your pain), if you're right-eyed, try keeping both eyes open when focusing/framing.

None of this is perfect, but I think you may find that it is workable, though much depends on your style of shooting (if I cared a lot about precise framing, I would shoot SLRs more often).

My reason for suggesting smaller rigid lenses is that I tend not to actually collapse my collapsible lenses, i.e., in daily use I keep them extended all the time (reduces wear & tear on the mechanical parts & makes for faster shooting), & have found that they're not really much smaller than rigid lenses when extended (some are lighter though). The only time I collapse lenses is when space is tight in the camera bag, e.g., when traveling.

david.elliott said:
Aww but that wouldn't fit my M3 framelines! And I can't see outside of them with my glasses. :(
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom