Leica LTM Help choosing a compact LTM 50

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
R

rmeskill

Member
Local time
11:09 PM
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
20
View My Gallery
So I'm primarily a M-user, but I just purchased a Barnack body off another forum user under the auspices of keeping it in my bag and on me at all times. Not that I've ever found an M to be excessively large, but I've always had a soft spot for a little III and I wanted an excuse to have one camera/one lens always around. So I have (or will soon get) my III, but now I'm torn as to what lens to wed to her. A big piece of me says an original Elmar (3.5), as that's likely to be the most compact, but I'm a sucker for faster glass and will likely miss having the option of f2. The camera's likely to be on me nearly every time I leave the house, so I need something as versatile as possible, I'm just having trouble figuring out the trade-offs.

Any thoughts? I already own a collapsible Cron in M-mount, so as much as I love it, it seems a little silly to get a second one in LTM. That leaves me with an Elmar 3.5 or 2.8, Summitar or (I guess) a Summar, though I don't know much about the Summars. Again, I'm going for size/portability here, along with versatility-any thoughts would be much appreciated...

-Ryan
 
I have a IIIc, a III and a leica standard that I just acquired. I feel that the III and Standard are best suited for the Elmar because they are small and somewhat slippery with the original vulcanite. I have a summitar lens (bigger ang heavier than the Elmar) and it doesnt feel quite right on the III or the standard. However, on the IIIc, the Summitar feels just right. The IIIc is slightly bigger(which makes a big ergonomic difference in my opinion) and my IIIc has the grippier sharkskin.With an Elmar, the III can be pocketable and it looks good with the Elmar. So in my opinion, get an Elmar 3.5 for the III.
 
DominikDUK said:
The Summar cheap faster than the Elmar collapsible and special look and a contemporary of the Leica III.

Dominik
Click to expand...

+1 as far as political correctness is concerned 🙂. They're contemporaries. If the III is nickel + black paint, then you should find a nickel Elmar or Summar, a little more costly. However, the Summitar is a better lens without being excessively expensive. A nice one could be had for around US$ 350. Elmars run around 250, Summars similarly.
 
Hi, one of the best is the elmar 50mm 3.5, very sharp and sooo pocketable.

Also the summar but i haven´t been able to find with pristine optics, they´re ussually have scratches or wiping marks.

A very nice lens is the 3.5cm elmar it´s samll as the 50mm elmar collapsed. Quite sharp.

The hektor 50mm f 2.5 is a lens just like the elmar but it´s a whole stop faster, it has focus shift and is not sharp neither contrasty, also quite expensive.

Other ltm lenses are the rollei sonnar 40mm f2.8, fine performer and the vf of a iii will do.

There are some other fine lenses as the hexanon 50mm f2.4 wich i´ve never used and a number of voigtlander lenses with m39 screw in which the elmar style 50mm f3.5 color skopar collapsible lens is a gem!

And of sourse the industar-50 which is a copy of a contax tessar if i´m correct, i have a copy it´s very sharp and veeery cheap!

I would go for an elmar, a recent coated one.

Bye and luck!
 
Last edited:
I haven't tried any of the other options you (or others) have mentioned, but I really like my Summitar! It is surprisingly sharp and I love the look of the photos I make with it. Mine is a later coated sample, and has the round aperture (rather than hexagonal). I use it on both my iiif and my M3 and, on the Barnack, it makes a great compact package.

I posted some photos from a shoot a few months ago on my blog:

http://www.djcphoto.com/index.php/summitar-photoshoot/
 
djcphoto said:
I haven't tried any of the other options you (or others) have mentioned, but I really like my Summitar! It is surprisingly sharp and I love the look of the photos I make with it. Mine is a later coated sample, and has the round aperture (rather than hexagonal). I use it on both my iiif and my M3 and, on the Barnack, it makes a great compact package.

