Fadedsun
Established
These are wonderful responses! Thank you! I'll do some searching around based on all the lenses that have been recommended, but the Jupiter 8 and Color Skopar are looking pretty nice to me, right now. I also want to look into the Nokton LTM and Canon LTM options more.
Graybeard
Longtime IIIf User
I've used most of the lenses that have been mentioned here and I suggest that the 50/1.8 Canon (aka Serenar) is the best choice on the basis of build quality and optical performance.
If you search the web for reviews of the Color Skopar you will find more than one user who was disappointed with its performance at the larger apertures; a surprising thing, IMHO, for a not particularly fast modern optic.
The Canon and the Nikkor 50mm LTM's have been favorably compared to 1950's Summicrons (I agree completely with this, owning and using all three). The Canon is equivalent in performance to the Nikkor and goes for half the price. When shopping for a Canon/Serenar, go for one with a silver barrel; these don't seem to exhibit fogging problems - I have an embarrassing number of these (silver) and none exhibits fog.
The Jupiter-8's can be good performers but seem rather flimsy to me with their aluminum barrels. These were an interesting choice when one could buy them, attached to a camera, for $30, but with their asking price now approaching that of a Canon 50/1.8, and the possibility of focus problems (though I never had a problem with a J-8), why bother?
Huss
Veteran
Eh? Maybe their focus was off?
If you can see the capillaries of an eyeball in poor indoor incandescent light at high ISO I think the performance is fine..
100% at ISO 3200 f 2.5 Leica M240:
analoged
Well-known
Price is no problem, VC Nokton 50/1.5. Price is a problem, Canon 50/1.8 chrome.
My two cents...
My two cents...
Graybeard
Longtime IIIf User
Eh? Maybe their focus was off?
If you can see the capillaries of an eyeball in poor indoor incandescent light at high ISO I think the performance is fine..
100% at ISO 3200 f 2.5 Leica M240:
This suggests quality control problems at Cosina.
Huss
Veteran
I think it more suggests user error. People posting out of focus images claiming the lens isn't sharp..
FYI the pic I posted was focussed using the rangefinder, not using Live View/EVF. So chances are it is sharper than that.
ferider
Veteran
No. Just different use. My 50/2.5 is very sharp at medium to close focus and for portraits, similar to Huss' copy. But it's noticeably softer at infinity (compared with, say Elmar-M or Summicron) for landscapes, for instance, even when closed down to f5.6 and beyond.
Roland.
Graybeard
Longtime IIIf User
Something is wrong here.
The lens should be sharp at f5.6 at all distances, especially infinity.
Your comments suggest a focus calibration problem.
ferider
Veteran
Nope.
What do you mean by "sharp" ? 30 lpp/mm, 50, 80, > 100 ?
I didn't say it's not "sharp" (absolute), I said it's "softer" than other lenses (relative). Some lenses are better in the center than others, also closed down. On a 240 with pixel peeping easy to notice, and focus calibration is easy to verify as well. Doesn't make a lens useless ....
Graybeard
Longtime IIIf User
Might be an appropriate time for others to comment here.
ferider
Veteran
To clarify: I like my 50/2.5, it's a keeper, but when I need a 50 for landscapes (larger prints), I use my Elmar-M.
Here are two 50/2.5 examples, to make it quantitative and clarify (my admittedly high) expectations:
---------
Similar to Huss (hand-held):
Crop
^^^Doesn't get much better than this.
------
Infinity (tripod, obviously):
Crop:
^^^Not bad but could be better.
Roland.
Here are two 50/2.5 examples, to make it quantitative and clarify (my admittedly high) expectations:
---------
Similar to Huss (hand-held):
Crop
^^^Doesn't get much better than this.
------
Infinity (tripod, obviously):
Crop:
^^^Not bad but could be better.
Roland.
madNbad
Well-known
Threads like this are great! The OP ask about a 50mm LTM and as the post keep rolling in. It makes you realize how many choices there are. The bargain Jupiters, Canon lenses in a variety of maximum apertures, Nikkors, Super-Rokkors, Elmars, Summitars, Summicrons not to mention a handfull of Voigtlanders all with both fans and detractors. Keep dragging them out and posting images because we all know, there is one more we would like to try.
Huss
Veteran
Crop
^^^Doesn't get much better than this.
Roland.
No kidding, great pic by the way.
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
I'd vote for the chrome Canon 1.8 as well. Be careful about non-removable fog though; although it doesn't happen as often as in the black lens, it can still be a problem.
Small size is important. The VF window is very close to the lens, and blockage gets to be a big problem.
Cheers
Dez
Small size is important. The VF window is very close to the lens, and blockage gets to be a big problem.
Cheers
Dez
css9450
Veteran
Well I popped for a Canon chrome f1.8. Looks great in the pics! But it was a great price so if it has any issues I'm sure I can flip it...
jcb4718
Well-known
Does the Canon f1.8 block the Leica IIIc viewfinder?
Huss
Veteran
Infinity (tripod, obviously):
Crop:
^^^Not bad but could be better.
Roland.
That actually looks like the 'near' houses are out of focus . what did u focus on, the man crouching?
giganova
Well-known
What's the point of having a Leica if you don't want to use Leica lenses? Aren't the lenses the main point of getting a Leica in the first place? 
giganova
Well-known
ferider
Veteran
I've heard that Canon made some great LTM lenses.
Any suggestions would be great!
Indeed. Have a look at the thread I just posted, comparing 50/1.4 and 50/1.2: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=155193
Also, you might be interested in my 50mm film projects, 2 years ago: https://ferider.smugmug.com/Portfolio/One-Year-with-50mm-Lenses-on-F. Several LTM lenses were used that you might be interested in (Elmar 50/2.8, Nikkors, etc), and the Nokton and Summicron also exist as LTM variants.
Roland.