We have asked this 100 million times. But, it is said that the Leica M summicron 2.0 Aspherical is to be the best lens out there for a 35. Is this a substantiated rumor? Are there any lens that can challenge this?
Best lens
- Thread starter MP Guy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 26
- Views 7K
JGH
Newbie
I would say the Contax / Carl Zeiss 45 mm f/2.0 Planar is equal to the Summi 2.0 ASP, but I seriously doubt I'll get agreement from any L folks. Let's just say they are both damn fine lenses for 135 format. 🙂
back alley
IMAGES
hard to beat the 'g' lenses for the mamiya 6 cameras.
they are painfully sharp!
joe
they are painfully sharp!
joe
Last edited:
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
In the world of standard lenses for 35mm cameras I honestly believe that the Zuiko 50/2.0 macro lens beats the pants of the Leica Summicron lens.
There's some more info on that topic over at: http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/archives/1998/msg02665.html
Both are excellent lenses though (it's just that the Zuiko is a little bit better 🙂 )
There's some more info on that topic over at: http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/archives/1998/msg02665.html
Both are excellent lenses though (it's just that the Zuiko is a little bit better 🙂 )
M
Manynames
Guest
I have never used any Lieca lense, well beyond my highschoolage student's budget. But I must say that the lense on the Canonet is extremely sharp in my use. The worst lense I have seen on a rangefinder is the 4. 5cm (45mm) f1.8 (1.9?) on my Dad's old Fujica V2. Heavy vignetting, not too sharp. Just rotten. I think that most of those fixed focus lenses on one timers are better.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Have to agree with M-names here. The Canonet lens is superb from f5.6 to f16.
Although I've read that the Summitar can be pretty sharp wide open, which is some feat...
Although I've read that the Summitar can be pretty sharp wide open, which is some feat...
dll927
Well-known
rsilverberg mentions the Zuiko macro lens. If he is talking about a 'true' macro, that is sort of a different animal. I have a 50mm Minolta macro, and it can be used out to infinity, but the forte of such lenses is close-up and flat-field work. And damned handy to have around. Mine has the extension ring for up to 1 : 1, and I also have the bellows set for the camera.
dll927
Well-known
P. S. I should add, we're getting out of rangefinder territory on this one.
jdos2
Well-known
Mamiya 7, 43mm.
"Best Lens Ever."
"Best Lens Ever."
Z
znapschatz
Guest
<<In the world of standard lenses for 35mm cameras I honestly believe that the Zuiko 50/2.0 macro lens beats the pants of the Leica Summicron lens.
There's some more info on that topic over at: http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/arch...8/msg02665.html
Both are excellent lenses though (it's just that the Zuiko is a little bit better 🙂 ) >>
The comparison is made against the Summicron-R, which is appropriate since all 3 lenses tested are for SLRs. However, the reflex Summicron is different from the RF version, and their respective performances are not quite the same. I believe a head to head with the Zuikos would favor the Summicron-M.
Years ago some friends and I got together for a Smack Down comparing lenses from Pentax, Olympus, Nikon and Leica. We used Kodachrome 25, a tripod, and photographed subjects in contrasty and flat light at maximum to minimum f stops. The results showed little difference between brands, and those mostly of "character" rather than quality. But one thing we all agreed upon was that the 50 mm Summicron results were noticeably superior to the others. It it hard to describe the look, but it wasn't a matter of sharpness or contrast. I would say the Leica had a more "dimensional" appearance.
Personally, I have been satisfied with most lenses I have encountered. My approach has usually been to get comfortable with what a lens can do rather than seek out some special optical nuances. Other things are equally important. For example, for toting around all day I'll take a lightweight camera with an okay lens rather than a blunderbus equipped with the Mother of All Lenses. After all, it's only pictures.
There's some more info on that topic over at: http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/arch...8/msg02665.html
Both are excellent lenses though (it's just that the Zuiko is a little bit better 🙂 ) >>
The comparison is made against the Summicron-R, which is appropriate since all 3 lenses tested are for SLRs. However, the reflex Summicron is different from the RF version, and their respective performances are not quite the same. I believe a head to head with the Zuikos would favor the Summicron-M.
Years ago some friends and I got together for a Smack Down comparing lenses from Pentax, Olympus, Nikon and Leica. We used Kodachrome 25, a tripod, and photographed subjects in contrasty and flat light at maximum to minimum f stops. The results showed little difference between brands, and those mostly of "character" rather than quality. But one thing we all agreed upon was that the 50 mm Summicron results were noticeably superior to the others. It it hard to describe the look, but it wasn't a matter of sharpness or contrast. I would say the Leica had a more "dimensional" appearance.
Personally, I have been satisfied with most lenses I have encountered. My approach has usually been to get comfortable with what a lens can do rather than seek out some special optical nuances. Other things are equally important. For example, for toting around all day I'll take a lightweight camera with an okay lens rather than a blunderbus equipped with the Mother of All Lenses. After all, it's only pictures.
DougJGreen
Newbie
I'd stack the 50mm Hexanon-M for the Konica Hexar RF and other M-mount lenses against anything, as far as normal lenses go.
oftheherd
Veteran
YBP ( 🙂 ) - I have never seen the Fujica V2, but any Fujica with the symptoms you describe must be damaged. I cannot imagine Fujica putting out such a crappy camera as you describe. Their lenses have always been, as they are still today, some of the finest in the world.
That said, I am prepared to hear that they did in fact put out one crappy camera line. I just find it hard to believe considering what else they were accomplishing with that camera. As I said, I think the one your father has may be damaged.
Reference the old Olympus lenses, I remember reading in the old Modern Photography, that one of their lab people thought the Olympus and Nikon were nearly on par, but that the Olympus had a slight edge detectable in some color shifts.
In the far east, Konica lenses held a good reputation with many "pro" photographers. Neither Konica nor Fujica ever seemed to market their lenses nor get the reputation that Nikon and Canon got. I have often wondered if part of that was not due to the excellent Nikon and Canon rangefinders of the early 50's. I think Konica had one, but am not aware that Fujica did. For some reason, the Konica never got the reputation. Maybe their lenses weren't that good then.
That said, I am prepared to hear that they did in fact put out one crappy camera line. I just find it hard to believe considering what else they were accomplishing with that camera. As I said, I think the one your father has may be damaged.
Reference the old Olympus lenses, I remember reading in the old Modern Photography, that one of their lab people thought the Olympus and Nikon were nearly on par, but that the Olympus had a slight edge detectable in some color shifts.
In the far east, Konica lenses held a good reputation with many "pro" photographers. Neither Konica nor Fujica ever seemed to market their lenses nor get the reputation that Nikon and Canon got. I have often wondered if part of that was not due to the excellent Nikon and Canon rangefinders of the early 50's. I think Konica had one, but am not aware that Fujica did. For some reason, the Konica never got the reputation. Maybe their lenses weren't that good then.
DougJGreen
Newbie
Actually, Konica has a well founded, STELLAR reputation for optics, dating back to the 1950s at least. Most folks who have compared them will tell you that Konica has long been THE premier lensmaker of Japan. CLEARLY superior to Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Pentax, at least through the 1970s. The present Hexar RF glass is also top notch, generally at least on a par with current Leica glass. But Konica's CAMERA development has not been competitive with these other vendors for decades, and it has diminished the knowledge of their outstanding optics.
oftheherd
Veteran
There had to be some reason, as they did indeed have a good reputation, and a bayonet mount. I always thought that might have been one of the things that hurt Fujica. The ST series were good cameras (and as mentioned, the lenses were superb), but the press was down on screw mount lens cameras. I still prefer them in very low light. I can figure out how to get the lens to screw on, but usually have trouble with a bayonet.
fcg
Member
we have to compare 35mm with 35-mm only!
and rf w rf lens-the reflex lenses can have different design s.
there are many variations of the 50 summicron. f2
if they are in good shape;and you compare them in b&w; the differences are interesting ; and yes they are usually a bit different then other lenses-
my color film processor used to say he'd look at my pix and they were different on the light table; we agreed it was<probably> the glass.
the list ;from memory;
the yellow glass screwmt/early m?
the collapsable m;
the rigid;m
the brown coated dualrange;
the blue coated version ;d/r
the 60's and 70's versions-canadian vs wetzlar?
the one without focus tab
the later versions;the last pre-asp. lens????
the asphiric? in 50mm f2? that im not sure about-.
and i cant remember it-is there a asph 50???at f=2? theres one in f 1.2 and 1.1; both monsters and expensiveBut hardly comparable to the 50 f 2's
you will find all the 50's are interesting;
and one or 2 have somthing special.
i tell my friends- the flare is just fantastic.........
