Non-coated (uncoated?) lens options?

[genotypewriter]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. Below 50 seems to get a bit difficult to decide on. New to the list is the 28 Hektor and I imagine it's better than the 35 Elmar? A bit hesitant because of the f/6.3 vs. the Elmar's f/3.5 but I'll keep it in mind.

Also came across some contrasty shots taken by the Elmar:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/tags/elmar

Also does this site have a forum just for lenses (vs. ones tied to cameras)? I ask this since some mentioned that other mounts might also have interesting options. And I assume this forum is intended Leica glass only?

 

[Steve M.]

The best uncoated lenses I have ever owned were a clean Summar (w/ a hood and a yellow filter) and any and every Voigtlander Heliar lens. I stupidly sold a Brillant w/ a 75mm Heliar on it, and that thing would eat a Hasselblad for lunch. Even my Rolleiflex Planar couldn't give the sort of clean imaging and 3-D look that the Heliar gave. Camera was a PITA to shoot, but every TLR is in my hands.

With 35mm, my usual daily shooter focal length is at least a 90, so I'm no help on the wides.

 

[Dralowid]

The 28 Hektor can be expensive. it is in collector teritory

 

[HuubL]

but it makes nice pictures! 🙂

 

[genotypewriter]

Thanks everyone. I ended up getting a CZJ 3.5cm f/2.8. It's quite an amazing lens. .. the CA is non-existent. On digital (I use it on an a7r), the corners are usable with stopping down a bit. While there are modern lenses optimised for digital, the lack of CA really makes this lens more pleasing to look at. YMMV. Didn't really notice any obtrusive vignetting either.

I've now posted a new thread on lenses between 60-100mm. Hope to get some advice there too.

Thanks!

 

[traveler_101]

Thanks everyone. I ended up getting a CZJ 3.5cm f/2.8. It's quite an amazing lens. .. the CA is non-existent. On digital (I use it on an a7r), the corners are usable with stopping down a bit. While there are modern lenses optimised for digital, the lack of CA really makes this lens more pleasing to look at. YMMV. Didn't really notice any obtrusive vignetting either.

I've now posted a new thread on lenses between 60-100mm. Hope to get some advice there too.

Thanks!

CZ? I had to look it up; you got a Zeiss lens, which appears to be one of the lens designs the Soviets "appropriated" after the war. It became the KMZ Jupiter 12. I thought of buying a Jupiter 12 for my IIIf; however, it has a huge rear element which means you must be cautious mounting it. Unlike the Zeiss version, the Jupiter 12 has the virtue of being relatively inexpensive whereas the Zeiss is "quite rare" according to one source. Doesn't seem worth it for a lens mounted on a digital camera.

 

[genotypewriter]

CZ? I had to look it up; you got a Zeiss lens, which appears to be one of the lens designs the Soviets "appropriated" after the war. It became the KMZ Jupiter 12. I thought of buying a Jupiter 12 for my IIIf; however, it has a huge rear element which means you must be cautious mounting it. Unlike the Zeiss version, the Jupiter 12 has the virtue of being relatively inexpensive whereas the Zeiss is "quite rare" according to one source. Doesn't seem worth it for a lens mounted on a digital camera.

Yes, I completely agree. A Jupiter 12 would have also been my choice over a more expensive CZJ but I don't think the Jupiter 12 comes without coatings. The lack of coating is essential for me because I use it for a "special application" with a modified digital camera that can see a wider window of wavelengths than what a regular digital camera can.

 

[traveler_101]

Yes, I completely agree. A Jupiter 12 would have also been my choice over a more expensive CZJ but I don't think the Jupiter 12 comes without coatings. The lack of coating is essential for me because I use it for a "special application" with a modified digital camera that can see a wider window of wavelengths than what a regular digital camera can.

Ok, I see. Do you have to have a wide angle? As far as I can tell my 1946 Elmar is uncoated and produces quite nice images, at least I think so. See here
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140298&page=3

 

[genotypewriter]

Ok, I see. Do you have to have a wide angle? As far as I can tell my 1946 Elmar is uncoated and produces quite nice images, at least I think so. See here
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140298&page=3

I was looking for a wide angle lens somewhere south of 40mm. So a 50 is out of the question. But thanks. The CZJ 35/2.8 does a pretty good job on digital. I'm sure it's much better on film.

 

[peterm1]

I would second the suggestion about the 50mm Elmar. I have seen images made by uncoated versions and it produces nice results. If you are going for landscape work I would not suggest using a Summar 50mm. This lens in its un-coated form produces lovely soft "rounded" images which are perfect for portraits but not so good possibly for landscape. The secret of the Elmar is its very simple design - 4 elements in 3 groups (although its still called a "triplet" design I believe). Because of this optical simplicity it does not lose much light due to internal diffraction and reflection. However a more complex design like the Summar suffers more in an uncoated lens.

 

[genotypewriter]

I would second the suggestion about the 50mm Elmar. I have seen images made by uncoated versions and it produces nice results. If you are going for landscape work I would not suggest using a Summar 50mm. This lens in its un-coated form produces lovely soft "rounded" images which are perfect for portraits but not so good possibly for landscape. The secret of the Elmar is its very simple design - 4 elements in 3 groups (although its still called a "triplet" design I believe). Because of this optical simplicity it does not lose much light due to internal diffraction and reflection. However a more complex design like the Summar suffers more in an uncoated lens.

Hi Peter,

I was asking about wider lens options. I'm not in the market for a 50.

The Elmar is probably called a triplet because it has 3 groups.

Regards,
Guy

 

[Filzkoeter]

Congrats on the Biogon. Propably the best uncoated pre-war 35mm.
I'd love to see how a genuine Biogon compares to a J-12.
How's the distortion and corner performance wide open?

 

[genotypewriter]

Congrats on the Biogon. Propably the best uncoated pre-war 35mm.
I'd love to see how a genuine Biogon compares to a J-12.
How's the distortion and corner performance wide open?

Yes, it's quite an interesting lens. Here are some quick samples I did and there's more detail of the performance in the links:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/13985161120/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/13992250508/

For regular use, I imagine the Jupiter-12 would be just as good, if not better because of the coatings. But both would be better on film than on digital.

Thanks!

Guy