I posted some photos from a shoot a few months ago on my blog:

http://www.djcphoto.com/index.php/summitar-photoshoot/
Click to expand...

Plus 1 for the Summitar.....very very underrated lens. The only issue is the hood and filters are lets just say special.
 
ray*j*gun said:
Plus 1 for the Summitar.....very very underrated lens. The only issue is the hood and filters are lets just say special.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I couldn't deal with the Summitar 'barndoor' hood and weird filter thread so I grabbed an adapter and hood from Heavystar which works great and lets me use standard 39mm filters.
 
I realize you're specifically asking for 50mm lenses but you also stress versatility and speed. So maybe you should also consider the Nikkor-W 3.5cm/2.5. Tiny jewel of a lens and a full stop faster than the Elmar. See ebay no. 190577837971 for what that looks like on a IIIf. (You would probably want to add an external 35 VF.)

Yikes, asking prices for this one have gone up since I bought mine...
 
I've got all four of the Leica LTM models (Elmar 3.5, Summar, Summitar and Summarit). Each has its charms. The first three are very pocketable, the Summarit less so. The Summitar and Summar have the virtue of f 2.0. The Summitar is optically the better lens of the two. The Summar and Summitar are both pretty soft around the edges wide open, with the former softer than the latter. The Elmar is also good, but at the cost of almost a full f stop. It's pretty hit or miss to find either the Summitar or Summar in excellent condition, but not impossible. You may need to buy one, sell it and get another, but you can find them. The Summarit is generally more expensive, is not great wide open and is nowhere near as compact as the first three.

If I had to pick one, I'd go with a good Summitar for the speed, small size, good bokeh wide open and sharpness stopped down to f5.6 or so. If you want to do portraits with that 30s look, the Summar has an edge there.
 
I vote for the Elmar 50/3.5. It is very sharp at all apertures, and has a wonderful 1930s style rendition. It is also very small and compact. I like to shoot the Elmar with Pan F 50 in strong light. Bring a Jupiter 3 and ISO400 film for low light if you want, but these days I would rather just take one lens.
 
Last edited:
I've also been considering a new 50 for my II (originally a I from 1931). I have the Summitar and like it. It is a bit soft but I haven't so far had much problems with flare.

I've considered the Elmar 50 - is there anyplace a comparison of the 3.5 and 2.8 versions? And are there not also differences between the f3.5 models depending on when they were made? I seem to remember something about "red scale" models but forget what it was.

cheers
philip
 
definitely the best elmars are the red scales. i've once done a comparison of a lot of my leica 50s and the red scale was better than the older elmars and summars and even summitar.
 
I have both the 3.5, 2.8 Elmars and 2 Summicron. The 2.8 & 2 are too big. If you want a fast, small lens I'd go for the Nikon 50/2. I got one of those also and it gets used the most. very good lens.
 
Ok, so I couldn't decide, so I just ended up picking up a Summitar, early uncoated Elmar, and Elmar 2.8. I'm going to have to play around with them all now and figure out what I like the most, but I do have to second philipus' question about the 3.5 vs 2.8 versions of the Elmar. I had a 2.8 (in M-mount) a while back, but that was early in my Leica days, so I don't remember much about it. I've read it's not terribly good wide open-does it stand to reason that a half stop down it's at least as good as the 3.5 is wide open? At least compared to the uncoated version? In any case I expect I'll only keep one or two of these lenses, so keep an eye out for the others here in the coming months...
 
Hi,

Be careful, "not terribly good wide open" is not what most of us would say. Better to say that there are better ones at a price...

BTW, going back to the original question; Elmar for size, performance and price but they are uncoated sometimes; Summar and a flea market hood but get a good one; Summitar for OTT performance but go for a coated one and a flea market hood. And the later f/2.8 Elmar is a very nice lens.

Trouble is, all of them can be bettered by later Leica lenses but most of them perform well by today's standards. Don't forget that the bar is set high when discussing Leica lenses.

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom