Coll. summicron vs. old Sonnar/J3?

[varjag]

So I've been nearly a week with my new old M4 now, but no lens. While I decided on 35 (will be Ultron 35/1.7), am still uncertain on 50.

I don't have large budget remaining, so I was leaning towards collapsible M Summicron 50, with LTM Sonnar or Juptier-3 as an alternative.

The cron surely gonna have better mechanics, would need no adapter and collimation to the body; it should also look more in place on a Leica body However what bothers me is its actual performance. From the shots I've found on the net it is not impressive at all wide open: glare here and there, overall low contrast and poor detail. I realise this is an early 1950s lens, but it seems my Contax mount Soviet 1.5/50 is capable of better performance at a stop over that.

Now there's a thing about wide open shots; they often done in poor lighting with slow shutterspeeds, it might have been the cause for reduced sharpness. So maybe I was unlucky in my sampling. I would appreciate the opinion of users, especially of people who had a chance to try out both the cron and ltm sonnars/j-3s.

 

[ferider]

Hi Eugene,

I had two collapsible Summicrons and they were both very good, also wide open.
A hood might be necessary, though.

It is difficult to find a correctly collimated J-3. But if you get one it is great. There are other
similar options (in signature), like the Canon 50/1.5 or the more expensive Nikkor 50/1.4.

I recommend to get a Sonnar if you want to use 50 mostly for people shots. If you need
something with more corner sharpness like for landscapes or street, the Summicron
might be the better choice. Much better than the Summicron, IMO, is the Canon 50/1.4.

Best,

Roland.

 

[varjag]

Hmm Canon.. didn't really occur to check that

How does the 1.8 version compares then?

 

[ferider]

Hmm Canon.. didn't really occur to check that

How does the 1.8 version compares then?

Sorry, cann't help with that, Eugene, never owned it. From photos that I've seen it seems
as good as or better than the classic Summicron, kind of like the 50/1.4, just half stop slower.

Roland.

 

[sirius]

I have a summitar. I like the results a little more than what I have seen from the summar. My 2 cents.

 

[xayraa33]

the Canon 50/1.4 is fine lens and so is the 1.8.
the added benefit of the Canon/ Serenar 50/1.8 lens is/was the price, it is much lower than the f1.4 , but it has been creeping up in the past year.
a typical price was 75 to 120 dollar, now some people are asking 180 dollars or more for the 50/1.8
There is presently a nice bargain priced f1.8/ 50mm Canon lens in our classifieds.

 

[varjag]

Thanks for all the suggestions folks. Many good points, new directions and pitfalls I wasn't aware before. Gotta think really hard now..

Choice in LTM/M is plain overwhelming and it makes decisions really complicated. We poor Contax users aren't used to choice

 

[furcafe]

The 50/1.8 Canon is a very good lens &, as others have posted, an excellent value. The earlier chrome & Serenar versions are usually cheaper than the already inexpensive black version. If you need the extra stop of speed, the Canon & Nikon 50/1.4's are also excellent, as has already been mentioned.

Aside from the classics, you should consider a used (or even new) Cosina Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton.

So I've been nearly a week with my new old M4 now, but no lens. While I decided on 35 (will be Ultron 35/1.7), am still uncertain on 50.

I don't have large budget remaining, so I was leaning towards collapsible M Summicron 50, with LTM Sonnar or Juptier-3 as an alternative.

The cron surely gonna have better mechanics, would need no adapter and collimation to the body; it should also look more in place on a Leica body However what bothers me is its actual performance. From the shots I've found on the net it is not impressive at all wide open: glare here and there, overall low contrast and poor detail. I realise this is an early 1950s lens, but it seems my Contax mount Soviet 1.5/50 is capable of better performance at a stop over that.

Now there's a thing about wide open shots; they often done in poor lighting with slow shutterspeeds, it might have been the cause for reduced sharpness. So maybe I was unlucky in my sampling. I would appreciate the opinion of users, especially of people who had a chance to try out both the cron and ltm sonnars/j-3s.