Leica LTM Collapsible advice

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses

zauhar

Veteran
Local time
5:34 AM
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
2,105
Hi Folks,

I currently have one 50mm lens for my M3, a DR Summicron. It is wonderful but sticks out very far and has been ruining my coat pockets (and makes it hard to get the camera in and out of even a big pocket). I also don't think it would fit easily in a small belt-attached camera bag.

So, I was thinking of buying a collapsible lens, like a Summitar. My questions:

1) Any problem with collapsing into an M3? I would think the answer is obviously "no", but you never know.

2) Is the Summitar a good choice? I like the look of shots I have seen taken with it, but wonder if it is all that compact when collapsed.

3) Any issues with using it with an M-mount adaptor?

4) Finally, will it work with my other camera, Canon 7? Will I be able to collapse it fully into that body?

Thanks!

Randy

P.S. I should add that I have no intention of giving up the Summicron. The collapsible would be for street shooting, just to make the camera easier to carry.

P.P.S. We have just wrapped up a long-overdue project that provides a small honorarium. My "carrot" to keep me at it was the promise of buying a new lens. ;-)
 
No probs collapsing the Summitar in any of your scenarios.

For real compactness, how about an Elmar 50f3.5?
Or for compactness without collapsing, the CV 50f2.5.
 
If you like your DR, a good collapsible Summicron might be a better choice. It's rendering is very similar.

The Summitar has a special signature. You might like or hate it.

How about something different alltogether, like a 40 Rokkor ? Very compact.
 
Lots of collapsible or flat lenses around,
First question: do you need f/2?
second question, modern or classic?
etc...
 
Lots of collapsible or flat lenses around,
First question: do you need f/2?
second question, modern or classic?
etc...

Michael I would like f2.

(Frank, that is why I am not too keen on the Elmar, plus examples I see are outside what I planned to pay.)

What's the difference between modern or classic? I have looked a little, and see that some of the early lenses do not stop down past ~ f12, is that part of it?

Thanks!

Randy
 
The classic/vintage look, to me, means lower contrast, and softness in the corners at wide apertures, when compared to modern lens rendering.
 
Michael I would like f2.

(Frank, that is why I am not too keen on the Elmar, plus examples I see are outside what I planned to pay.)

What's the difference between modern or classic? I have looked a little, and see that some of the early lenses do not stop down past ~ f12, is that part of it?

Thanks!

Randy

Not really, Randy,
The usual classification is
classic: high resolution, low contrast, tendency to flare, good for BW, less for color etc
Modern: high contrast, sometimes slightly lower resolution, better correction of aberrations (should I say "better repression of the leica glow"?:rolleyes:)
Your DR is the pinnacle of a classic lens BTW.
If you like it, I would follow Roland advice and look for a collapsible summicron. The summitar is an effect lens: nice stopped down, "special rendering" with lower res at f/2-f/4.
If you are willing to work with a wider lens, you have some pretty flat modern 40mm lenses out there.
You also have the Hexanon 2.4 (ask Roland :))

[edit]: I forgot the collapsible Heliar 50mm f/2
 
There's also a Canon 1.9, that's collapsible.

I think you can find a coll. Cron (30 grams more weight than Summitar) for pretty much the same price as a Summitar if you fish the eBay with some patience.
 
Guys, excellent advice. Thank you.

Michael, thanks for setting me straight. In particular, if the collapsible summicron renders similar to the DR, that pushes me strongly in that direction.

Randy
 
The Summitar is not a small lens when you extend it, and you really need to use a hood or shade b/c it flares easily. So I would follow Frank's or Roland's advice here. I've found that the Color Skopar 50 on an M makes a very compact kit that's pretty easy to get in and out of a coat pocket, and you don't sacrifice anything in terms of overall image quality. It's only half a stop slower than f2. The collpsible Chron would be another good choice.

I'm surpised by your comment abt prices of 50/3.5 Elmars. It's historically been the most affordable Leica 50, in part because so many were made. It's a stunning little performer. Just shoot film at higher iso.
 
The Summitar is not a small lens when you extend it, and you really need to use a hood or shade b/c it flares easily. So I would follow Frank's or Roland's advice here. I've found that the Color Skopar 50 on an M makes a very compact kit that's pretty easy to get in and out of a coat pocket, and you don't sacrifice anything in terms of overall image quality. It's only half a stop slower than f2. The collpsible Chron would be another good choice.

I'm surpised by your comment abt prices of 50/3.5 Elmars. It's historically been the most affordable Leica 50, in part because so many were made. It's a stunning little performer. Just shoot film at higher iso.

Steve, I looked at prices for the Elmar this morning, and was surprised to see them higher than the Summitar - I admit it was not a long search.

Randy
 
Dear Randy,

I would recommend you as an option a very classic and underrated lens - the Summar 5cm f/2 (in LTM) that works great with LTM>M adapter.
It has the vintage look and a very distinguishing signature (also love/hate opinions on that) but it's very affordable and compact - smaller than my M-mount collapsible Elmar 50mm f/2.8.

Here are some samples to consider regardless the low quality scanning:

62148_448364793587_693198587_5181246_1303069_n.jpg


149153_472049303587_693198587_5559743_2564950_n.jpg


77172_471077483587_693198587_5548382_6288964_n.jpg
 
There's also a Canon 1.9, that's collapsible.

I think you can find a coll. Cron (30 grams more weight than Summitar) for pretty much the same price as a Summitar if you fish the eBay with some patience.

How would you compare the Canon collapsible to the Summicron? I have a Canon lens (50/1.4), and while it does not match the summicron I have, it is a very good lens.

I see the Canon collapsibles are a cheap alternative.

As always, too many alternatives. I also was looking at the CV lenses.

Randy
 
Dear Randy,

I would recommend you as an option a very classic and underrated lens - the Summar 5cm f/2 (in LTM) that works great with LTM>M adapter.
It has the vintage look and a very distinguishing signature (also love/hate opinions on that) but it's very affordable and compact - smaller than my M-mount collapsible Elmar 50mm f/2.8.

Here are some samples to consider regardless the low quality scanning:

Boris, those are gorgeous - has similar feel to the summicron.

I need to think some more.

Thanks!

Randy
 
Thank you Randy :)

I am DR Summicron shooter as well but besides DR being still my favorite lens I also shoot collapsible Elmar 50mm f/2.8 (M mount) on my second M2 - also relatively cheap Leica lens but also very sharp stopped down from around f/4 and less contrasty than the cron.
BTW, watching the prints of the 1st and 3rd picture I posted as example above I am glad I kept the Summar - I was about to trade it the other day...
Good luck!
 
I'll second that about the f/2.8 Elmar, grossly under-priced and brilliant and neat. Mine is more or less glued to the M2 when I'm on my travels and wish to travel light; and not using the CL or a P&S.

BTW, in between classic (1930's ?) and modern (last year ?) there's a lot of other lenses.

BTW 2, Summitar is very similar (obvious reasons) to early Summicrons and comes coated or uncoated (and coated but not by Leitz). You can guess which ones have flare problems, I hope.

BTW 3, Summars are nice but they are uncoated and the front element is fairly soft and often gets scratched. Get one in good condition and you'll be pleased. Get a sad one and you'll bitterly regret it.

BTW 4, I've a lot of 50mm lenses in the heap/collection by all sorts of makers and have yet to notice one that appears unique when you get to the print stage. I've softish ones in the heap too but don't call that a signature.

Technicians in labs have more clearly defined signatures than lenses, imo.

Regards, David
 
For outdoor work consider an Industar-22. Hardly visible when collapsed and on par with the Elmar if you can cope with the absence of a 'Leitz' engraving. Oh, and you should be able to get one for 15$ max. So, no matter what else you'll buy - get one :)
 
Condition is everything in this quest. The Summar, Summitar, and collapsible Summicron all have very soft flint (lead) glass for the front element. Many were ruined by careless cleaning. A Summar with a crystal-clear front element will be better than a Summicron with a mist of fine scratches. Also, the coating on that Summicron, and on any Summitar or Summar that are coated, is a very soft "drip" coating, as Zeiss had a patent on their hard coating. So the coating is even more easily scratched, or just mostly cleaned away.

Also, they need to be clear of internal haze, so they may need an internal cleaning by a professional.

I have basically perfect Summar and coated Summitar lenses, and they aren't flare-prone in my experience.
 
OR get a Summaron 35/2.8 to fill the gap between the DR and the 21 SA. The summaron is a great street shooter and the goggles will keep that nasty Acc. finder off the top of your camera.
 
Or get a CV 50 Heliar...

I checked KEH and you're right about Elmar 50 prices, although they don't currently have many samples of Elmars or Summitars for sale. I bought my Elmar from Youxin Ye in an ebay sale a few years ago. There have been some Summitars for sale in RFF Classifieds.

If you're looking for a compact, all-round 50, though, I'd seriously look at the CV offerings.
 
Back
Top Bottom