Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I picked up the Leonon last year on a Leotax T2L, and if I'm honest, I've barely used it; the combination of the overly long barrel compared to other 50mm lenses (approximately 45mm from mount to filter thread at infinity), the lack of collapsibility, and the incredibly short 90º focus throw means I rarely bother taking it out of the house.
It's a bit of a shame, because I do think it's a good lens. It's impressively sharp, with good contrast:
And the bokeh is interesting without being offensive:
But DAMN, does it do something weird at f/2. The following is shot at f/2.8 on an X-Pro 2:
And then you open up one more stop, and BOOM:
All of a sudden, everything looks like it was shot with vaseline on the filter. It's similarly weird on film, as well - it's not just a side-effect of using it on digital.
Does anyone else own one of these? I'm not losing sleep over the unexpected pictorialism mode, but I'd love to know whether this particular lens is a duffer or if all of them are like this. Mine also back-focuses slightly on a rangefinder across the whole aperture range (but not as much as a Soviet lens does on a Leica), so maybe there is something mis-aligned in there?
It's a bit of a shame, because I do think it's a good lens. It's impressively sharp, with good contrast:
And the bokeh is interesting without being offensive:
But DAMN, does it do something weird at f/2. The following is shot at f/2.8 on an X-Pro 2:
And then you open up one more stop, and BOOM:
All of a sudden, everything looks like it was shot with vaseline on the filter. It's similarly weird on film, as well - it's not just a side-effect of using it on digital.
Does anyone else own one of these? I'm not losing sleep over the unexpected pictorialism mode, but I'd love to know whether this particular lens is a duffer or if all of them are like this. Mine also back-focuses slightly on a rangefinder across the whole aperture range (but not as much as a Soviet lens does on a Leica), so maybe there is something mis-aligned in there?
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Nice bokeh and a bit 3D on the 2nd photo. I had a Yashica ML 50mm f2 lens that had similar qualities as your Leonon lens but I attributed those qualities to it being a one off defective lens.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Yeah, I considered the same, but I figure there's no way a lens could perform that well at all other apertures if it's defective.
Maybe the design wasn't really suited for going past f/2.8, but they stretched it to f/2 for marketing reasons?
It's surprisingly hard to find solid info on this one. http://yashicatlr.com/Leotax.html#leonons mentions three versions of the same lens, all with roughly the same build and name; the earliest looks like a Topcor, the latter looks like a Yashikor, but the one in this post is the middle one with an aperture range of f/2 to f/16. Supposedly this middle one is made by Showa Koki, whoever they are.
David Murphy
Veteran
I own a Leonon, which I use occasionally with a few Leotax bodies I own. I've never experienced any issues with mine, although I haven't used it all that much. I've been meaning to get out again with it soon - I'll post some results here if I do. It's a nicely made lens, and fairly fast for a 1950's optic. I don't find it obtrusively large.
BTW if you need a fast, compact, not too expensive prime lens for a screw mount rangefinder you might checkout the Canon 50mm F1.9 collapsible (from1949). My copy is beautifully made, and delivers razor sharp images. It appears to be a Summitar copy - of sorts - and just as sharp.
BTW if you need a fast, compact, not too expensive prime lens for a screw mount rangefinder you might checkout the Canon 50mm F1.9 collapsible (from1949). My copy is beautifully made, and delivers razor sharp images. It appears to be a Summitar copy - of sorts - and just as sharp.
David Murphy
Veteran
FYI my tests have shown the 50/1.9 Canon collapsible to be remarkably sharp and contrasty even wide open. For a vintage 1949 lens, emerging from the nascent post war Japanese photo industry, that's pretty amazing to me.
dourbalistar
Buy more film
If the image samples from this gallery are the same lens, seems it can produce some pretty wild bokeh. No pictures of the lens itself in the gallery, so not sure if it's the same version as the OP:
https://toby-marshall.com/galleries/bokeh-tales/leotax-leonon-50mm-f2/
https://toby-marshall.com/galleries/bokeh-tales/leotax-leonon-50mm-f2/
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I think I'm spoiled by using the Summar so much. I really value compactness in my camera setups, so a long, rigid lens like the Leonon just seems annoyingly bulky.
Do I need more 50mm lenses? No. Am I now going to keep an eye out for that one? Of course.
Looking at some of these, it seems that the lens Toby Marshall is using has at least some of the same wild glow wide-open as mine does. It's definitely quite a good look when it works.
bluesun267
Well-known
I once had the Leonon. There was something wrong with my copy though: it rendered like your F2 example at all f-stops!
My copy looked like it came from the factory that way (no signs of being opened), though I suppose it is possible a really careful repairman got one of the lens elements reversed at some point in the past. I ended up selling it to a Japanese collector for parts or possible repair but never heard back. (At the time I didn't feel confident enough to dig into it myself).
My copy looked like it came from the factory that way (no signs of being opened), though I suppose it is possible a really careful repairman got one of the lens elements reversed at some point in the past. I ended up selling it to a Japanese collector for parts or possible repair but never heard back. (At the time I didn't feel confident enough to dig into it myself).
dourbalistar
Buy more film
Do I need more 50mm lenses? No. But somehow I ended up with a Serenar 50mm f/1.9 (that I don't use much). The great thing about vintage 50mm LTM lenses from this era is that there's so much variety, and each lens seems to have its own unique character. Couple that with the fact that they are relatively inexpensive, and you quickly accumulate an excess. If I didn't already have said excess, I'd have an eye out for the Leonon, too.
Anyway, for a collapsible lens, the Serenar 50/1.9 feels surprisingly dense at 230g, and is somewhat front heavy. The felt that friction holds the lens collapsed on my copy is worn down, so the front-heaviness causes the lens to tip forward and extend. :bang: You also may or may not like a clickless aperture. But other than that, it's a fine performer, especially for the era as David Murphy notes.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
On a whim, I just checked: the Leonon is 210g. The Summar, for comparison, is 180g; the collapsible Summicron comes in at 220g. So yeah, that little Serenar is the heaviest of the bunch, but not by much.
It's just the length that gets me. The Leonon feels so out of place on a typical LTM camera; I guess for folks used to M-mount Summiluxes, it wouldn't be a problem. Maybe I'll put it on a Canon 7 and see if it feels more at home there.
It's just the length that gets me. The Leonon feels so out of place on a typical LTM camera; I guess for folks used to M-mount Summiluxes, it wouldn't be a problem. Maybe I'll put it on a Canon 7 and see if it feels more at home there.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Another one from the Leonon:
I didn't think to note the aperture but I'd imagine somewhere around f/5.6.
I do like this lens once it's stopped down a bit. I just wish it wasn't so bulky.
I didn't think to note the aperture but I'd imagine somewhere around f/5.6.
I do like this lens once it's stopped down a bit. I just wish it wasn't so bulky.