New Lens

[loon]

I am in the works of receiving my first Leica 😀 , an M4-p (from a fellow RFF Member) and i am now looking for a decent non leica 50mm lens, that will last me till i get the 35mm F/2. what is a good model that is fast, yet not too spendy.

Any and all info is greatly appreciated.

Matt

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[sleepyhead]

Jupiter-8, collapsible summicron...

 

[rxmd]

It really depends how much "spendy" is for you. If you're on a budget, nothing beats Russian lenses.

The Industar-61 is in the $10 range. Good lens, and impossible to beat on a price/performance ratio (no Leica lens for 40 times the price delivers 40 times the quality), but a bit slow at f2.8.
The Jupiter-8 is in the $25 to $60 range and a very good f2 lens.
The Jupiter-3 is in the $60 to $120 range and a fast lens at f1.5, but not all of them are good.
Other manufacturers' lenses mostly start beyond the $250 barrier.

Philipp

 

[Pherdinand]

Actually, I never could imagine what "40 times quality" would mean.
How can you define the multiplication of quality? E.g. how many times is the "Summicron Asph 50/2" better than that Industar? Three times? Eight? Thirteen and a half?

 

[rxmd]

Actually, I never could imagine what "40 times quality" would mean.

Nor could I. Which is why "You get what you pay for" doesn't make much sense to me, because it implies comparability in terms of numbers, and which is also why I am a happy user of Russian lenses.

How can you define the multiplication of quality?

An economist would answer that you can try to quantify what the objects in question are worth to you (including subjective estimates of quality, emotional value, fuzzy feelings, bragging value and all that :angel🙂. That gives you numbers which you can then compare. Most economists would probably also say that's what you do when you choose the $800 50/f2 lens over the $50 50/f2 lens. If it wasn't worth the sixteenfold increase in price, we wouldn't buy it. 😉

Philipp

 

[Pherdinand]

But that last reasoning of yours DOES mean that the sixteenfold price indicates a sixteen times increased quality! whatever that quality means. Or 40 times, in the other case.

 

[Bill58]

Get a Canon 35/ 2 and 50/ 1.4 (both RF/ LTM) for a total of about $600-700.

 

[Justin Low]

Jupiter-8 is unbeatable at that price if you get a good specimen. I've not tried the Canon 50/1.8, but they are said to perform reasonably well too. I have a 50/2 Nikkor in LTM if you decide to get one.

I prefer the Nikkor to the Collapsible Summicron. Better sharpness and contrast. That said, my favorite 50mm is still the current version Elmar-M.

 

[roundg]

I recommend a black Summicrion-C or M-Rokkor 40/2, perfect match to M4P. I would like to link one RFFer's post

From Suntiger

 

[x-ray]

Certainly the Planar is superb but the cost will run between $500 and $600 US. Take a look at the Cosina Voightlander Nokton if you want a fast lens, high performance, great build and a price of around $350 new. It's all brass with excellent construction, fast at f1.5 and a very modern design with modern coatings.
I just purchased a used one fron one of the RFF members and also have a new 50 asph summilux. The summilux sets a new standard but the Nokton 50 is very close even at 1.5. I personally don't think there's enough difference in performance and quality to justify any major difference in price much less $2,500.
You can purchase the 50 Nokton with a LTM adapter for about $400 new and have a lens that will deliver top quality and never need to replace it. I found my Nokton with a CV adapter in near new condition for $250.

Cosina makes some superb glass and so does Zeiss. I now use a mix of CV, Zeiss and Leitz. I feel I have the right mix for the work I do and have the quality that I want. I have no experience with Konica but suspect form reports and previous glass they've made it too would be excellent. Just because the price is lower than leica does not mean the quality is less.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Absent any info on how much you want to spend, I'd echo the C/V Nockton recommendation. It is a great lens and the price is hard to beat on a new lens of this quality. I'd also look for a clean example of that lens used and save a few bucks. If that is out of your price range altogether, take a chance on some Russian/Ukranian glass. You haven't said what kind of photography you like to do. If you are going to be using this lens at the limits of the RF's tolerance for accurate focus (that is, wide open, close up) I'd be careful though. Unless you have a good example and one that is properly adjusted for your camera (shimmed etc.) you may be frustrated by build tolerances of your new-to-you Russian lens. I know there are lots of folks here who have good examples and who use them successfully . . . ask around RFF for a good source of these lenses from sellers who will take them back if they don't do what you need them to.

Good luck!

Ben Marks

 

[FrankS]

Maybe a group rate! 🙂

 

[peter_n]

There is also the excellent Hexanon-M 50/2 from Konica. Around $300-350 used. A superb optic with tremendous build quality.

 

[LazyHammock]

The J-8 may be a good starting place. I had an Industar I-61L/D which was pretty cheap and gave good sharp, contrasty images.
Nick

 

[loon]

Thanks for your replys.

I would want to spend between $250-500. As for the type of shooting, i would mainly use it for street work and maybe some portraits. Also, I would rather have a smaller lens than a bigger one.

 

[peter_n]

You can get a used current Elmar-M for about $450. This lens is slowly gaining the recognition it deserves, but if you can deal with f2.8 I highly recommend it. If you absolutely don't need the DOF effect at f2, just buy faster film and get this lens - you will not regret it. I think there is one for sale in the classifieds here.

 

[rxmd]

But that last reasoning of yours DOES mean that the sixteenfold price indicates a sixteen times increased quality! whatever that quality means. Or 40 times, in the other case.

No, it just means that some people attribute something to lens X which makes it worth, in their eyes, 16 times more than lens Y and 40 times more than lens Z. This is obviously true, else Leica would be out of business and we'd all be using Jupiters and Industars.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. A Summicron ASPH is obviously better than a Jupiter 8. Since we've got prices for both products, we've got a perfectly fine metric to see just how much better some people consider it to be. If you get stuck on the terms "better" or "quality", I guess you could substitute it for "[providing greater] utility".

Philipp