Best Sonnar 50mm for LTM

[Steve George]

I've got a 35mm f3.5 Summaron being cleaned at the moment - it is so hazy it makes the blossom on trees look like radioactive cotton wool. If I didn't know better I'd use it as evidence that fungus pixies exist and regularly enjoy a paintball fight using the grease from the aperture blades as ammo. It's really quite bad.

Anyway, on LTM I am thinking I'm a 50mm kind of guy. So while I'm waiting I'm gratuitously flagellating myself with a constant circular debate about what 50mm I want for my Leica III.

Typically it goes like this:

"I love a Summicron on my M6 so maybe the collapsible on the LTM. But it's so expensive. So maybe a Skopar instead. But I'm not 100% sure I like the look of photos taken with it as they seem quite harsh and it seems wrong to use such a modern lens...so maybe a collapsible Elmar? And if so, which one? Or Summitar? Or Summar? Or Summarit? Or just keep the Industar-22 I've already got? But then I find collapsible lenses slightly annoying so how about that Skopar again? Or a Canon f1.8? Or a Jupiter-8 and save the cash for a nice meal out and a load of film" etc etc etc.

Following around 3 hours of this going around my head I'll reach a point of "GNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG" mental lock-down and look in the classifieds here, look on ebay, scour my usual dealers and get tempted and then start that same circular discussion again. And again. And again.

At the moment I'm quite liking Sonnar images I'm seeing so maybe that's the route I'll go down? What's the best choice if I do?

For what it's worth on my M6 I use a 35mm Summicron v3, 50mm Summicron (latest pre-asph version) and 90mm Summicron from Canada (the one with the tripod mount on the bottom that is Hubble-like compared to most Leica lenses) and love them all for the look they give. Leaning slightly more to what the 90mm and 35mm produce than the 50mm.

I've owned a 50mm Summar and a 50mm Summarit in the past and neither really did it for me in terms of image quality (in the broadest sense of that word) but tastes change and I can be convinced to try again. I've also used a fair few J8's on Kiev's and been happy enough but the thought of shimming etc puts me off a bit for the Leica.

In SLR lenses the Nikkor 105mm f2.5 is one of my favourites ever (I had a pre-AI version converted to AI) which I think is a Sonnar so I have pre-Leica history with this type of lens.

So, which 50mm? 🙂

 

[brbo]

Canon 50/1.5 or Nikkor 50/1.4?

 

[Brian Legge]

A J8 is much less likely to require shimming than a J8 as the wider DOF is more forgiving. That said, the safest route would be probably be a VC 50mm 1.5, Canon 50mm 1.5 or Nikkor 5cm 2 or 1.5. Those are all quite a bit more expensive than a J8 though so it really depends on your budget.

Edit: The Canon 50mm 1.4 is a great lens but I don't think it is a sonnar.

 

[Vics]

Carl Zeiss 50mm Sonnar f1.5 in Contax mount with Amadeo Contax-to-LTM adapter. I do it with the M adapter on my M3.

 

[Steve George]

Thanks for such quick replies. My budget is - the Nikkor's look out of reach. Will have a look at the Canon's and VC...

 

[brbo]

VC 50/1.5 is not a sonnar.

 

[ferider]

You might consider a very early J3, if you can find one. Most Russian lenses that I've tried did not work properly on my Leicas; even shimming a typical J3 for correct close focus will degrade its infinity performance. A couple of weeks ago I found a 1951 J3 that turns out to work perfectly, optically very comparable to my Canon 50/1.5. Paid US 220 (ebay item 321074176614).

The earlier mentioned Canon 50/1.5 and Nikkor 50/1.4 are outstanding lenses. If they are out of your budget, the Nikkor 50/2 is a Sonnar, a great performer in it's own right, and much more affordable.

Roland.

 

[Brian Legge]

My mistake, I was thinking of the Zeiss 1.5 in M mount. That explains a lot about its the VC 1.5s size. 🙂

 

[johannielscom]

In the Classifieds, David Murphy was selking a Canon 1.5/50 earlier this week.

Last time I checked it, it was still there.

Really strange,they used to fly out the ad the moment they were posted!

 

[rhl-oregon]

Johan, It almost flew out the moment it was posted, but I sat on my hands for several days and recovered some common sense. We'll see if it remains stable for another week (the sense, not the Serenar 1.5).

 

[Dez]

You can do a lot worse than the Canon 50mm f1.8. These tend to be excellent value for the money, and I think they are Sonnar derived. Be careful if you find a later black-mount one, as these often have internal haze problems, and I think you have had enough of those for a few lifetimes. There is some nasty incompatibility between the internal coatings and the aperture lubricant used in these lenses. Outgassing will often cause "haze" which actually rots the coatings on the adjacent elements, and cannot be removed. I have never encountered this in the earlier chrome 1.8's. AND, unlike some of the modern lenses, the Canon 1.8 is small enough not to block any part of the finder or RF images.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[ferider]

Canon 50/1.8 is a great lens but double Gauss.

 

[Mackinaw]

The Nikkor LTM 50mm F2.0 is a Sonnar design.

Jim B.

 

[Bar8barian]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Thatspec]

So what does that leave us with for Sonnar choices:
Canon 50/1.5
Nikkor 50/1.4 and F2
Zeiss Optons and Jennas
J3
Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1.5 though that's got to be $850 used
The new Voigt 50/1.5 recently announced will likely be in the same price range.
Any others?

 

[goamules]

There's a pretty good list of 18 Sonnar types in 50mm in this post: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69170

To me,
-The Canon 1.5 is cooler, and has more harsh out of focus areas.
-The Nikkor 1.4 can be a pretty interesting soft focus at 1.4, and get's sharp by 2.0, medium warm colors.
-The J-3 is warm, and has smoother OOF.
-The J-8 is not as warm, but has very nice OOF also.

Honestly, I still like the J-3 the best so far, but I haven't had the Nikkor long, it seems to be pretty darn good too.

 

[raid]

So what does that leave us with for Sonnar choices:
Canon 50/1.5
Nikkor 50/1.4 and F2
Zeiss Optons and Jennas
J3
Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1.5 though that's got to be $850 used
The new Voigt 50/1.5 recently announced will likely be in the same price range.
Any others?

I have all of these except the Zeiss C.
What is there not to like in a 50mm Sonnar?

 

[Bingley]

Far be it from me to argue against any sonnar design lens, but I'm puzzled by the OP's rejection of the CV Skopar 50 for use on his Leica III. That lens is very sharp, but also well behaved IMO, and its small size makes it a natural for use on any Barnack Leica. And you've got modern coatings and flare resistence, plus the ability focus closer than a meter. If you want a "correct" lens for a Leica III, of course, there's nothing like an Elmar 5//3.5, but the Skopar is a lot more user friendly in practice. Just sayin'.

 

[Steve George]

Thanks all for taking the time to reply. Really useful info. So the current circle in my head is "Canon f1.5 would be great but probably just out of price range, J3 is tempting if I could be sure it'll work...Nikkor 5cm f2 if I can find one otherwise I'd better get learning how to spot a fake Contax and go for the Zeiss and an adapter".

So it has definitely narrowed down a lot! 🙂

Bingley - the Skopar images I've seen are great but give what seems to be a harsher look than I'm after. I shoot 95% black and white on my III and there's something in the contrast of a lot of what I see from the Skopar that puts me off - it's not bad (quite the opposite) just not what I'm after. In addition to the 'crons on my M6 I use Canon L lenses for work and want something less clinically perfect for my LTM use.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

What's a fake Contax?

Regards, David