Just got a Leica IIIf. Please educate me on good lenses.

[Rob MacKillop]

The IIIf is in great condition, and I’m 10 shots into my first roll. I didn’t find the loading of the film to be a problem, thankfully, and I can see the rewind arrow moving when I turn the advance dial. It’s not always easy to see the ‘second image’ to align with the first for focussing, but I’ll get there eventually. I’ll probably get better at doing that. I used to view with my left eye, but that has a cataract now, and might take a year to fix. My right eye already has a nice Zeiss lens in it! So I’m trying to get comfortable using that eye for viewing.

The lens I have is the Canon 50mm 1.4, which I’m told is a decent 50mm. Eventually I would appreciate having say a 75, a 90, and a 28 to go with it. I’m not concerned which company made any suggested lens, as long as it is good quality. Sometimes I prefer soft lenses, sometimes sharp.

I’d appreciate advice on what to buy, and if viewfinders are needed or even necessary. I mainly do near-field landscapes, river banks, trees, etc. I don’t do people.

Cheers,
Rob

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The Canon lens you have is excellent. For 28, look at the Canon 28mm f2.8 is you want a classic lens. For 90mm the Leica 90mm f4 Elmar is inexpensive and EXTREMELY sharp.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Thanks, Chris. I’ll look them up. Thanks. I wish there was a way to use my M lenses on the Barnack.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Thanks, Chris. I’ll look them up. Thanks. I wish there was a way to use my M lenses on the Barnack.

You can't use M lenses on a screwmount camera, but happily you can use your screwmount lenses on your M cameras, including the digital M bodies. There are adapters you can buy that preserve focusing accuracy and rangefinder coupling. They're sold for specific focal lengths so that the correct framelines will come up, too!

 

[38Deardorff]

+1 on the Canon 28mm 2.8 LTM.... a very nice tiny lens....

 

[Coldkennels]

What makes a "good" lens is subjective. Case in point, Cameraquest has a "buyer's guide" for LTM; I disagree with good chunks of it. Neither of us are wrong - it's just personal preference.

I won't spam you with photos; samples for every lens would make this post massive. But here's some "tasting notes" on some things I think are worth looking for:

In 28mm, there's four basic options for the sensible (read: not rich) user. Note that 28mm finders are typically quite expensive compared to the other sizes; I have Voigtlander's 28mm mini-finder that I bought back when prices were reasonable. Leica's 28mm viewfinders are either expensive, terrible, or a combination of both. Zeiss' 28mm viewfinder for the Contax is surprisingly decent. Canon's is probably the best buy.

Orion 28/6:
Soviet. Technically back focuses slightly as a result, but the depth of field is so huge that it doesn't make any difference. The corners are a mess at f/6, but it's largely fine at f/8. A good cheap option - if you can find a cheap one. An old friend of mine found mine in Poland. I wouldn't pay eBay prices. Expect it to need the focusing helical to be cleaned and relubricated. Takes 40.5mm filters. I'm still oddly fond of it.

Canon 28/3.5:
This is the vintage one I'd go for if I didn't own the Orion. Better in every way. Still not brilliant wide open, but a lot better at f/3.5 than the Orion is at f/6. Sometimes comes in a fancy case with an included finder. That's a hell of a deal if you can get it. Awkward filter size (Series VII, if I remember right).

Voigtlander 28/1.9 Ultron:
Great lens, but way too big on a IIIf. Feels ridiculous. I passed on it for that reason alone.

Voigtlander 28/3.5 or 28/2.8 Color Skopar:
The f/3.5 was made in the early 2000s. One of the best lenses I own. Most of them now have irrepairable haze - make sure they're completely clean. The f/2.8 one came out recently (this year?), and would be a much safer buy. Both take standard E39 filters. Worth the money. More contrasty and sharper edge-to-edge than any of the other options.

75mm only has one real option, and off the top of my head, the only reasonably-priced viewfinder is a VIOOH set to the 7.3cm setting:

75/2.5 Voigtlander Color-Heliar:
I've never used this, but here's what @CameraQuest had to say: "Modern multi-coated design with 6 elements in 5 groups. 10 diaphragm blades. Announced June 1999, available 9/1/99. Chrome or black, rangefinder coupled." I don't see much point to this lens - it's not enough of a step up from 50mm to justify swapping to. I'm sure it's very good, but I'd rather just keep the 50mm lens on and take two steps forwards.

For a 90mm-ish lens, some people will recommend the 85mm Canons, which are reasonably priced and probably worth a look. But personally, as far as I'm concerned, the only real choice is...

