sanmich
Veteran
I sometimes wonder:
All lens designs are trade offs between sharpness, contrast, maximum aperture, close up capability, price, etc.
The noctilux seems to have all parameters subjected to maximum aperture. The standard f/2 lenses are positioned at a more in-between point on the trade-off curves.
The sale of the heliar 50mm f/3.5 here on the classified has made me wonder why companies do not offer any very small, slow, but with superlative optical and build quality, ltm 50mm lens.
Such a lens, combined with a barnack and high res film could be the ultimate tool for landscapes for people that don't want to go MF.
70 years after the mountain elmar, please Mr K...make it happen....
All lens designs are trade offs between sharpness, contrast, maximum aperture, close up capability, price, etc.
The noctilux seems to have all parameters subjected to maximum aperture. The standard f/2 lenses are positioned at a more in-between point on the trade-off curves.
The sale of the heliar 50mm f/3.5 here on the classified has made me wonder why companies do not offer any very small, slow, but with superlative optical and build quality, ltm 50mm lens.
Such a lens, combined with a barnack and high res film could be the ultimate tool for landscapes for people that don't want to go MF.
70 years after the mountain elmar, please Mr K...make it happen....
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You don't need to go to f/3.5.
Have you tried the 50/2.5 Summarit?
It's good enough that Frances bought one -- something she doesn't do lightly.
And yes, she already has a 50/2.5 Color Skopar.
As for Barnack, pre-IIIc models do not offer sufficiently reliable flange/film register for maximum resolution with other lenses and with post-IIIc most people prefer better viewfinders and a meter e.g. a Bessa. Hard to see why anyone would offer a state-of-the-art lens for a line of cameras that has been out of production for 45 years.
Cheers,
R.
Have you tried the 50/2.5 Summarit?
It's good enough that Frances bought one -- something she doesn't do lightly.
And yes, she already has a 50/2.5 Color Skopar.
As for Barnack, pre-IIIc models do not offer sufficiently reliable flange/film register for maximum resolution with other lenses and with post-IIIc most people prefer better viewfinders and a meter e.g. a Bessa. Hard to see why anyone would offer a state-of-the-art lens for a line of cameras that has been out of production for 45 years.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
Hi Roger,
Thanks for joining!
The summarit doesn't seem to be a very big departure from the f/2 lenses in term of size, and it requests an M body when a barnack would be, for what I have in mind the best tool.
Think how tiny a III with an elmar 50mm 3.5 can be...
That's what I am talking about: really tiny, even if slow to operate, but stellar performer for hicking or simply to be very light when you have time for adjustments...
Thanks for joining!
The summarit doesn't seem to be a very big departure from the f/2 lenses in term of size, and it requests an M body when a barnack would be, for what I have in mind the best tool.
Think how tiny a III with an elmar 50mm 3.5 can be...
That's what I am talking about: really tiny, even if slow to operate, but stellar performer for hicking or simply to be very light when you have time for adjustments...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Michael,
I fully take your point about its not being much smaller than an f/2, but first, no-one is going to introduce a collapsible lens that can't be used with current cameras; second, really stellar performance requires more than a Tessar-type (I know I'll get hate mail from Tessar lovers for that); third, a modern diaphragm ring takes up a LOT more room than the evil little slider around the outside of the glass of an Elmar -- consider the last-generation collapsible Elmar! Fourth, much as their devotees may love them, I'm not sure that collapsible lenses enjoy that much popularity, now that they do not collapse the way an original Elmar did. Fifth, stick a lens shade on, and collapsibles offer even less advantage. Sixth, how many Barnack users would actually buy such a lens? There are probably only a few thousand Barnacks still in frequent use (mine gets used, but not frequently, and besides, I already have an Elmar), and many Barnack users are congenital skinflints. This becomes a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche.
Cheers,
Roger
I fully take your point about its not being much smaller than an f/2, but first, no-one is going to introduce a collapsible lens that can't be used with current cameras; second, really stellar performance requires more than a Tessar-type (I know I'll get hate mail from Tessar lovers for that); third, a modern diaphragm ring takes up a LOT more room than the evil little slider around the outside of the glass of an Elmar -- consider the last-generation collapsible Elmar! Fourth, much as their devotees may love them, I'm not sure that collapsible lenses enjoy that much popularity, now that they do not collapse the way an original Elmar did. Fifth, stick a lens shade on, and collapsibles offer even less advantage. Sixth, how many Barnack users would actually buy such a lens? There are probably only a few thousand Barnacks still in frequent use (mine gets used, but not frequently, and besides, I already have an Elmar), and many Barnack users are congenital skinflints. This becomes a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche.
Cheers,
Roger
retnull
Well-known
Not a 50, but for me, the Summaron 35 / f3.5 hits the sweet spot of size, performance, and price.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
The Summaron 35/3.5 is a nice size and so is/was the VC 28/3.5. A collapsible Elmar can be a pia to use and as Roger says adding a lens hood destroys the compactness.
Bob
Bob
aad
Not so new now.
Why not just get an Elmar?
sanmich
Veteran
Thanks all for the answers
Well, the Elmar is indeed a possibility.
I suspect it has less resolution and sharpness than the collapsible Heliar.
My question is: why isn't a modern lens like the coll Heliar limited available new?
Do you see any reason?
Roger, of course this would be a niche of a niche.
Still, I think we have all seen very "niche" lenses being proposed as regular production.
Ultra wides or lenses for contax mount come to my mind.
Such a lens (a 50mm f/3.5) would be IMHO less a niche than these...
Well, the Elmar is indeed a possibility.
I suspect it has less resolution and sharpness than the collapsible Heliar.
My question is: why isn't a modern lens like the coll Heliar limited available new?
Do you see any reason?
Roger, of course this would be a niche of a niche.
Still, I think we have all seen very "niche" lenses being proposed as regular production.
Ultra wides or lenses for contax mount come to my mind.
Such a lens (a 50mm f/3.5) would be IMHO less a niche than these...
Fred Burton
Well-known
How many people would shoot landscapes with a Barnack, regardless of the lens? I don't think that group is even a niche. I think that's a masochist! 
FrankS
Registered User
Michael, of the lenses I own, the Colour Skopar 50mm f2.5 best fits your criteria.
sanmich
Veteran
How many people would shoot landscapes with a Barnack, regardless of the lens? I don't think that group is even a niche. I think that's a masochist!
Fred,
The barnacks are highly portable and slow to use.
A landscape needs the gear to be there (portability, think of a trek or biking) and don't need very high camera speed.
Biking or hicking with an F5 for landscapes IS masochism..but Barnacks? I don't see the problem.
On the question of the number of people that would think like I do...well I guess you are right
sanmich
Veteran
I was tempted by the color skopar, but I think lots of users find it a disappointing lens. OTOH the Heliar is supposed to be a stellar performer.
peterc
Heretic
What about the Elmar 50/2.8? It was made in LTM and is an excellent performer.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
they dont offer slow but excellent optics, because they cannot be more excellent than f/2 or f/1.7 lenses, so nobody (well...almost) would buy the slower one when it's not better.
About size...f/2 50mms can be pretty small already. Especially in manual focus/aperture, where you HAVE to grab the lens somewhere.. why would you want a lens smaller than e.g. the heliar, or the old 50/2 zeiss sonnar?
About size...f/2 50mms can be pretty small already. Especially in manual focus/aperture, where you HAVE to grab the lens somewhere.. why would you want a lens smaller than e.g. the heliar, or the old 50/2 zeiss sonnar?
ferider
Veteran
I was debating this yesterday when seeing the Heliar in the classifieds.
And my conclusion is that a lens doesn't need to be that slow to be highest res anymore. True, when the Heliar came out, it was the "sharpest" 35mm lens that PP ever tested. But that was before ZI released their M mount lenses, and I would think the credit of highest resolution goes to the 25/2.8 nowadays. So speed is not everything. A 50/2 can be plenty sharp, and Hexanon 50/2 and Summicron 50/2 are no slouches. Leica has been overdue with a 50/2 asph .... And a classic 50 Summicron does not seem larger than the Heliar extended.
Roland.
And my conclusion is that a lens doesn't need to be that slow to be highest res anymore. True, when the Heliar came out, it was the "sharpest" 35mm lens that PP ever tested. But that was before ZI released their M mount lenses, and I would think the credit of highest resolution goes to the 25/2.8 nowadays. So speed is not everything. A 50/2 can be plenty sharp, and Hexanon 50/2 and Summicron 50/2 are no slouches. Leica has been overdue with a 50/2 asph .... And a classic 50 Summicron does not seem larger than the Heliar extended.
Roland.
Last edited:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I was hiking in the Drakensberg for three days with a Rolleiflex tlr and a small digi point and shoot for macros.
I didnt feel that it would be too big or too heavy or too cumbersome, even with my less than ideal left knee.
And we DID go up the Tugela gorge.
Small size and "portability" is not a real concern IMO.
I didnt feel that it would be too big or too heavy or too cumbersome, even with my less than ideal left knee.
And we DID go up the Tugela gorge.
Small size and "portability" is not a real concern IMO.
Attachments
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The main limit on resolution with film is film flatness and location, which is frankly poor with Barnacks. A lens delivering 200 lp/mm on the film when optimally focused (a target reached or exceeded by several current lenses) might consistently deliver 100-125 lp/mm with a camera having good film location and flatness; I'd be surprised at a consistent 100 with a Barnack.
Cheers,
Roger
Cheers,
Roger
awilder
Alan Wilder
My vote goes to the current 50/2.8 Elmar-M. It's updated Tessar design makes it more resistant to secondary reflections than current Gaussian designs like the Summicron or possibly the new Summarit. Inclusion of high index anomalous dispersion glass helps to bring it's sharpness on par with the Summicron. There seems of these for sale in our classifieds and as such the prices are quite low. Compared to the Summarit at around $1100 used in mint condition, the Elmar-M focuses slightly closer (0.7m vs 0.8m) and can be purchased for half the price in similar mint condition. Regarding the 50/3.5 Heliar, it only focuses down to 1 meter, a definite deal killer in my book.
Last edited:
venchka
Veteran
Konica I with the collapsible Hexar 50mm/3.5.
Very nice viewfinder and rangefinder. Quiet. Smooth. No flare. Sharp. Loads easily. Excellent for color.
Samples taken on a grey morning. Click on the small images to see larger versions....
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/venchka/backyard/Willow+Konica+1.jpg.html
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/venchka/backyard/Fishin_+Konica+1.jpg.html
Very nice viewfinder and rangefinder. Quiet. Smooth. No flare. Sharp. Loads easily. Excellent for color.
Samples taken on a grey morning. Click on the small images to see larger versions....
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/venchka/backyard/Willow+Konica+1.jpg.html
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/venchka/backyard/Fishin_+Konica+1.jpg.html
Last edited:
Leica0Series
Well-known
Leica 0-Series; great lens, the body comes with it. Folds up very small.