and for more testing fun-in b&w
and yes; the enlarging lens makes a difference;
and i use schneider c/pnons- and lately nikon s; which are great also.
color comparisons are different- depends on the coating; etc
again should we compare a 50's era lens with one of the 60's or 70's-???
and yes ; a leica friend had told me that a early 50 slr macro by olympus was better then the leica 50m.. . not my testing- but a good relayable source.
konica made some super modern lenses. there is a 60mm f1.2 in lsm/e39mm which is only in japanand a 21;mm2.8 or3.5..
nikon made rf lenses; i have some; quite different then leica lenses.
and zeiss products adapted for leicas.
in lsm mounts; there are many interesting choices ;
voitlander;angenoux; zoomar; novoflex;
the list is long.
fcg.
and rf w rf lens-the reflex lenses can have different design s.
there are many variations of the 50 summicron. f2
if they are in good shape;and you compare them in b&w; the differences are interesting ; and yes they are usually a bit different then other lenses-
my color film processor used to say he'd look at my pix and they were different on the light table; we agreed it was<probably> the glass.
the list ;from memory;
the yellow glass screwmt/early m?
the collapsable m;
the rigid;m
the brown coated dualrange;
the blue coated version ;d/r
the 60's and 70's versions-canadian vs wetzlar?
the one without focus tab
the later versions;the last pre-asp. lens????
the asphiric? in 50mm f2? that im not sure about-.
and i cant remember it-is there a asph 50???at f=2? theres one in f 1.2 and 1.1; both monsters and expensiveBut hardly comparable to the 50 f 2's
you will find all the 50's are interesting;
and one or 2 have somthing special.
i tell my friends- the flare is just fantastic.........
and for more testing fun-in b&w
and yes; the enlarging lens makes a difference;
and i use schneider c/pnons- and lately nikon s; which are great also.
color comparisons are different- depends on the coating; etc
again should we compare a 50's era lens with one of the 60's or 70's-???
and yes ; a leica friend had told me that a early 50 slr macro by olympus was better then the leica 50m.. . not my testing- but a good relayable source.
konica made some super modern lenses. there is a 60mm f1.2 in lsm/e39mm which is only in japanand a 21;mm2.8 or3.5..
nikon made rf lenses; i have some; quite different then leica lenses.
and zeiss products adapted for leicas.
in lsm mounts; there are many interesting choices ;
voitlander;angenoux; zoomar; novoflex;
the list is long.
fcg.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
I'm sorry to see that no one here has mentioned one of my all-time favorite lenses - the 45mm f1.7 Color Yashinon DX. It's a fixed-lens, of course, mounted upon the wondrous Yashica G series rangefinders, best on the GSN. So sharp it hurts my eyes!
Second choice, though not far behind - the 45mm Minolta Rokkor PF 1:1.7, also a fixed-lens, mounted on the fabulous Hi-Matic 7S or Hi-Matic 9 (my personal favorite). You can cut yourself on this baby, too!
If we dive into the (spit) world of SLR's for a brief moment, I have a Canon 50mm S.C.C. 1:1.4 FD-mount that makes me weep. I keep trying and trying to better it's performance with a longer lens, but nothing doing - the 50mm is non pareil.
Finally, a recent (and expensive) acquisition - an A. Schacht Travenar 90mm f2.8 LTM, which I use on my Bessa R. I can't convey in words how happy it makes me with portraits. You've got to see this one with a full-size scan - I've included the link. This was shot at f4 on Fuji Superia 400 ASA consumer color print film and scanned at the local photo shop at medium rez. No touch up done at all - no unsharp mask, nothing. Can we say YOWZA!?!?!?!?
I have no experience, sadly, with the creme de la creme Leicas and such - my buys are all el cheapos for the most part. But believe me, you can come VERY, VERY, close to the utmost in imagery without breaking open the 401(k) fund.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
A good friend and coworker in Baltimore last week
Oh, what the heck - here's another:
Another coworker in Baltimore
Second choice, though not far behind - the 45mm Minolta Rokkor PF 1:1.7, also a fixed-lens, mounted on the fabulous Hi-Matic 7S or Hi-Matic 9 (my personal favorite). You can cut yourself on this baby, too!
If we dive into the (spit) world of SLR's for a brief moment, I have a Canon 50mm S.C.C. 1:1.4 FD-mount that makes me weep. I keep trying and trying to better it's performance with a longer lens, but nothing doing - the 50mm is non pareil.
Finally, a recent (and expensive) acquisition - an A. Schacht Travenar 90mm f2.8 LTM, which I use on my Bessa R. I can't convey in words how happy it makes me with portraits. You've got to see this one with a full-size scan - I've included the link. This was shot at f4 on Fuji Superia 400 ASA consumer color print film and scanned at the local photo shop at medium rez. No touch up done at all - no unsharp mask, nothing. Can we say YOWZA!?!?!?!?
I have no experience, sadly, with the creme de la creme Leicas and such - my buys are all el cheapos for the most part. But believe me, you can come VERY, VERY, close to the utmost in imagery without breaking open the 401(k) fund.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
A good friend and coworker in Baltimore last week
Oh, what the heck - here's another:
Another coworker in Baltimore
Last edited:
pvdhaar
Peter
I think the discussion about which lens is best remains troublesome to say the least. We all look for different things.
Depending on your type of photography, you may need razorlike sharpness for landscapes or conversely silky smoothness for portraits.
But even when lenses are optically identical, their mechanical qualities may make a difference. Your likes and dislikes may make you chose one over the other and consequently experience gained may lead to better pictures.
Depending on your type of photography, you may need razorlike sharpness for landscapes or conversely silky smoothness for portraits.
But even when lenses are optically identical, their mechanical qualities may make a difference. Your likes and dislikes may make you chose one over the other and consequently experience gained may lead to better pictures.
S
Scarpia
Guest
I have a Minolta Unionmat (an early version of the Hi-Matic) made for the Japanese market with a Rokkor 45mm f2.8 which is also tack sharp and one of my favorites.
I also have a beat up Schacht Travenar 85mm f2.8 with perfect glass and cockeyed though functioning mount for Exakta. I used it with my Exa for the first time in about 40 years last summer and was amazed at the results. As Schact was a small company I would bet that the design of the RF 90mm 2.8 and the 85mm SLR 2.8 are similar.
I will try to attach a photo of the Unionmat.
Kurt M.
I also have a beat up Schacht Travenar 85mm f2.8 with perfect glass and cockeyed though functioning mount for Exakta. I used it with my Exa for the first time in about 40 years last summer and was amazed at the results. As Schact was a small company I would bet that the design of the RF 90mm 2.8 and the 85mm SLR 2.8 are similar.
I will try to attach a photo of the Unionmat.
Kurt M.
bmattock
Veteran
pvdhaar said:
I agree that 'best' is a subjective term, and it means different things to different people. However, with that said, I suspect that people often mean 'sharpest' when they say 'best'.
And although you are also correct that even 'sharpness' is subjective, and can vary from lens to lens, I think it can also be said that there are things many of us look for that we can agree upon.
I have always been one who looks for the best way to find very sharp lenses without breaking the bank - and I believe that I have often found this in fixed-lens rangefinders of the 1960s and 1970s, which are inexpensive to say the least.
This seems to particularly apply to manufacturers such as Yashica and Minolta, and Canonets have their supporters as well.
To me, the biggest (and perhaps most interesting) situation is that overall build quality seemed to peak in the early to mid 1950s, while lens quality (for moderate-priced rangefinders) peaked in the mid 1970s. I've got cameras that are built like tanks, with mechanisms like Swiss watches, but the optics are inferior, and rattly stamped-metal cameras that have lenses to make one weep.
But getting back to the subject at hand; I enjoy the ongoing debate and discussion about 'best' lenses - there will never be a clear winner, but I usually learn a lot from those who debate, and it gives me ideas as to what to look for should I ever win the lottery.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
Veteran
Scarpia said:
Kurt,
I don't know much about the A. Schacht company, except that it was located in Ulm, Germany. I see on eBay that they made several model names - Travenar, Travegar, and Travegon to name a few I've seen. I've seen them in Practika and Pentax mount, LTM, and some I could not identify by the photos (neither could those selling them). They seem to have made the Travegon to look rather like the Steinheil 135 f3.5 LTM, while they made the Travenar / Travegar to look very different - black aluminum body with silver highlights and sharply-cut blocks for gripping the focus, aperture, etc. Mine is like the latter, and in fantastic shape for its age - it has some oil on the aperture blades, but this does not seem to affect the photos at all.
I enjoyed your picture of the Uniomat, would love to see some pictures taken with your Travenar!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