90/4 Elmar:
Lots of variation here. Early ones take A36 push-on filters and are uncoated. Later ones use E39 filters and are coated. Honestly, this is one of the best buys in all of Leica-dom. Get a clean one - haze is a real problem with these - and you won't regret it. They're cheap as chips and consistently deliver some of the best photos I've ever taken. As another bonus (if you care about such things), you can remove the lens head from an Elmar and use it on a Visoflex or Focoslide for close-up work. Can't do that with the Canons! You'll still want a hood, though - A36 ones take the collapsible FIKUS (which can be used on a few 50mm and 135mm lenses), and the E39 ones take a clip-on and reversible IUFOO/12575 hood. Can't really go wrong with either option.

Cheapest finder option (by a long way) will be the VIOOH. The dedicated SGVOO is undeniably nicer to look through, but a bit less handy. Personally, I coughed up for the collapsible SEROO; smaller, easier to stash in a bag, and the perfect 1:1 view and easy parallax adjustment sold it for me.

I do also recommend getting a 50mm f/3.5 Elmar - the Canon you've got is decent, but having a screwmount Leica and not having a collapsible Elmar is basically criminal. The Elmar is slower, sure... but it's pretty damn sharp edge-to-edge, incredibly compact, and as long as you get a coated one that isn't full of haze, surprisingly flare-resistant.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Many thanks, Coldkennels. I’ll digest all that while waiting for the bells tonight!

 

[Richard G]

I’ve just had mine serviced and echo Coldkennels on the 50 Elmar. I need a very light camera just now, and compact has long been my mantra. The LTM Leica with that Elmar is just a brilliant combination. I have a tiny Summaron 35 3.5, not a good copy, and the SBLOO finder for 35mm is like one of those luggage pods on a smaller Volvo. The Voigtländer may be what to get. I have always used the SBOOI 50 finder, bit even that I’ve been leaving off just recently. The built in finder is growing on me, a bit. The FISON hood is my other much used accessory.

I have not been thinking of another lens, except the better (hopefully) 50 Elmar on its way here. But, indeed, 28 is what I would get next. I have no interest in longer than 50 with this camera. Having said that, the SGVOO finder for 90 is very good and I use that on Ms.

But Coldkennels makes a compelling argument for a 90. I’ve had his experience with the Elmarit M 90 2.8. Almost can’t take a bad photo.

 

[38Deardorff]

I’ve just had mine serviced and echo Coldkennels on the 50 Elmar. I need a very light camera just now, and compact has long been my mantra. The LTM Leica with that Elmar is just a brilliant combination. I have a tiny Summaron 35 3.5, not a good copy, and the SBLOO finder for 35mm is like one of those luggage pods on a smaller Volvo. The Voigtländer may be what to get. I have always used the SBOOI 50 finder, bit even that I’ve been leaving off just recently. The built in finder is growing on me, a bit. The FISON hood is my other much used accessory.

I have not been thinking of another lens, except the better (hopefully) 50 Elmar on its way here. But, indeed, 28 is what I would get next. I have no interest in longer than 50 with this camera. Having said that, the SGVOO finder for 90 is very good and I use that on Ms.

But Coldkennels makes a compelling argument for a 90. I’ve had his experience with the Elmarit M 90 2.8. Almost can’t take a bad photo.

In the end, the Voigtlander finder is not much smaller than the SBL00....... unless you spend $500+ for the tiny but squinty voitlander mini finder

 

[Muggins]

If you want some close-up action, it's NOOKY you are looking for.

Can't beat a bit of NOOKY.

Actually, you might need a NOOKY-HESUM for a IIIf, but I'm not an expert, I just like NOOKY.

 

[Coldkennels]

I'll add that Voigtlander's 28/35 mini finder is - for me at least - borderline useless for 35mm. I don't know if it's because I wear glasses, but the 35mm framelines disappear all the time. I own a few options for 35mm lenses, and 99% of the time, I actually prefer the VIOOH; the SBLOO is definitely a nicer field of view, but the VIOOH is much more useful.

@Richard G, one huge benefit of using the IIIf and a 90mm is that it's far easier to focus than it is on a 0.72x M. I don't trust my M240's rangefinder at all at 90mm and longer distances, but the various screwmount bodies I have are flawless with a 90mm or 135mm. With a collapsible SEROO finder and a reversable IUFOO hood, it's quite a tidy package. If Leica had made the collapsible 90mm Elmar in LTM instead of just M, I'd be a very happy man.

 

[38Deardorff]

I'll add that Voigtlander's 28/35 mini finder is - for me at least - borderline useless for 35mm. I don't know if it's because I wear glasses, but the 35mm framelines disappear all the time. I own a few options for 35mm lenses, and 99% of the time, I actually prefer the VIOOH; the SBLOO is definitely a nicer field of view, but the VIOOH is much more useful.

@Richard G, one huge benefit of using the IIIf and a 90mm is that it's far easier to focus than it is on a 0.72x M. I don't trust my M240's rangefinder at all at 90mm and longer distances, but the various screwmount bodies I have are flawless with a 90mm or 135mm. With a collapsible SEROO finder and a reversable IUFOO hood, it's quite a tidy package. If Leica had made the collapsible 90mm Elmar in LTM instead of just M, I'd be a very happy man.

View attachment 4884167

Thank you..... i was being polite..... 'borderline useless' is more accurate... yes. Not to mention that the tiny rubber eyepiece grommet falls out gets lost...& the mini finder scratches your glasses....

 

[Richard G]

Great point @Coldkennels on focus with the 1,5 x RF. It‘s a major point for the LTM in the first place. Already having M‘s maybe makes you appreciate that more. @38Deardorff now, and you, have cheered me up about my SBLOO. Does look better with a more substantial 35 above. I’m hoping that‘s still a 35 and 28 I’ll manage not to get.

For almost fifty years I’ve had the M2. Many times I’ve realized I’ve never really needed anything more, and the 50 it came with. I swear I needed the 35 Summicron to just to get my children in frame. Didn’t really need the M6 but the meter helped with those kids. Then once you get a little used to a 1955 IIIf, especially coming from Ms, you see its superiority here and there and half wish you’d just started with that and bought a couple of more lenses only.

 

[Ororaro]

LLL finder, small and ok. Leica copy.

As for M lenses, you can buy the 50mm summicron V5 in screwmount, as well as the 35mm summicron asph, and 50mm summilux V3.

 

[aw614]

I have the Canon and Nikon 35mm viewfinders, they dont have framelines...I still dont mind them though.

I am still pretty happy with the Canon 85mm F2. But for the price I paid for it, it was well worth it. Cleaned out the fungus, thought has one minor coating mark on the front element, but the results have been great. Need to shoot with it more. The chrome Canon 85mm finder that the lens came with doesnt have framelines. I wonder if the black Canon ones have framelines since the 50mm Canon viewfinder has them.

 

[Coldkennels]

For almost fifty years I’ve had the M2. Many times I’ve realized I’ve never really needed anything more, and the 50 it came with. I swear I needed the 35 Summicron to just to get my children in frame. Didn’t really need the M6 but the meter helped with those kids. Then once you get a little used to a 1955 IIIf, especially coming from Ms, you see its superiority here and there and half wish you’d just started with that and bought a couple of more lenses only.

I've spent years dipping into other rangefinder systems and still come back to the IIIf over and over again. There's just nothing it can't handle. Small, smooth, quiet, precise focusing... you couldn't ask for more. The IIIg's finder is nicer, but the IIIf is much more versatile.

I realised Ms weren't for me when I tried an M4-P someone wanted to sell me for £500 (five hundred quid for an M4-P! Unheard of now) and realised I couldn't see the 28mm framelines at all. I would be losing a lot of focusing accuracy - a lot - and not getting the one thing I would perhaps find useful. I turned the deal down. Even though I now own an M240, I still would rather have a IIIf or IIIg with a digital sensor if I could.

 

[Darinwc]

You have a great start with the Canon 50 f1.4. it is one of the best vintage LTM 50s.
Pretty much any lens from Leitz, Canon, or Nikon will get you great results.
But you will want one in the best condition possible. LTM lenses are among the earliest of 35mm lenses and suffer from scratches, haze, fungus, more than most others.

I would stay away from the USSR lenses as many do not focus correctly on the Leica. Fun to experiment with, but you need to research exactly what to look for.

For newer or new, Voigtlander has produced a full line of LTM lenses with modern designs and coatings. They are the best available except for maybe some exotic Leitz lenses.

 

[Wenge]

The Canon lens you have is excellent. For 28, look at the Canon 28mm f2.8 is you want a classic lens. For 90mm the Leica 90mm f4 Elmar is inexpensive and EXTREMELY sharp.

yes Chris is correct, Leitz/Leica f/4 90mm Elmar is sharp from f/4, first recent days w/lens. A7r5. tomato + few water drops and old toothpick holder from <4 ft away.
(glass patterns from led lightbox).

 

[Rob-F]

I will add that in addition to the 90mm f/4 Elmar, there was also a 90mm f/2/8 Elmarit in LTM thread mount. I have owned the 90 Elmarit in M mount for about 65 years and will never part with it. Ever though it has been surpassed by an updated version, my early version is nevertheless stunningly sharp. I checked eBay before posting this; the 90/2.8 is now trading for around $750. That's quite a bit more than the Elmar; but if a faster 90 is needed, the Elmarit is a good choice.

 

[Coldkennels]

According to the Leitz wiki there were only 2,067 of those early Elmarits made in LTM. I'd love one, but getting one in good condition seems pretty unlikely based on those numbers.

I guess if you were determined enough you could buy a knackered LTM one and trade out the head for a mint one from an M mount version that had the exact same focal length, but that's a lot to go through. I've also considered finding a decent M-mount one and just using the head on an LTM Visoflex, but that might be even more daft than the "donor focusing barrel" option.