Best LTM 50mm?

[rover]

According to Marc James Small

"Several of the early Canon lenses would not mount on Leica cameras, which came to light with the flood of Leitz-equipped photojournalist who poured into Tokyo at the outbreak of the Korean War. Canon adapted the correct 39mm x 0.977mm mount in 1952 and used this on all cameras and lenses made by them until the end of thread-mount production in the 1970's, though the camera flange design differed slightly from its German paradigm."

That silly Branack threw a little curve ball there not making the thread pitch a full 1mm.

You can ID the lens you are looking at here.

http://canonrangefinder.servehttp.c...er/index.php?page=lenses&type=standard_lenses

 

[chug]

Cheers Rover 🙂 I took a look and found that its a 50-51 year lens. So thats a no goer for me then. I think I might just save up and get a 50mm CV lens to match the R. At least it will match the body 😉

Cheers

 

[rover]

Better safe than sorry. I may be wrong and if so hopefully someone will correct my statements, but that is the info I have. I actually would like to find a Canon 50/1.5 myself, and I know some folks here have them. Perhaps this is not one of the lenses that was made to the early Canon standard. I have not investigated this lens any farther than what I have shared. It will be interesting to hear from those with this lens which version theirs is.

 

[back alley]

rover,

are you becoming a 50 collector?
you have 2 now, right?
i'm curious, why the canon 1.5? i thought the canon 1.4 was the better (best?) of the canon bunch?

jjoe

 

[FrankS]

I've read that the 50mm f1.8 was the sharpest, followed by the f1.4. The f1.5 is a Sonnar design (the others aren't) and has a different, more vintage signature. I read somewhere on the 'net that the Canon 50mm f1.5 was "a step up" from the Leitz 50mm f1.5.

 

[rover]

Very observant, I have an affinity to 50mm lenses. Mostly because they are cheaper than cameras.

The 50/1.5 is a Sonnar clone? I don't know, why I want it over the 50/1.4.

Kinda like the blonde vs brunette question.

 

[back alley]

sorry frank, i was thinking sharpest of the faster 50s.

i know 1.8 is pretty fast also but i never see it as a 'fast' lens.

joe

 

[back alley]

Very observant, I have an affinity to 50mm lenses. Mostly because they are cheaper than cameras.

The 50/1.5 is a Sonnar clone? I don't know, why I want it over the 50/1.4.

Kinda like the blonde vs brunette question.

is that a dig? 😉

ok, here's a thought though...you edited your gear down awhile back and part of your reasoning was 'too much stuff', hard to decide what to shoot with. (i know that may be my interpretaion)
would you not go through the same thing picking which 50 to use?

and to be clear, i'm not trying to be smart ass here, i'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by an 'excess' of gear and am in the process of decision making re. what to do (if anything) about it.

your thoughts are most welcomed.

joe

 

[rover]

No dig intended, but lets face it, there is no cure for GAS. Yes I did sell a boat load of stuff for the reasons you mention. I would actually like to find an LTM 50/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar, but that will take some time. I guess I figure a lens every once in a while isn't that bad.

You are right, there is no reason, just madness.

 

[back alley]

i feel similar, in that a lens is easier on the pschye and the wallet than a camera or system change would be.

lately i'm feeling a stronger urge to buy than to sell and i have to admit i don't care for that.
i'm also getting into the mind frame of owning several of the same focal length lenses, like a couple of 50s and 35s.

but am i becoming a better shooter?
this concerns me.
joe

 

[rover]

I would say I want to experiment with the look of old style lenses. I just ordered some Tri-x that should help. With good weather not too far away for me I will have more chances to shoot soon.

 

[FrankS]

I'm also interested in the "look" that vintage lenses provide. Heck, if my primary goal was ultimate sharpness, I should be reaching for a medium format camera!

 

[back alley]

I'm also interested in the "look" that vintage lenses provide. Heck, if my primary goal was ultimate sharpness, I should be reaching for a medium format camera!

i could not agree with you more!!

obsessing over the ultimate lens for 35mm shooting seems so pointless. if i wanted small(ish) and sharp i would have stayed with the mamiya 6.

i want something that looks a bit different from all the other stuff out there today, and what better way to start that than with a lens from another time.

joe

 

[back alley]

I would say I want to experiment with the look of old style lenses. I just ordered some Tri-x that should help. With good weather not too far away for me I will have more chances to shoot soon.

yes, exactly!

i need to load up with something new and start developing on my own again.
i should buy a scanner instead of that 35/2. aaaggghhhh...

joe

 

[xayraa33]

Canon 50mm F1.4 is my favourite, for low light shooting, but the Canon 1.8 is prefered for general use. The Jupiter 8 gets a lot of use, but I had to try several to find a good one. .... a 1956 vintage. I used a Nikkor 1.4 , years ago, nice construction , but optically I thought it was overrated. & that it does not ,IMO warrant its current price. I found the f 2 version a bit better. (these Nikkors were still very affordable 27 years ago . ) Going back even further, the Leitz Summarit gave me some rather soft images at full bore, that some people seem to like, but I lost interest in it rather quickly and sold it in 1978 .Best bang for the buck, I think is the J-8, when the right example is found.

 

[rover]

I had a nice J8 and sold it. Maybe the only thing I regret selling right now.

 

[FrankS]

I'd get another one if I were you. They can't get much cheaper and they do give very nice results!

 

[rover]

I will, you are right, you can't spend a better $25 (ish).

Maybe I will go look now.

 

[xayraa33]

You might luck out and get a real good Jupiter 8 on the first purchase. When you find the ideal J 8 , hang on to it. I got mine as an orphan ( no camera body) with FSU uv filter for 7 pounds sterling in 1989. It looked well used on the outside , but the glass was perfect. It replaced a 1977 black J-8 on my Zorki 4 k, that was pristine in shape , but a really bad preformer, the " lousiest baddest " J 8 I had ever come across. There is something to be said about well used looking FSU lenses , they probably got used a lot because they preformed very well, & the shiney ones were duds that got forgotten in a drawer, only to be remembered when ebay came on the scene.

 

[peter_n]

I've read this rationale before and I think there is something to it. Also these Russian lenses have aluminum barrels and rings and are light in weight, but they seem to be able to withstand being used pretty heavily. Makes you wonder about the necessity of the "build quality" of some of the fancy lenses... 😉