New lens to replace my Elmar

[AlexBG]

My current lens set up is a Jupiter 8 which I used to love but now I'm losing love for it. A 35mm goggled Summaron which I love except the goggles and a 50mm Elmar 3.5 collapsible, I love the look of the Elmar (and the Summaron) but with it being collapsible and 3.5 I don't use it as much as I would like and tend to stick with the Jupiter 90% of the time.

A friend suggested the Canon 50mm 1.8 which looks great value and f1.8 is all I need.

Would like to keep the costs down, I shoot B+W and colour, mostly my kids playing outside, LTM is fine.

 

[x-ray]

Take a look at a Nikkor 5cm f2. It's a sonnar design, quite sharp even wide open, nce contrast and especially nice bokeh. Performance at wide apertures is better than the 1.4 version. They're constructed like a tank and quite small as well. I believe they are all brass and chrome. Prices are quite reasonable but look for one with clean glass and no fungus. I think many of them are in Japan and have had a hard life with bad glass.

I have one that I've been quite pleased with. I did a test with intense light sources in and on the edge of the frame and it handled it better than expected. I've not done a side by side comparison but it appears to have better controlled flare than my v2 rigid Summicron. Both have no haze or scratches to cause issues. Actually I have an open day today and I think I'll shoot then side by side. If I get a chance I'll report back.

 

[Ronald M]

Keeping costs down means incremental improvements every step along the way.

And money loss at each step. And you are never completely sure of what you are getting condition wise.

My favorite 50 is the 2.8 collapsible recently discontinued and I have them all. Elmar is a fine lens unless it it dirty inside. It needs to be a coated version.

 

[mfogiel]

I think that in terms of value for money you can get the Planar 50/2, which is 98% as good as Summicron ASPH at 1/10th of the price, if you want a modern f 2.0 lens. If you like something with a gentler signature, but also the advantages of modern coatings, as Ronald said, the 50/2.8 Elmar v2 is a great lens. The older lenses will have issues with flare and contrast at wider apertures.

 

[Jockos]

I think that in terms of value for money you can get the Planar 50/2, which is 98% as good as Summicron ASPH at 1/10th of the price, if you want a modern f 2.0 lens.

I have not used the Planar myself, but they now often sell used for $550, and from what I've seen, that's a lot of bang for the buck!

For even less money, you'll find the Nokton 50/1.5, look at some recently sold auctions:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw..._salic=1&_sop=12&_dmd=1&_ipg=50&LH_Complete=1

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm not sure if any old lens is good choice for color... I mean, they are good but seems to add something, while modern coatings are neutral.

For bw it is hard to find anything as good as J-8 and economical. Telling it from person who used almost all Leitz and FSU 50mm LTM lenses, plus Cron V1 and latest Elmar-m 50 2.8 in M-mount. I've also had white J-8 with collar and two black J-8.
After having all of these lenses I've settled with original J-3 which is still very economical RF lens for 1.5 speed and rendering is slightly different from J-8. It is not Zeiss sharp, but if aligned - no problems to print 8x10 from negatives taken at f1.5.

This is the scan of 8x10 print from negative taken with J-3 wide open:


and another one:

 

[Bingley]

The OP asked specifically about the Canon 50/1.8. That's a very good lens, a planar design, under appreciated and a superb value. I have a very clean one and it shoots color and bw equally well. There are reports that this lens can suffer from haze so be sure you get a clean one or at least have the option to return it if it's not in good shape. Look for the thread by ferider comparing the Canon 50/1.4 at different apertures, at the end he looked at the Canon 50/1.8 and it performed quite well.

That said, the other suggestions above are good, but will likely cost you more than the Canon 50/1.8.

 

[Brian Legge]

What specifically don't you like about thw Jupiter 8? That could inform suggestions.

 

[jsrockit]

The problem with these old lenses is never IQ related. They are all pretty good. However, where a lot of them suffer is ergonomics / haptics wise. Long focus throws, stiff focus mechanisms, heavier, infinity locks, clickless apertures, etc. If none that bothers you, then people have suggested some great lenses. For me, I'd try to go for at least a 50mm CV Nokton 1.5 LTM or the Planar... but that might not be a comfortable range for the OP. I do like the 50mm 1.4 Canon better than the 1.8 version... it just feels easier to use.

 

[farlymac]

The Canon 1.8/50 is a very nice lens.

Rock by P F McFarland, on Flickr

The 2.8/50 is no slouch either.

Carvin's Creek by P F McFarland, on Flickr

Not hard to do M mount with a good adapter.

PF

 

[newst]

The Canon 1.8 is an excellent lens. One caution is to be careful of internal haze, quite common with this lens and often difficult to remove. I have read in several sources, including this forum, that the early all chrome and Serenar versions are less likely to develop this haze. They are heavier than the later black versions but have the same optical design.

If your budget will stretch a little further I would recommend the Canon 1.4//50. I really like the 1.8 but I love the 1.4.

 

[AlexBG]

What specifically don't you like about thw Jupiter 8? That could inform suggestions.

I think that when compared to the summaron and elmar it just isn't anywhere near as sharp. When I've shot a roll and used the J-8 and another lens you can tell what shots are with what lens. The J-8 photos look like they have been taken with a £50 lens where as the Leica lenses look cleaner and crisper. I know this isn't what a J-8 is meant to do, it is soft and glows wide open but that isn't what I am after.

 

[AlexBG]

If your budget will stretch a little further I would recommend the Canon 1.4//50. I really like the 1.8 but I love the 1.4.

The 1.4 is a bit more than what I want to spend, if I was spending what a good one costs I would go a bit further and get the zeiss 50mm f2.

I've seen the canon 1.8 or serenars for around £150 for a good clean one.

x-ray I'll look into the nikkors a bit more.

 

[Rob-F]

My current lens set up is a Jupiter 8 which I used to love but now I'm losing love for it. A 35mm goggled Summaron which I love except the goggles and a 50mm Elmar 3.5 collapsible, I love the look of the Elmar (and the Summaron) but with it being collapsible and 3.5 I don't use it as much as I would like and tend to stick with the Jupiter 90% of the time.

For pictures of the kids playing outside in daylight, I should think f/3.5 adequate. You need some depth of field. I would think f/5.6 to f/11 or so most useful for that. What is off-putting about the Elmar being collapsible? I'm very fond of my collapsible Summicrons, and I like the Elmar as well. Collapsing it just makes it more compact, after all.

I understand the inconvenience of the extra weight & bulk of the goggles. But is it worth parting with a Summaron just for that? Is it a 2.8 or a 3.5? I have the 2.8 and will never part with it. Really, I wonder if you are not better off with what you have. Or maybe sell the 3.5 Elmar and get a 2.8 Elmar if you want something a little faster?

 

[Brian Legge]

So given a desire for higher more sharpness/contrast -

If you want something safe (ie no worries about condition) and can afford it, I'd seriously consider either the Zeiss Planar 50/2 or Voigtlander 50/1.5

They're both extremely sharp, modern and practically priced compared to semi-modern Leica glass. Focusing is also reasonably fast compared to many older lenses which helps with quick moving subjects. Within their price range, there isn't an obvious upgrade to tempt you.

 

[AlexBG]

For pictures of the kids playing outside in daylight, I should think f/3.5 adequate. You need some depth of field. I would think f/5.6 to f/11 or so most useful for that. What is off-putting about the Elmar being collapsible? I'm very fond of my collapsible Summicrons, and I like the Elmar as well. Collapsing it just makes it more compact, after all.

I understand the inconvenience of the extra weight & bulk of the goggles. But is it worth parting with a Summaron just for that? Is it a 2.8 or a 3.5? I have the 2.8 and will never part with it. Really, I wonder if you are not better off with what you have. Or maybe sell the 3.5 Elmar and get a 2.8 Elmar if you want something a little faster?

f3.5 is more than enough, it's the collapsable aspect that I don't like mainly due to the aperture ring. I like the jupiter because it is always ready to shoot, simple aperture ring and focusing. That's why I was looking at the canon f1.8. The summaron is a 2.8, I'm not really a 35mm focal length guy so rarely shoot with it. The lenses I inherited so would never sell.

The Voigtlander 50/1.5 would be an option but if I was spending that much I think I would go for the zeiss.