texchappy
Well-known
As I start looking at getting some M lenses and eventually an M body, I'm wondering what are the image differences between the LTM's and later M lenses. Know that covers a lot of lenses and a lot of ground but wanting to know what modern M's bring versus what LTM's bring (presumably with old M's in between).
TIA,
Tony
TIA,
Tony
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
image differences? you can get very modern lenses in both ltm or m, and ... you can get very old lenses in both ltm and m - some are even convertible (for instance the summaron and summicron).
lcpr
Well-known
LTM lenses close focus to 0.9m, M lenses down to 0.7m.
dmc
Bessa Driver
Image? None, they are all excellent lenses. The difference is the mount. You can use LTM on M mount using an adaptor, and they say it makes no difference in image quality, but I don't buy it. I use M mount on M mount bodies and LTM on threaded mount. But I'm just a stubborn old cout.
colyn
ישו משיח
stillshunter
unlearning digital habits
I know you know...but just in case you fall in love with a Barnack down the track.
LTM- mount lenses can be used on both M- and LTM- mount bodies; the latter with adapter.
M- mount lenses can be used on M- bodies only.
....and so ends today's lesson in Sucking Eggs 101
LTM- mount lenses can be used on both M- and LTM- mount bodies; the latter with adapter.
M- mount lenses can be used on M- bodies only.
....and so ends today's lesson in Sucking Eggs 101
texchappy
Well-known
So let me reframe the question. How different are earlier Leica lenses than current ones?
redisburning
Well-known
the classic Leica look is sharp in the center with weak corners and moderate contrast. you will get excellent tonal separation for black and white work, and you will have some veiling flare.
the classic example of this is the DR / rigid summicron (aka version 2).
after that, lenses traded some of the center resolution for higher contrast and more even performance.
today, lenses have high contrast and high resolution over almost the entire frame and coatings have reduced flare a good bit. they also handle color differently (i.e. more accurately). Leica especially does a good job with colors, IMO.
the truth is that the rangefinder spot is in the middle of the frame. I would suggest corner sharpness on an RF is somewhat less important than overall rendering.
the classic example of this is the DR / rigid summicron (aka version 2).
after that, lenses traded some of the center resolution for higher contrast and more even performance.
today, lenses have high contrast and high resolution over almost the entire frame and coatings have reduced flare a good bit. they also handle color differently (i.e. more accurately). Leica especially does a good job with colors, IMO.
the truth is that the rangefinder spot is in the middle of the frame. I would suggest corner sharpness on an RF is somewhat less important than overall rendering.
stillshunter
unlearning digital habits
...do you want a modern or classic rendering from your lens?
I know a few new lenses that can do the latter but not many oldies that can do the former....and that's a good thing.
Again it will depend on the look you want. Once we know I'm sure there's at least three lenses to suit your needs...unless you start with crazy talk about the exercise only costing you a couple of hundred.
texchappy
Well-known
I'm just learning what I want out of them. As a first blush answer to you question about which rendering I would like, it seems that I'd lean towards the latter but be open over time to getting lenses to do a certain thing. For the present I'm gathering information to see what I want as I save up.
BTW, the f2,8, Summaron has been suggested to me elsewhere on a specific question I asked.
BTW, the f2,8, Summaron has been suggested to me elsewhere on a specific question I asked.
bugmenot
Well-known
There are generally faster M lenses than LTM lenses. That was my first take when I was buying several Leica glass years ago. Most M lenses also have a better coating. Again, this might not be true for all such lenses, but that was my first impression buying into the M mount lenses.
loquax ludens
Well-known
....and so ends today's lesson in Sucking Eggs 101
O.T., but I'm still burned about Canon designing their EF mount so you couldn't use any of your old FD lenses. That's somewhere in the Sucking Eggs series too.
texchappy
Well-known
Even though Nikon F mount hasn't changed, Nikon isn't much better. It gets really confusing figuring out what my pre-ai lenses can and can't mount to.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
ME TOO!!!
That's why I swapped out all my work gear for Nikon. Did keep an F-1 and a couple of beautiful FD lenses (i.e. 85 1.2L). But that still pisses me off after all these years.
Best,
-Tim
PS: To the OP, with the older LTM glass, some of the coatings and front elements were REALLY soft so alot of the image quality will come down to the particular sample of the older LTM you are able to acquire.
Toccata
Member
Red nailed this one.
I suggest you look through the iiif group on flickr, or check the most interesting shots from flickriver. Check the details on photos that catch your eye and see if the results show you're partial to a certain lens.
I recommend the iiif group rather than the ltm group simply because you can be sure the photo was made with a barnack, rather than an adapted mirriorless.
The seperate vf/rf and their "peephole" like size, knob advance, rewind and slow film loading are bigger stumbling locks than the lenses, imho. All that said, excellent cameras and built to a standard even higher than the m series, imho.
I suggest you look through the iiif group on flickr, or check the most interesting shots from flickriver. Check the details on photos that catch your eye and see if the results show you're partial to a certain lens.
I recommend the iiif group rather than the ltm group simply because you can be sure the photo was made with a barnack, rather than an adapted mirriorless.
The seperate vf/rf and their "peephole" like size, knob advance, rewind and slow film loading are bigger stumbling locks than the lenses, imho. All that said, excellent cameras and built to a standard even higher than the m series, imho.
texchappy
Well-known
Been spending some time on that flicker group. The 9cm Elmar and the 35 Summaron have been the standouts so far.
Now ya got me thinking of a Barnack. Actually had ordered one but changed my mind and went with a Zorki instead.
Now ya got me thinking of a Barnack. Actually had ordered one but changed my mind and went with a Zorki instead.
ferider
Veteran
Before you pick camera and lens, have a look at the flickr M-mount forum (see my signature).
By now we have a library of over 70,000 pictures, taken by more than 2700 users with various M/LTM mount lenses, all tagged so you can look for example pictures taken with a specific lens.
We currently have
- 29 Leica LTM lenses
- 86 nonLeica LTM lenses
- 74 Leica M lenses
- 56 nonLeica M lenses
It's impossible to make a general statement about M vs. LTM lenses. Note that among the most modern Leica and non Leica lenses there are many LTM copies (e.g, Cosina Voigtlander, Hexanon, latest 50 Summicron, etc).
If you are more specific of what you are looking for (focal length, speed, budget), it will be easier to recommend something or point out differences.
Roland.
By now we have a library of over 70,000 pictures, taken by more than 2700 users with various M/LTM mount lenses, all tagged so you can look for example pictures taken with a specific lens.
We currently have
- 29 Leica LTM lenses
- 86 nonLeica LTM lenses
- 74 Leica M lenses
- 56 nonLeica M lenses
It's impossible to make a general statement about M vs. LTM lenses. Note that among the most modern Leica and non Leica lenses there are many LTM copies (e.g, Cosina Voigtlander, Hexanon, latest 50 Summicron, etc).
If you are more specific of what you are looking for (focal length, speed, budget), it will be easier to recommend something or point out differences.
Roland.
ajramirez
Established
But the end result was that they got it right with the EF mount the first time around, and have not had to change it in 25 years. Other than the EF-S crop lenses, every EF lens fits every EOS body, film or digital, with full functionality. I´m sure it hurt back then, but in retrospect, it was the best thing to do.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
As you've not got a body or lens, dare I ask what you want the things for?
For general photography, meaning holiday, family and friends, you can't go far wrong with any lens from the mid 1920's if it is in good condition. That assumes you're not planing on lecture tours and slides shown 8 feet by 12 feet... Assuming 5" x 7" then all are OK.
This is not a popular opinion, some will even suggest only this year's lenses work! (OK, perhaps I exaggerated a little.) FWIW, I use a 1926 Leica from time to time and other made only a couple of years ago; in both cases with contemporary lenses.
Regards, David
PS I don't recommend the APS C11, though...
As you've not got a body or lens, dare I ask what you want the things for?
For general photography, meaning holiday, family and friends, you can't go far wrong with any lens from the mid 1920's if it is in good condition. That assumes you're not planing on lecture tours and slides shown 8 feet by 12 feet... Assuming 5" x 7" then all are OK.
This is not a popular opinion, some will even suggest only this year's lenses work! (OK, perhaps I exaggerated a little.) FWIW, I use a 1926 Leica from time to time and other made only a couple of years ago; in both cases with contemporary lenses.
Regards, David
PS I don't recommend the APS C11, though...
texchappy
Well-known
As I mentioned, mostly learning. But I will narrow down to the first thing I'm looking for. I'd like a vintage lens to mount to my E-M5 for portraits.