Lens decisions...

[02Pilot]

Here's the situation in which I find myself: having settled on a Canon P as the basis for my primary 35mm system, I'm now working out my lens selection. Right now I have a Jupiter-12 35mm f/2.8, a Jupiter-8 50mm f/2.0, a Leitz Elmar 90mm f/4.0, and a Nikkor 135mm f/3.5. I am perfectly content with the latter two and see no reason to change or supplement them. In 35 and 50, however, I'm considering making some changes.

In 35mm, the Jupiter-12 is OK, but I'm not entirely happy with it. Rendering is OK, but the aperture adjustment is a pain, especially with filters, and I find it tends to flare more often than I would like. I'm considering replacing it with a Canon f/3.2 or f/2.8. I do not tend to use this focal length all that frequently, however, so this is of secondary importance right now.

It's in 50mm that I have the most uncertainty. I like the Jupiter-8 a lot, so it will remain part of the collection. I am thinking that I would like to have some other choices, as I find I am primarily a 50mm shooter and it would be nice to be able to fine tune the look of various types of subjects in my most commonly used focal length. The lenses I'm considering here are the Serenar f/1.9 collapsible, the Serenar f/1.8, and the later Canon f/1.4. I've seen images from all of them, so I have an idea of the differences in rendering. The problem is that I can't really afford all of them. So the question then becomes one of choice: do I simply buy the 1.4 and forget about the other two; buy the two Serenar lenses and forget about the 1.4; buy only the 1.9 or the 1.8 and forget the other two; or drop the whole idea and stick with the one lens I currently have and like?

Obviously everyone's priorities in these sorts of decisions are going to be different, but I'm interested in hearing opinions and rationales for your choices. Thanks.

 

[marek_]

Hi,

I've a couple Canon rangefinders - III and VL. And a few Canon lens to go with them. For what you're considering - 50mm and 35mm focal lengths, I've a 50mm/1.8 Canon version and a 50mm/1.5 Serenar Sonnar copy. I only got the 1.5 a couple weeks ago and still have to scan a few rolls I shot with it - some loose comparisons with the 1.8. I've had the 1.8 a while and I have no complains, an excellent lens. Well made and solid with nice large focus barrel. It has an infinity lock but that doesn't bother me as it can do with some. The images from it are excellent - I found myself mistakenly thinking I took the shots with my Zeiss 35mm 2.8 Biogon, it's that good. Sharp but still subtle in rendition. The 1.8 has the 40mm filter size - hard to find filters but you can get a 40-43mm step-up ring and go from there. You can pick this lens up cheaply and they're well worth having. I'm not sure how much better one could get.

I also have a Serenar 35mm/2.8. Got this with the 1.5 so still haven't seen the results. I was curious to see the rendition of this and the modern Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon. I'll let you know once I've done my scanning. The Serenar is a well built lens, and tiny so I'll be sticking it into my pocket and heading out with it and one of the 50s.

I can highly recommend the 50mm/1.8. And I'll let you now what comes out with the 35mm Serenar.

Mark

 

[furbs]

Check out the Nikon H·C 5cm f/2. It's a quite capable clone of the Zeiss Jena Sonnar f/2 from the 1930s. It would look great on your P. It also scale focuses down to 1.5 feet. Here's a thread on it:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90034

 

[NeeZee]

I personally don't find the older (40s-50s) 50mm lenses too different in the way they draw. (I know others will disagree). Most of them are sharp enough but lower contrast. If you really want something different, the modern CV 50/2.5 might be a good choice. It's also the most compact 50mm ltm lens (the collapsibles, too, are all longer in extended state).

 

[02Pilot]

I don't doubt the Nikkor H.C. 5cm f/2 is a great lens, though I do wonder a bit about the similarity it might have to the Jupiter-8, also a Sonnar copy if I understand correctly. While I'm sure the quality of the build and finish on the Nikkor will be considerably higher than the Soviet lens, I have to wonder how different the images would be.

The same question holds for the Serenar f/1.5. As another Sonnar copy (albeit a somewhat faster one), how much difference would I see against the J-8?

I hadn't really considered the truly modern options like CV. How different are they to the later Canon lenses, which by most accounts seem to have quite modern rendering?

marek, please keep me posted on your results. And please keep those insights coming, everyone. Thanks.

 

[raid]

If you will keep the excellent J-8, you may want to add something totally different.
Try a Canon 50/1.8 (cheap and excellent, not a Sonnar) or 50/1.4 (superb, some don't like its bokeh) or a Heliar 50/3.5 ltm (highest resolution) or a CV 50/2.5 ... etc. There are so many options.

For a 35mm lens, try the Canon 35/2.8 (sharp and small) or be challenged by the Canon 35/1.8 (can flare up) or Canon 35/2 (sharp and small and superb) or face a Canon 35/1.5 for challenges (vintage and it can flare) ... etc.

 

[furbs]

Well if you want something very different, the CV 50/1.5 Nokton is halfway decent. Though I wonder what exactly troubles you with the J-8, apart from its build.

 

[mdarnton]

I notice that everything you have is quite small and light weight, and you seem intent of keeping things that way. I have the Serenar 1.8, and basically it's a brick; all brass and glass, and very heavy. Consequently, it's almost never on my IIIa and I hardly get any use out of it. If I were in your situation, I'd buy the newer and lighter aluminum/black 50/1.4, and don't look back.

 

[peterm1]

Personally I would go with the Capn 50mm f1.4 and forget the others. Alternatively if money is an object, as Raid suggests a Canon 50mm f1.8 is a superb lens and somewhat cheaper than the f1.4. The old rule that you should buy the best you can afford applies here. Otherwise the chances are you will end up dissatisfied and wanting to change lenses later.

 

[02Pilot]

Thanks for all the feedback. I know there are a lot of choices, and that everyone's preferences will be different; I'm hoping to benefit from your collective experience and understand why and how your preferences have evolved as a result.

To clarify my own preferences a bit based on points that have been raised, I am not particularly concerned with weight. The Nikkor 135 I have is a monster, but while I don't necessarily enjoy lugging it around for long stretches, it's not a big issue. I tend to prefer the aesthetics of the older lenses as well, but it's secondary to how the lens performs.

I have no problems with my J-8. It's a fine example (from Fedka) that works perfectly well. I'm simply trying to expand my options. I like the idea of being able to produce images with distinctly different looks using the same body and focal length.

Thanks for your thoughts - please keep them coming.

 

[furbs]

I personally don't find the older (40s-50s) 50mm lenses too different in the way they draw. (I know others will disagree). Most of them are sharp enough but lower contrast. If you really want something different, the modern CV 50/2.5 might be a good choice. It's also the most compact 50mm ltm lens (the collapsibles, too, are all longer in extended state).

I tend to agree with you here. Significant differences in "look" will come with significantly different lens designs, which will mostly be modern and more expensive. I think that the OP might get a more distinctively different look to his photos if he tries different film/developer combinations rather than lenses from the same era.

 

[Mackinaw]

Personally I would go with the Capn 50mm f1.4 and forget the others........

Yep, I played around with all sort of fast 50's (50mm Summicron, Canon 50/1.5, Nikkor 50/2.0) and the lens I use the most on my rangefinders is the Canon 50/1.4. A nice combination of superb image quality and relatively small size. Affordable too.

Jim B.

 

[02Pilot]

I tend to agree with you here. Significant differences in "look" will come with significantly different lens designs, which will mostly be modern and more expensive. I think that the OP might get a more distinctively different look to his photos if he tries different film/developer combinations rather than lenses from the same era.

It's an interesting point, and one I've thought about (film emulsions moreso than developers, as I'm not doing my own at this point). I'm happy to experiment with different films, and I have to some degree, but there do seem to be some significant differences even among lenses from the same era (a period of maybe 25-30 years, wherein I would expect some development took place) and across different formulae.

 

[Frontman]

Well if you want something very different, the CV 50/1.5 Nokton is halfway decent. Though I wonder what exactly troubles you with the J-8, apart from its build.

I would second this recommendation, the 1.5 Nokton is one of the best 50's I have ever used, and I have tried most of them.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

My thoughts echo some previous recommends but with my reasons.

I have the 50mm f2.5 Color Skopar, as TomA told me to 🙄

Small, very, sharp, very, built in hood that blocks nothing, not too contrasty. Which brings me to the Voigt. 50 1.5 lots of fans I see. A great lens but for for me too contrasty in light that isn't that contrasty. You may want that look, it is the modern Asph. way. This is not contrast as in the Zeiss glass which I would define as micro contrast but overall, highlights blow out too easily, moderation in all things.

35mm: The Canon 35mm f2. What a great little, again, lens, as above for the 50mm Skopar, sharp, small not too contrasty. Deep recess means no lens hood needed and I am usually passionate about using one. 40mm filters are an issue but more available now as a Fuji digital something needs them, apparently.

I use both these on a IIIc/f very pocketable outfit. Lots of recent B/W on flickr, lenses tagged. In fact on a recent break I only took the 35mm glass (and an F2 Nikon).

I can't comment on a 28mm yet but I have a Canon f2.8 on the way, Winogrand liked it.

Why post here? I have a Canon itch now to match the glass to the camera, and how reasonable they look in cost, should stop me looking for an S3 😀, for a while.

 

[02Pilot]

Well, I've gone and asked for advice, read all of it (and thanks very much to those who offered their opinions), and promptly done something completely at odds with my original intent. Rather than getting a lens with a different formula, I ended up buying the 50 f/1.5 that came up in the classifieds here a few days ago. I know they're pretty uncommon and they have a good reputation, so I went for it. I figure if it really isn't much of an improvement over the J-8 I can always sell it and go back to my original plan.

 

[Bar8barian]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[02Pilot]

Thanks for those links. I'd come across them in my research (I tend to do a lot of reading on these things, probably too much if I'm honest), but it's always nice to have a bit of affirmation for a decision. I'm looking forward to seeing what the lens can do (or at least what I can do with it).

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Well, I've gone and asked for advice, read all of it (and thanks very much to those who offered their opinions), and promptly done something completely at odds with my original intent.

Very pleased to hear that 😀

 

[Scrambler]

O2Pilot, as you would have guessed from our comments in another thread, I agree entirely with your scattering of lenses. Like you I would like to branch into faster lenses, and a F1.5 Canon would be one lens I would be interested in (I really like the sonnar signature). That said, it's similar to the Jupiter in that respect, so I suspect you will find few reasons to take the Canon off and put the Jupiter on. An affordable alternative with different drawing characteristics would be to add a Tessar or Elmar derivative (I gather the only difference is the location of the aperture) such as the Soviet 50ish mm/ f2.8-3.5 lenses. And then there are the Planar derivatives like the Canon 1.4 for a less affordable but better corrected alternative.

For myself I decided to stump up some extra money and get a 40mm Rollei Sonnar in LTM. This is to "replace" my J-12. I like the Sonnar rendering, particularly the 3-D character and the color saturation. And I wanted something a bit wider than the J-8. And of course I still get to keep my J8 and J12.

I was fortunate to end up with a J12 that will focus to infinity on a Bessa R and my "new" Hexar RF will meter it as well (!). Perhaps if I'd realised Hexars could do that I might have got the body first and had second thoughts on the Rollei lens!

Time will tell whether I regret the (nearly) 2 stop advantage the Canon 1.5 would have.

Enjoy! and I'm interested to hear how the 1.5 compares in use to the J8.