On sharpness and collapsability...

sanmich

sanmich

Veteran
Local time
3:04 AM
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
Messages
3,420
The question is addressed to you Tom following your answer on the "small, slow but excellent 50" but I'll be very happy to have other's opinion too.

How would compare the following lenses in terms of sharpness:

SM: elmar 3.5 coated BD, RD, Heliar (modern)

old M: summicron coll, elmar 2.8 (I think you already answered that this
one is a notch below the 3.5) and elmar 3.5.
modern M: Elmar-M 2.8 (a bit more pricey than the others but not too much)

Thanks!!
 
I own alot of lenses and the new elmar 2.8 is usually the last lens I'll pick up to photograph a woman with. Not only is it sharp but it draws very very fine detail. It would be very difficult to image how a lens could be *considerably* sharper than that elmar. It is a fine fine lens. And its not softer wide open either...
 
Quick list of my favorites:
A/ Top of the heap: Heliar 50mm 3.5. Not just because of resolution, but it has a rather unique "3D" look to it.
B/ Best Leica Collapsible: It has to be the Elmar(it) 50mm f2.8 II. I find it better than my Summicrons, particularly in the f4-f8 range.
C/Older Leica collapsible: I prefer the M-mount 50mm f3.5. It has the same character as the LTM Red Scale version. It is noticably better at f3.5 than the 50mm @ f2.8 I. But just like that one - watch for flare.
D/ The Collapsible Summicron 50mm f2.0. For some reason I never got along with that lens! It could be me as I know people who has done very good work with it. This is based on a lot of them too!! I always preferred the Summarit 50f1.5 and the rigid version of the Summicron 50f2.
E/ Odd man here - the Hexanon 50f2.4 collapsible. A bit scarce - but very good. At f2.4 it is better than the version II 50f2.8 Elmar @2.8. Kind of "gravelly" to the touch though.
F/ The Heliar 50mm f2.0 - I like it and the fact that it is slightly "soft" at f2 makes it work very well as a portrait 50 lens. Stopped down to f4-5.6 it is nice and sharp. The collapsible feature is no big deal as it only moves in about 7-8mm!
Of course, this all refers to black/white, usually 250/400 asa film and handheld. With other films, slow bl/w, color - the results may vary - and I wont even touch digital here!
 
Last edited:
GAAAAAS!! ;)

I really think I'll be looking for an Elmar-M...
would someone know how I can use it on a SOOKY-M / SOMKY ?
 
follow up on small 50mm

follow up on small 50mm

Thanks all for the great replies.

I just moved to the US, started a new job (yes, yes, a new job in the US...)
I have taken the decision to try to go around with a IIIf loaded with delta 100 to take casual outdoor pictures.

If limited to ltm, what would would be your best 50mm?
I do have a coll cron. I was tinkering with the idea to switch to an elmar 3.5 for further small size. How would compare these at say, f/4 to f/8 ?

Take care!
 
Last edited:
The 50/3.5 Heliar is a screw mount lens, so I would bet Tom A's answer would be the same for LTM. (And I'd agree with him.) I recently got a 1951 Summitar and like its results very much.
 
KoNickon said:
The 50/3.5 Heliar is a screw mount lens, so I would bet Tom A's answer would be the same for LTM. (And I'd agree with him.) I recently got a 1951 Summitar and like its results very much.
Click to expand...

Thanks KoNickon

I have found the Summitar not as sharp as the Summicron. Great character lens, but not a sharpness contest winner by far.

I have played with the idea of getting the heliar, but the price is steep..

Now a clean elmar......
but will the results be on par with the cron?
 
The Heliar is indeed pricey, but the best usually is! A good alternative to a 50mm LTM would be the Color Skopar 50f2.5. It is a very good lens, small compact - looks disarmingly like a 35f2 Summicron! I have three of them, one black, one chrome and one in Nikon Rf mount. They are out of production, but still available from various dealers. It has the advantage over the Elmar 2.8 and 3.5 50's. It has a proper aperture ring, instead of a dinky lever at the front, which means that you keep smearing the lens with your fingers. The Elmar's also a difficult to find a hood for ( and you need it - they can flare badly. Partly due to the finger prints on the front element!).
Some of the Canon LTM and the Nikkor LTM lenses are very good, better than some of the old Elmars and collapsible Summicrons.
It all depends on how much is supposed to be for the lens. Less is better, but you also want to have a lens that will work for you.
 
The color skopar would really be perfect.
Would you know why it has a bad rep (does it??)
In any case the build quality seems excellent (I had one in my hands for a while)
Tom, could you give me some details about it's characteristics?
Also, VC seem to suffer from some sample variability. With three of these lenses, do you see or feel a difference between them?
 
sanmich said:
The color skopar would really be perfect.
Would you know why it has a bad rep (does it??)
In any case the build quality seems excellent (I had one in my hands for a while)
Tom, could you give me some details about it's characteristics?
Also, VC seem to suffer from some sample variability. With three of these lenses, do you see or feel a difference between them?
Click to expand...

Some people didn't like the contrast and someone complained abot the close up performance (this goes completely against my experience with it). It is not a low contrast lens - but it wont "fry" the negs either!
Go to Flickr and tag "Voigtlander Color Skopar 50mm f2.5" and there are plenty of examples and there is a small group too "Voigtlander Color Skopar 50mm f2.5" on Flickr.
I find it very much similar to a late Summicron, sharp and "snappy" with bl/w film. It is also very comfortable to have on the camera. Doesn't protrude into the rangefinder, particularly with the small, threaded hood on it. Very resistant to flare.
I have the three lenses because I first got the black one, but I wanted a chrome one to put on my IIIf and IIIg ( vanity!). The Nikon Rf mount one because it is perfect for a Nikon S2. Not really a valid rational, but what the heck! There is no difference optically between them. The SC (nikon) feels a bit different because it has no helicoil (built into the body) so it is even more compact.
If Stephen has one at $220 - it is a good deal. Oh, it also uses 39mm filters if that is important.
 
2351662528_3f57fb6337.jpg

This is shot with the Color Skopar 50mm f2.5. Tri X and PCK developer. Dont think we need anything sharper than that!!
 
I have tried the Leica hood on my Skopar and it does indeed fit. However, I prefer the small "ring" as it makes the lens more compact. It is almost possible to slide a M2 and the 50f2.5 into a largish pocket!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom