An excellent, small but slow 50 lens?

Roger Hicks said:
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
Click to expand...

Roger, very interesting point.
Could you elaborate?
I think there should be a difference between the pre-IIIc bodies that are thinner and more prone to deformation and the IIIc-IIIg.
Also, I remember that the older cameras film -flange distance was adjusted with a set of shims under the lens flange, and that system diseapeard on the later cameras.
How would the newer Barnacks handle film flatness and registration in your opinion?

Thanks to all for the answers!
 
not being a screwmount user I'm curious is a barnack that much lighter/smaller then an M? Or does it have to do with framing?

I bring a Blad hiking. it's not that heavy.
 
cmogi10 said:
not being a screwmount user I'm curious is a barnack that much lighter/smaller then an M? Or does it have to do with framing?

I bring a Blad hiking. it's not that heavy.
Click to expand...

It is smaller & lighter, but wether it is "that much" so or not it is of course a personal matter. Objectively:

IIIc vs M2 vs MP (size in cm):

IIIc is 13 W - 6.2 H - 3 D
M2 is 13.7 W - 7.5 H - 3.1 D
MP is 13.7 W - 7.6 H - 3.1 D

(depth measured on bottom; top depth for M2 - MP is 3.5 including the eyepiece, and is actually 3.9 including the slow speed dial on the IIIc)

weight:
IIIc is 435 gr
M2 is 575 gr
MP is 600 gr

of course without lenses, film or anything on them (MP including battery).

Basically M2 = MP for size and weight (.1 cm is well into my measuring error), while the IIIc is 175 gr lighter than a MP and while it's just slightly less wide is almost 1.5 cm shorter in height.

Hope this helps :D
 
HU: new summarit for $899 at KEH

HU: new summarit for $899 at KEH

There is a new summarit 50/2.5 at KEH for $899. Looks like the price is reflecting the adjustment for the rise of the dollar.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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
Click to expand...

This may well be true, but I'm blessed with the inability to notice it.
 
I LUV my 1928 uncoated 35 elmar
posted a few shots under the Leica M Thread /35 Elmar 3.5

My two FAVORITE lenses: 35 Elmar & 50 DR Cron...Heaven
Best-H
 
For lenses slower than 2.0, the Elmar 5cm/2.8 is a great lens, and so is the Summaron 3.5cm/3.5. I would add to this mix the I-26 50mm/3.5 rigid. It is a very sharp lens.
The old Elmar 5cm/3.5 is also a great lens.
 
vieri said:
It is smaller & lighter, but wether it is "that much" so or not it is of course a personal matter. Objectively:

IIIc vs M2 vs MP (size in cm):

IIIc is 13 W - 6.2 H - 3 D
M2 is 13.7 W - 7.5 H - 3.1 D
MP is 13.7 W - 7.6 H - 3.1 D

(depth measured on bottom; top depth for M2 - MP is 3.5 including the eyepiece, and is actually 3.9 including the slow speed dial on the IIIc)

weight:
IIIc is 435 gr
M2 is 575 gr
MP is 600 gr

of course without lenses, film or anything on them (MP including battery).

Basically M2 = MP for size and weight (.1 cm is well into my measuring error), while the IIIc is 175 gr lighter than a MP and while it's just slightly less wide is almost 1.5 cm shorter in height.

Hope this helps :D
Click to expand...

I'm trying to visualize but I think I get it.
For me it's not enough of a different to justifying launching a niche lens for it.
 
Bike Tourist said:
I just obtained a 50 Heliar. It came attached to a Bessa T 101. I am very happy.
Click to expand...

As I read through this thread, I was going to mention a collapsible on a Bessa T as a compact, lightweight, sharp shooter for landscapes, but Bike Tourist beat me to it! :) Still, here's my hiking companion, w/ a 50 Elmar (in my case, a 1947 vintage, coated). Yeah, I know, the lens won't completely collapse on the T, so I use a couple of hair doodles to keep the lens barrel from scraping up the T's interior. I imagine that a more recent Elmar or Heliar would be sharper still, but this little lens does surprisingly well for landscapes. Throw in the little CV 28/3.5 skopar, and you may be close to a sweet spot in terms of sharpness and compact size.

2768773939_09c83f5e44_o.jpg
 
if you want to go landscaping light... take a rollei 35 (sonnar or tessar)... it's light, the optic is perfect... you just need a small tripod (or beanbag) and a water level...

S.
 
L-Hexanon 50mm 2.4 LTM collapsible

L-Hexanon 50mm 2.4 LTM collapsible

Konica made a Hexanon 50mm 2.4 lens in LTM mount.

I have seen two in recent months, both sold for less than US$ 500.

I have yet to see it tested (anyone here, perhaps?) but it's a modern lens, relatively small. Considering the quality of other Hexanons, you can't go wrong here.

Don't want to dish out US$ 500? Get an Industar 22 FSU lens! You might have to try a few duds before hitting the jackpot, once you have it collimated to the body it'll be sharp as a razor. Won't set you back more than US$ 200, including possible duds and collimating.
 
raid said:
For lenses slower than 2.0, the Elmar 5cm/2.8 is a great lens, and so is the Summaron 3.5cm/3.5. I would add to this mix the I-26 50mm/3.5 rigid. It is a very sharp lens.
The old Elmar 5cm/3.5 is also a great lens.
Click to expand...
Totally agreed!!:)
 

Attachments

  • DSCN1280.jpg
    DSCN1280.jpg
    64.4 KB · Views: 0
While I see your point, to me 50 = fast. That's the a big part of the "50mm" experience. A slow 50 defeats 1/2 the purpose - speed for available light shooting, plus I like that focal length (and they're a nice size) and they're good values from a cost perspective. Don't think I would even consider a 50 slower than f2.0.
|
 
mr. k already made heliar 50mm f3.5 - i heard only good stuff about its performance. and also it is small. i dont think they will make another one...
 
No cachet

No cachet

The B&W f2.8 50mm Canon equals or betters the older 50mm f2.8 Elmar. They occasionally show up for ~$100.

They apparently have no cachet whatever.:)

yours
FPJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom