Fellow friends: which tele lens for my M8 do you recommend?

[peepete77]

Nikkor 8.5cm/2 is a great lens, but has a long focus throw and is heavy, unless you get a black version. I also like M-Hexanon 90/2.8 - quality optic with a great build:

Also CV Heliar 75/2.5 is a nice, small and light option that has good glass:

Personally, I wouldnt go for anything much slower in this FL. But if you want to go longer, lets say to 135mm - Nikkor 13.5cm/3.5 is another great lens to consider.

Krosya!!
How lovely to hear from you!!!
You are the reason I owned and cherished a Konica Hexanon M 50/2 and the great UC 35/2 Hexanon when I once owned the Epson RD-1! Those were the days, and it was then I fell in love with rangefinder photography. And your encouragement really made me believe and dare. I will always be incredibly grateful for that, and I once in a while send you positive and good thoughts!
I have always been impressed with the magic in your photos, and I think your work with the Hexanons have been some of the most interesting and fascinating here
I also see you recommend a 90/2,8, and when seeing the pictures, it is hard to argue other than that this looks like a great lens, and I love the colors! A strong candidate!

You are also showing some magic with the VL, and I am fascinated with what you say about weight, size and quality, and I also understand it has a inviting price tag on it... However, I like the images from the Hexanon better, maybe it's my eyes... But, it's a feeling

I am already strongly considering the Nikkor, it seems to be a killer lens, but everyone says the same: go for the black one... The only problem is that I have found no one for sale So, I don't even know how much money it should cost...

Thank you again, I always check in on the Konica forum here, in my heart, I have a weak spot for the Hexanons. They were kind of my first love, in rangefinder photography, and they really did a great job on that Epson...
I like your posts there

Best regards
Peter

 

[peepete77]

Also, if you want to be adventurous, you could try a Jupiter 9 - 85/2 lens in LTM - if you get a good one - they are great:

Wow, Jupiter is exciting! And nice pictures! But would you please say a little more of what you meant with "if you get a good one"? I fear that this means that it is varying quality in the production lines, that you never know what you get... unreliable production standards, perhaps?

 

[Rafael]

THANK you, Rafael! This is VERY interesting, and as a novise, what is the E55 mean? With the possibility of presenting myself as a goon, I still dare to ask: Does E55 mean size of the filter thread, or is it something else? Sorry for asking, I probably put myself in an unflattering light here, but I would really like someone to teach me
Yes, the Summilux is probably my DREAM LENS, but as you say: I don't know how I would ever afford it... I loved what you said about creamy bokeh, do you have a picture to showcase the magic?

Thank you again, Rafael, I REALLY appreciated this answer

E55 refers to the filter thread. I am referring to the version 3 90mm Summicron, the same lens that Roland (Ferider) recommended in his post above.

As for photographs taken with the 75mm Summilux (and, by the way, I agree with Thomas that this really is a lens with no peers), I don't have any examples on this computer. However, you can peruse this thread (LINK), or you can visit the Flickr M-Mount group.

Good luck with your search.

 

[peepete77]

While my 75 Summicron is my essential tele for my M8.2, if I didn't have a thing for the f-2.0 aperture I would surely have the 90 Elmarit-M, last version with the built-in hood, E-46 filter I think it is.

This equates to a 122mm look on the M8.2 which could be nice for some concert coverage.

Thank you very very much! I am very grateful! The summicron is a very strong candidate, but the prices are high at the moment it seems. But I could easily see the Elmarit-M 90 as a dark horse in the race. With the latest version, do you mean those produced in the 1980's?

And I agree, a very good lens for concert coverage!

Best regards!
Peter

 

[lewis44]

If you are looking for sharp that almost hurt's and easy on the Pocketbook, the Konica Hexanon 90mm f2.8 is the answer.
This on a M8:

 

[peepete77]

I echo Marc's remarks. Though, if you can save some more and get a summilux 75, do it: there is no substitute I would take for a 75.

Here is a shot at f/1,4:>


Focus by thomasw_, on Flickr

Oh my oh my... How could I want any other lens after watching this shot, showcasing everything I desire...? Glow, rendering... Sigh...

Thank you so much for your photo and reply, this is somewhat setting the standard bar very high, but I do not know how I can afford this beauty... Is it the ASPH version, or an earlier, by the way? I see them starting at 3.5 k dollars... :bang:

I can't this image out of my head...what a bokeh! At least, to my taste... And it draws the light and contours beautiful...

 

[peepete77]

I agree with Jaap. Great deal, great lens. Not too big, and renders, well, just perfectly.

Thank you so much, I am starting to become more and more intrigued by this lens' capability... Very interesting, indeed...
Thanks for sharing your opinion

Best regards
Peter

 

[peepete77]

hexanon-M 90/2.8 sonnar. Small, sharp

Thank you for your opinion, I am not a stranger to falling for a hexanon

 

[peepete77]

Probably the best bang for the buck long lens for the M8... since it is a 100mm lens on the M8, it is fast, compact, and modern (< $300 used). I find 90mm lenses to be too long on the M8.

Thank you so much for your opinion, I see that this lens is a very reasonable and good choice, so it will definetely be on my list

Best regards
Peter

 

[peepete77]

Have you used the preview lever in your actual shooting environments to see alternative frame lines? Which seem most frequently useful?

Do you have a preference for the visibility of the 75 versus 90 frame lines? (I personally never liked the broken 75 lines, and find the 90 lines easier to compose).

I suggest you determine focal length first, then pick the 'best' affordable lens in that length for YOUR needs and preferences. The suggestion on Reid Reviews was a good one to help sort through the variables to consider.

Jeff

Thank you very much, Jeff. Very helpful indeed! I am ashamed to say that I have not used the prewiev lever at all, so I just did, and I think I can say that the 90 was instinctively more pleasant to work with, but then again I tried some more times, and found out that the 75 was also fun to work with, so I am still open for both. My initial reaction was the 90, but now I feel I am fleeting towards the 75... I think I can like both
Thank you again, I love answers like this, I learn so much here!!!
Thank you guys, you are the best!!!

Grateful regards
Peter

 

[peepete77]

I've tried many. I kept: Nikkor 85/2, Summicron 90/2 v3, Summilux 75/1.4, Hexanon 90/2.8. The Hexanon is a copy of the G-Sonnar 90/2.8 and identical in size to the Elmarit-M; in practice I didn't find much difference in using the two lenses.

In terms of rendering, most similar to your 50/1.4 are the above 90/2 and 75/1.4 (all three lenses designed by Mandler).

All 4 lenses above are outstanding and I can recommend each, depending on your budget/size/speed requirements. Have a look at the flickr M-mount forum, see what people do with the different lenses. I recommend to decide on signature, not on resolution, APO/ASPH, etc... the performance of a tele on an M is mostly limited by you, not the glass (focus accuracy, etc.).

Thank you fereider, I really loved this reply, and I am very grateful for your opinion!! Much valued, and it is always a gift to hear from someone that has tried MANY great lenses, and compared them, and kept only the best. So the list of four, goes straigth on my list!
I am intrigued by these Mandler lenses! I think his signatour goes straight into my heart. I will visit the flickr M-mount forum, and be inspired!!!
Thank you again, I have a feeling that all these 4 lenses, will be on my final top 5 list

Best regards!
Peter

 

[peepete77]

I have owned at different times the Summilux 75, Summicron 75, VC 75/2.5, Tele-Elmarit 90 (thin), and the Hexanon 90/2.8.

Although each of these lenses is outstanding in its way, I've kept just the humble Hexanon. Lovely bokeh. Plenty sharp. Great value.

Thank you so much for very interesting opinion and great arguments. You have owned some of the best, and kept the Hexanon... I would never have guessed, but it really intrigues me!
I guess this lens already is a very strong candidate, and possibly with me in the final decisions...

Kind regards
Peter

 

[peepete77]

The answer is very simple: Canon 85mm f/2 LTM; heavy, but has some rather nasty creamy bokeh. And a good copy can be found for less than $300.

But if you must save cash and would like to play build-quality russian (heh) roulette, then get the Jupiter-9.

Thank you very much, Gabriel, I really value your opinion!
What a good price, and I need to check out some creamy bokeh pictures instantly! Jupiter sounds more of a hit or miss, but the prices are presumebly lower I assume... Thank you for a new perspective, I have never heard of this lens. So I need to check some up

Best regards
Peter

 

[peepete77]

E55 refers to the filter thread. I am referring to the version 3 90mm Summicron, the same lens that Roland (Ferider) recommended in his post above.

As for photographs taken with the 75mm Summilux (and, by the way, I agree with Thomas that this really is a lens with no peers), I don't have any examples on this computer. However, you can peruse this thread (LINK), or you can visit the Flickr M-Mount group.

Good luck with your search.

Thank you so much for the link, and for sprcifying. I hope I will be able to tell which one is a version 3, if I go for it. Do you have cirka serial numbers?

You have really helped me a lot, and I am extremely grateful for this!
Kind regards
Peter

 

[peepete77]

If you are looking for sharp that almost hurt's and easy on the Pocketbook, the Konica Hexanon 90mm f2.8 is the answer.
This on a M8:

Thank you very much, lewis44, I really liked your opinion and the image you sent! I see what you mean, razorsharp! Can you tell me your opinion on this lens' bokeh? I think this lens really starts to climb the list!
Thank you very much again!
Kind regards
Peter

 

[Sonnar Brian]

This is the point where almost all of the popular short telephoto lenses have been mentioned, and time to decide on some qualities that you are after.

The Maximum F-Stop is important, makes a big difference in cost, size, and weight. For a short Telephoto, not as much difference that you might thing for out-of-focus areas. But it does make a big difference in the amount of light necessary for existing light portraits. F2 is nice, but F4 and a fast film, high ISO setting, and steady hand will work.

1950s Collapsible 9cm F4 Elmar, wide-open on the M8:

Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8, wide-open:

 

[lewis44]

Can you tell me your opinion on this lens' bokeh? I think this lens really starts to climb the list!

This image will give you an Idea. Everyone has a different Idea of what they like.

 

[ferider]

Thank you so much for the link, and for sprcifying. I hope I will be able to tell which one is a version 3, if I go for it. Do you have cirka serial numbers?

You have really helped me a lot, and I am extremely grateful for this!
Kind regards
Peter

AFAIK, the E55 version 3 went from serial 3,177,211 - 3,750,000 (see http://www.antiquecameras.net/leicamlenses.html).

Maybe a size comparison helps, too:

From left to right: Nikkor, v3 Summicron, Summilux.

Roland.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Roland's Black Nikkor 8.5cm f2 is "uncommon", and cost about double what a chrome lens goes for. It is lighter than the chrome Nikkor. The chrome Nikkor is much smaller and lighter than the Canon 85/2 and 85/1.9.

The Jupiter-9 is a nice and light lens, but will likely not focus properly on a Leica without a lot of work.

 

[peepete77]

This is the point where almost all of the popular short telephoto lenses have been mentioned, and time to decide on some qualities that you are after.

The Maximum F-Stop is important, makes a big difference in cost, size, and weight. For a short Telephoto, not as much difference that you might thing for out-of-focus areas. But it does make a big difference in the amount of light necessary for existing light portraits. F2 is nice, but F4 and a fast film, high ISO setting, and steady hand will work.

1950s Collapsible 9cm F4 Elmar, wide-open on the M8:

Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8, wide-open:

Thank you Brian, very impressed with images and great post!
I agree, many superb lenses have been mentioned, and I am having a blast reading me up and finding images on the www taken with the individual lenses. Being used to a Summilux f-stop 1,4, and seeing what it can do in available light, I think it is difficult to imagine to use lenses with stops from f2 or f2.5 or f2.8 or f4. I am, however, sure of that if I find the right signatoure, it can still be the right lens for me. Because the 75mm Summilux is just too expensive and out of range at the moment, Otherwise, it would have been the perfect choice.
I think I am heading against a 90 mm after reading and re-reading these wonderful posts you guys sent in, and after some reflecting on my needs. I am using a M8, so great if I can stay up to, but not over, ISO 400, I guess...
Thank you again, Brian!