Looking for a new LTM lens for iiic

[Fadedsun]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Price is no problem, VC Nokton 50/1.5. Price is a problem, Canon 50/1.8 chrome.

My two cents...

 

[Graybeard]

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]

This suggests quality control problems at Cosina.

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]

This suggests quality control problems at Cosina.

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]

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.

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]

Something is wrong here.

The lens should be sharp at f5.6 at all distances, especially infinity.

Your comments suggest a focus calibration problem.

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]

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 ....

Might be an appropriate time for others to comment here.

 

[ferider]

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.

 

[madNbad]

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]

Crop

^^^Doesn't get much better than this.



Roland.

No kidding, great pic by the way.

 

[Dez]

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

 

[css9450]

I have visions of a LTM kit to parallel my Nikon RF system; my preference would be a Nikkor 50 but the right Canon would suffice also. I already have a Nikkor 28mm for it...

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]

Does the Canon f1.8 block the Leica IIIc viewfinder?

 

[Huss]

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]

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]

Ha -- same houses!

 

[ferider]

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.