Leica LTM Most characterful LTM lens of any make

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Koolzakukumba said:
So does the Nikon 35mm f1.8 but if there were only 1500 made what would be my chances of finding one? Also, that would need a separate finder which I'm not so keen on. Would the Nikon couple to the rangefinder?
Click to expand...

The 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM is rare, but with patience and luck one can be had. Be aware that the close focus is limited to 3 1/2 feet, and the distance scale is marked in feet only. The Nikon does couple with LTM and M-bodies with the adapter.

Not sure you are aware that many guys who use 50's even use an external VF'er rather than frame through the peep-hole.

For me the external VF'er, especially the very bright low distortion Zeiss finder, gives me that all at once look of a wide. If you are considering the 35/1.8 know that at F8.0 with the focus set at 6 feet the zone of focus is 4 1/2 feet to just over 9 feet. This is when an external VFer for quick framing is wonderful.

Also for bodies: I have a weakness for brassed in black paint Leica III (model F), and black paint Leica II's (model D). THe more brassed in the better.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
The 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM is rare, but with patience and luck one can be had. Be aware that the close focus is limited to 3 1/2 feet, and the distance scale is marked in feet only. The Nikon does couple with LTM and M-bodies with the adapter.

Not sure you are aware that many guys who use 50's even use an external VF'er rather than frame through the peep-hole.

For me the external VF'er, especially the very bright low distortion Zeiss finder, gives me that all at once look of a wide. If you are considering the 35/1.8 know that at F8.0 with the focus set at 6 feet the zone of focus is 4 1/2 feet to just over 9 feet. This is when an external VFer for quick framing is wonderful.

Also for bodies: I have a weakness for brassed in black paint Leica III (model F), and black paint Leica II's (model D). THe more brassed in the better.

Cal
Click to expand...

That was something I meant to ask about but forgot, Cal. Just how squinty is the viewfinder of, say, a IIIc? Is there anything more modern you can compare it to - maybe an Olympus XA or Stylus Epic/Mju?
 
Can't really help much on the original question as it's been way too long since I used any of the older LTM lenses. The modern CV Color Skopar 28mm f/3.5 and Nokton 50mm f/1.5*ASPH are super high quality and have lots of character too. I did shoot with a friend's 1934 Elmar 5.0cm f/3.5 last year and it produced the expected beautifully charactered image. And my M-mount Hektor 135mm f/4.5 from 1960 also produces that classic look as well.

Koolzakukumba said:
That was something I meant to ask about but forgot, Cal. Just how squinty is the viewfinder of, say, a IIIc? Is there anything more modern you can compare it to - maybe an Olympus XA or Stylus Epic/Mju?
Click to expand...

The IIIc, IIIf, IIc, and IIf that I once owned all had the same little peephole finder, far more squinty than anything made in the '70s or '80s. The XA has a brightline finder, the Stylus too perhaps.

I used external finders on all of the Barnaks in lieu of the built in finder, most of the time.
 
I have two uncoated Elmar 50mm f3.5 and with Ektar they make lovely images altho you do need to be cautious about flare.

If the OP is serious about one of these cameras, perhaps a cheap way to start would be a Zorki 1 with collapsable I 22 or I 50 from a known source like Fedka or Oleg. It's not just the lens, it's a very different way of working and not for everyone. Joe
 
Koolzakukumba said:
Roger, given your opinion on the subject of this thread, which is obviously your right to hold, can I politely invite you to withdraw so that the rest of us can have a bit of fun discussing what, after all, is just a camera lens.
Click to expand...

Hold on. That's what I'm saying. It's just a camera lens. Unless you can define 'character', all you're going to get is a lot of people saying "I've got this and like it... I've got this and like it... I've got this and like it."

You may, I fear, have misinterpreted my opinion of this thread. I find it very interesting. My original comment was light-hearted: one person's 'character' is, in the vast majority of cases, another person's 'defect', though there are also lenses where (as matt_mcg2 points out) the 'character' doesn't seem attributable to defects. He gives the example of Planars: among others, I'd add the 38/4.5 Biogon and the 150/6.3 Tessar, though faster Tessars don't have the same 'magic' for me.

I can't quite see why you were so bent out of shape when I pointed out that actually, sharpness is only one of the qualities that give a lens 'character'. Much as I appreciate the politeness with which you made the request, I will equally politely decline to quit the thread, as I am quite intrigued to see where it goes.

For me, the Canon 50/1.2 has the most character of any lens I've used extensively, but I don't regard it all as 'good' character. That's why I gave it to my chum who really, really loved it. The C-Sonnar has lots of character too, and I'm more than happy to put up with the focus shift and (modest) vignetting. The cracked, scratched Summitar is amazingly good with the big 'rat-trap' lens hood, but VERY low-contrast (unusably so unless my back is to the sun) without it. I quite like good 50/2 Jupiters, but I've only ever tried two 50/1.5 FSU lenses, and I didn't like either. The f/2 TTH Anastigmat on the Reid was (in my view) a nicer lens than the contemporary Summicron. And so forth.

But where is this leading you? After all the advice so far, what lens(es) are you thinking of buying? With the further rider, already noted by several, that with very old lenses, sample variation after decades of neglect, bumps, knocks and 'repairs', may be considerable?

I'd add the warning that the Canon 50/1.2 obscures quite a significant portion of the viewfinder on screw-mount Leicas, making an auxiliary finder all but essential. And to answer another of your questions, there really isn't much with which you can compare the finder of pre-IIIg screw-mount Leicas, except other miserably squinty uncoated finders of the 1950s and before. They're usable, but if you're at all accustomed to anything better, they're something you put up with in return for the other sterling qualities of screw-mount Leicas (or Retinas, for that matter), rather than a reason to buy the camera.

In fact, have you considered a Retina IIa? If you want to stick only with 50mm, that may be a better choice than a Leica in some ways: even more compact, gorgeous f/2 Heligon or Xenon, combined range/view finder. And cheaper, though arguably slightly less reliable and slightly harder to repair.

Cheers,

R.
 
jarski said:
Nope :( only watching photos online.

Perhaps J9 with similar filter could be poor mans Thambar :)
Click to expand...

No. The Thambar is is WEIRD. I borrowed one (see http://www.shutterbug.com/content/leitz-thambar-90mm-f22brwhy-it-considered-legendary-portrait-lens ) and fell in love with it. I've since bought one (in fact, the one I reviewed) and taken rather better pics with it than the ones in that review. But with the spot, or even at full aperture without the spot, it is far too soft for my taste. You need to have a very good idea of what will happen at different apertures: I like f/3.2 to f/4.5 for portraits of women, and f/4.5 to f/9 for portraits of men and for landscapes.

Cheers,

R.
 
Here's two examples from the Canon 50/1.2 that Roger mentions above:

3897256350_f230ebc6cc_z.jpg


3897256572_bbc4b20153_z.jpg
 
Dear Antti,

Perhaps I should have said that although I too got some good pictures with the Canon, I had far too many 50mm lenses (f/1.2, 2x f/1.5, f/2, f/3.5 and f/1 on loan) at the time and I don't really like using too many lenses of any given focal length. I sometimes regret giving it away, but only sometimes, and then not very much. I'd certainly not want to live with it as my only 50mm, though I could live with just the C-Sonnar.

Cheers,

R.
 
Koolzakukumba said:
Roger, given your opinion on the subject of this thread, which is obviously your right to hold, can I politely invite you to withdraw so that the rest of us can have a bit of fun discussing what, after all, is just a camera lens.
Click to expand...

Passion about lenses is good. I don't think he is trying to break anyones' nose.

I got a Summitar specifically for the 'electric bokeh' that I saw in others' images. I agree fully that someone could easily call that 'bad bokeh', but I love the look.

Randy
 
My choice would be a pre-war uncoated Elmar 3.5/50mm.

There's a thread on uncoated pre-war lenses in the LTM forum that I started and I recommend you go there to take a look.

The lenses are sharp but the contrast is low. Lovely pastellish colors. For a good impression of the capabilities of those lenses in B&W, look for the Youtube video on James Ravelious.
 
Koolzakukumba said:
One of my photographic heroes is the pre-war (first) photojournalist J Allan Cash and he used a Leica II with a Summar. It's kind of tempting going down that road. What do you think?
Click to expand...

If you are looking at this combo, I would say a Leica III or IIIa would be worth considering, if only for the strap lugs which are, in my view, a plus. Also, the dioptre adjustment for the rangefinder window might help if, like me, you're a bit miopic.

A Summar can be plenty sharp in the middle and definitely possesses characterful bokeh at wider apertures. Lower contrast than a more modern lens and colours which are softer are also its characteristics.
Finding one in decent shape for a good price seems to be a bit of a challenge these days though so ?

I got a Summar as a body cap on a IIIa which was fairly marked up on the front element. It did give me an inkling of what a better one might be capable of though so I hunted around and found one that was mostly unmarked and then had the haze cleaned out.

I did pay £200 for the lens but I've had fun with it on the IIIa so it's all good ;)

P.S. re. the viewfinder on the Leica II and III's: I do find them squinty myself so I use a SBOOI brightline finder for 5cm lenses.
 
Joe AC said:
As far as most recognizable, (not sure that its a good or bad thing) I'd have to say the Canon 50mm 1.2

Joe
Click to expand...

be aware of viewfinder blockade for big ltm lens.
Canon 50mm f1.2 will block half to 2/3 VF of Leica IIIc/f
Canon 50mm f1.4 will block 1/3 area in the bottom of VF
Canon f1.8 lens looks like the best match.

Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 in amadeo ltm adapter is my best unique character & really match the classic look of IIIc/f. See my profile picture :)
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom