Leica LTM Most characterful LTM lens of any make

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
By character i hope we mean unique softer backround and not neutral color rendition and a certain glow..

certainly not a clincally sharp , contrasty lens..

there are a few leica cinema lenses that can be used on a screwmount if i am right and they really render the shadows wonderfully like if the shadows are lightly painted rather than blocks of black
 
Thanks for those links, Roland, and to everyone else who took the trouble to reply. This is a big subject! It's opened up a whole new area of "research" for me. Just from this thread, I'm thinking something like a IIIc and Summitar would be a good and reasonably affordable way to go. At the moment I've got a lot of little-used gear to shift before I look at a Leica but it should happen towards the end of the year.
 
After seeing a couple of your recently posted images, the lens that comes to mind is the 7.3cm Hector. This lens is full of "character", or flaws, depending on your type of photography and there are excellent descriptions of its performance on line. Unfortunately, this lens is now considered to be a collector lens and prices are rather high. I found mine by accident when it arrived along with a rather ordinary scuffed up IIIa but it is in pristine condition. Otherwise I don't think I would have ever tried one. David.
 
x-ray said:
The Leitz 90mm f2.2 Thambar. Get your wallet out and credit card. A friend of mine from forty years ago had one and let me shoot it some. Beautiful soft focus with the center disc.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...s/RF-Nikkor/Leica_RF/LeicaLThambar90mmf22.htm

http://j-lights.air-nifty.com/k_i_photography/thambar_90mm_f22/index.html

No idea what they cost now.

Another friend took his 125mm Hektor and glued a nickel to a filter and screwed it in and got a similar result wide open.
Click to expand...

About $3000 last time I looked.

Cheers,

R.
 
Keep in mind that there can be a lot of variation in these older lenses.

I happened to end up with a clean Summar which doesn't seem to swirl as much as many photos I've seen around here. It works out great for me as that one bit of character was the only bit I didn't care for in the Summars. 🙂

I think one way to approach this would be to identify different lens characteristics (contrast, field curvature, coma, spherical aberration, focal lengths, speeds, etc) and determine what sort of character you like.

From there, people could probably better identify what sort of lenses may be worth more investigation.
 
Brian Legge said:
Keep in mind that there can be a lot of variation in these older lenses.

I happened to end up with a clean Summar which doesn't seem to swirl as much as many photos I've seen around here. It works out great for me as that one bit of character was the only bit I didn't care for in the Summars. 🙂

I think one way to approach this would be to identify different lens characteristics (contrast, field curvature, coma, spherical aberration, focal lengths, speeds, etc) and determine what sort of character you like.

From there, people could probably better identify what sort of lenses may be worth more investigation.
Click to expand...
Dear Brian,

Post 30: With the further rider, already noted by several, that with very old lenses, sample variation after decades of neglect, bumps, knocks and 'repairs', may be considerable?

But I don't think "character" is quantifiable in any meaningful sense. How much "contrast, field curvature, coma, spherical aberration, focal lengths, speeds, etc"?

Cheers,

R.
 
buzzardkid said:
Old Culminars and other Isco-Gottingen lenses,
Click to expand...

Throw in anything made by Schacht (Travenars etc.) and a variety of other German budget makers - besides being mediocre lenses at the very best, the vast majority of M39 Travenars were for the Braun Paxette (whose mount is only superficially similar to the Leica thread mount, having a incompatible register distance and coupling).
 
I forgot to mention that I really liked the CV 50/2.0 and 50/3.5 Nickel Heliars. I kind of miss them and lost them in a big trade. Anyways kind of the perfect blend of old and new. The 50/2.0 is mistakenly said to be unsharp, but this IMHO is incorrect because wide open this lens displays a very diffused OOF. The 50/3.5 is very detailed and sharp like a modern lens but has a retro look. Both resemble Tessars in signature, but the 50/3.5 is very-very 3-D. Both are very flare resistent, but the contrast is kinda moderate.

BTW I only paid $300.00 ($326 with tax) for my black paint Leica II from Adorama. Mistakenly I said it was a 1935, but it is from 1937-1938. The other black paint Leica was dated to 1935 and was a Leica III (model F) that featured nickel knobs. The brassing was a lot and even the nickel knobs were brassed. What a beauty, but I lost it to an art dealer in a big trade. I believe I paid $450.00 for it, and this camera kinda haunts me.

I had an episode where in a week I bought three LTM Leicas, sold or traded all of them, and then bought the Leica II back from the friend I sold it to. It felt like I was daytrading LTM Leicas, especially since I didn't even have the opportunity to put any film through any of them. LOL.

Anyways in your hunt for a body as well as any glass just be patient. Best of luck.

Cal
 
Though I highly recommend a Jupiter-3 Sonnar, if you want a higher quality mount Sonnar type, go for a Canon 50/1.5. They have a lot of character, don't obscure the viewfinder, and are just "different".

Here is a comparison of 3 50mm Canon lenses I did, at three different apertures each:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrettsphotos/sets/72157628955481717/detail/

6732205675_9813a12ab8_z.jpg
 
Which Lens ?

Which Lens ?

If I remember there's a nice lens comparison that Raid(dad photographer)did some time ago. It showed the small differences that are present in lenses of the same size of different makes.
In the end what-da-ya-want?
 
I think you need to define "character" and how much "character" you want from one lens. canon 50/1.2 is unique, but would not recommend as a 'one' lens.

As a one lens, in the limited universe I tried, I would go for a 50/2: Nikkor 50/2 or Summitar 50/2.

50/1.5 Summarit I am currentky experimenting and seems to behave very differently wide open or closed down and could offer you "two carachters in one". I would be curious to hear other opinions on this lens.
 
Having never shot a the f2 Summitar, cant comment, but as to the f1.5 Summarit, your assesment of the lens having to very different characteristics is true. Wide open, the lens has a softer dreamy look to it (but still sharp in the focused DOF), but by the time it is stopped down, even to a f1.8 the image has sharpened up dramatically. I very much enjoy that lens at it's price point, maybe one day I will get a fixed 50mm 'cron, but until then lots more lens's to play with before I start doubling up.

mretina said:
I think you need to define "character" and how much "character" you want from one lens. canon 50/1.2 is unique, but would not recommend as a 'one' lens.

As a one lens, in the limited universe I tried, I would go for a 50/2: Nikkor 50/2 or Summitar 50/2.

50/1.5 Summarit I am currentky experimenting and seems to behave very differently wide open or closed down and could offer you "two carachters in one". I would be curious to hear other opinions on this lens.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom