Most handsome M lens

The summarex 85mm f1.5

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...ources/RF-Nikkor/Leica_RF/LeicaLSM85cmf15.htm

Closely followed by the similar lens by Canon in LTM

EDIT: Just re read the title - "Most handsome M lens" In that event add to each fo the above "With M mount adapter" :^)

Seriously I would also add to this list the chrome 90mm f2 Summicron and the 50mm f2 DR Summicron. I haev the latter but not the former. Both are beautiful
 
Last edited:
Hilarious thread, but, seriously, I agree with Bob about the preasph lux 35 [though, with a newer 12526 rectangular hood] and the manly, practical looking lux 50 asph. I will also put in a word for the extendible Elmar-M 50 --- very sexy glass indeed 😉
 
Many women I know would say that it is this lens:

carygrantlens.jpg


Being as I also have Nikon cameras (F-mount) I would be interested in the "Most beautiful F lens" as well.
 
Chris101 said:
Many women I know would say that it is this lens:

carygrantlens.jpg


Being as I also have Nikon cameras (F-mount) I would be interested in the "Most beautiful F lens" as well.
Click to expand...

Chris this was definitely a good looking lens in its day but i'm going to go with the current optical formula 80's Sellecron 😀

3703219023_df7c791da6_o.jpg
 
For most handsome, I nominate a late version of the classic Elmar 50/2.8: chrome (of course), collapsible, dual distance scales, clean DOF scale, 15-blade diaphragm, and a chrome bezel. I have the spiffy ITOOY shade, too. 🙂

elmar50.jpg

​
 
Rico said:
For most handsome, I nominate a late version of the classic Elmar 50/2.8: chrome (of course), collapsible, dual distance scales, clean DOF scale, 15-blade diaphragm, and a chrome bezel. I have the spiffy ITOOY shade, too. 🙂
Click to expand...


I absolutely agree, both with the thread being ridiculous and the Elmar being the best looking lens around.

martin
 
Rico, I have this lens myself, but not the shade. I've been trying to figure out how the shade actually works with the lens, as it seems it would interfere with the adjusting of the aperture. Also, when I searched on ebay for such a device, it seems that there are at least two styles of this hood. One with one set of clips that hold the shade on the lens, and the other with two sets.
Can you help me determine which I need and how practical these things are in actual use?

Thank you!
Rico said:
For most handsome, I nominate a late version of the classic Elmar 50/2.8: chrome (of course), collapsible, dual distance scales, clean DOF scale, 15-blade diaphragm, and a chrome bezel. I have the spiffy ITOOY shade, too. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
marke said:
... I've been trying to figure out how the shade actually works with the lens, as it seems it would interfere with the adjusting of the aperture. Also, when I searched on ebay for such a device, it seems that there are at least two styles of this hood. One with one set of clips that hold the shade on the lens, and the other with two sets.
Can you help me determine which I need and how practical these things are in actual use?
Click to expand...
Like other Leitz shades of that era, the double-clip design allows the shade to be reversed for stowage on the lens. The older, single-clip design is otherwise identical in use. I presume ITOOY blocks some out-of-frame light, but I like it as protection for my front element. Thanks to the modest size, VF obstruction is minimal. ITOOY interferes with aperture manipulation, but operating the classic Elmar is already a chore given the rotating aperture ring, irregular f-stop spacing, infinity lock, and collapsible feature. The handsome look comes with manly responsibilities!
 
Last edited:
A 35/2.8 Summaron in M mount is pretty sweet handling and looking, except for the ugly conical shade. It has the best focusing lock/tab. The old 35 Lux is nice looking although it is too small for my fat fingers and I think they tend to develop a wobble based on the one I owned. I like the newer wide f/2 lenses 24-28-35 with their rectangular shades too, in chrome.
 
A lousy performer, but good looking:

119214512_Duuez-M.jpg


A great performer, but Oh, so ugly:

92412844_MftLp-M.jpg


Like in real life 🙂

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Personally, I think it would be something involving a 135mm lens - with eyes - a Visoflex, a microscope (the larger the better) and some kind of surgical device with attached electronics that go "ping". [EDIT]All clad in leather from the skin of some lovely but highly endangered species.[/EDIT] Something so ugly that it comes back the other way as a thing of wonderment and beauty.

...Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom