Leica LTM Serenar equivalent, please...

[Pfreddee]

I am using a Leica IIIF with a Canon Serenar 50mm lens. What is the Leica lens that most closely matches it? (I'm perfectly happy with the Serenar, because I could afford it and it works just fine!)

Just curious.

Thank you to all who reply!

With best regards. Pfreddee(Stephen)

I'm also happy with my IIIf because I could afford that, too.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Which Serenar lens are you using?

The 50/2: Closest is the Summar
The 50/1.9: Closest is the Summitar
The 50/1.8 (early Serenar): Closest is the Collapsible Summicron.
The 50/3.5: closest is the Elmar 5cm F3.5
The 50/1,5: closest is the pre-war Zeiss 5cm F1.5 Sonnar.

Somehow, I have all of the Canon 50mm lenses, Eleven total.

 

[Pfreddee]

I have the 50/1.9.

 

[wlewisiii]

Neat lens. If you ever want to go a little faster, the Canon 50/1.4 is exquisite 🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I have the 50/1.9.

A fine lens- 6 element in 4 groups, but much larger diameter optics than the Summar and 50/2 Serenar. Lower contrast and not as sharp as the 50/1.8.

If you re looking for sharper, the Canon 50/1.8 Chrome is good choice, the Black 50/1.8 is even sharper- but you need to find one with clean glass. The surface behind the aperture is often damaged from lubricants seeping into the lens. The 50/1.4- also a great choice. All of these cost less than a clean Summitar.

Canon 50mm, Leica Mount by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Leica by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

[Mackinaw]

I had the 50/1.9 many years back. Brian describes it well. I liked it, but sold it to buy something else (don't ask me what). As for other Canon rangefinder lenses, it's hard to beat the 50/1.4, but I also really like the collapsible 50/3.5 (a Tessar). The 50/2.8 is another favorite (again, a Tessar).

Jim B.

 

[JoseP]

A fine lens- 6 element in 4 groups, but much larger diameter optics than the Summar and 50/2 Serenar. Lower contrast and not as sharp as the 50/1.8.

If you re looking for sharper, the Canon 50/1.8 Chrome is good choice, the Black 50/1.8 is even sharper- but you need to find one with clean glass. The surface behind the aperture is often damaged from lubricants seeping into the lens. The 50/1.4- also a great choice. All of these cost less than a clean Summitar.

Canon 50mm, Leica Mount by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Leica by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Ooo La Laaa! I've wanted a collapsible serenar forever. The f3.5 5cm, though. That's the only one I see you don't have. Rad collection!

 

[wlewisiii]

Only 9 in that image and he said he has 11. I know he has the 50/.95 for the Canon 7 but the 50/3.5 would be likely for the last one 🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Not pictured is the Collapsible 5cm F3.5, uncoated lens and Canon 50mm F0.95- breech-lock. I've done CLA's on a few 5cm F3.5's, disassembled like an Elmar, all had severe Haze but cleaned up perfectly.

 

[rodt16s]

I seem to remember Colton used a 2.2 that had a nice look. His skill also helped

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The 50/2.2 Canon has a unique and very pleasing look. Colton produced amazing pictures with his, that lens was in the right hands. It was only made for 6 months. Mine is one of the first made, and is perfect.

 

[Coldkennels]

I hate to disagree with Brian about lenses, but while the 50/1.9 Serenar might be closest in optical design to a Summitar, I'd say it's a lot closer to a clean Summar in rendering:





Very quick and dirty test shots immediately after picking this Serenar up from an auction house in London last year. One is a Summar, one is a Serenar. They're close enough that I think you'd be hard-pressed to tell them apart if they weren't side-by-side. I'm not even going to say which one is which here to see if anyone can tell the diffeerence.

When looking at a painfully dull brick wall test, the f/1.9 Serenar is consistently sharper than the Summar at the far edges of the frame, but the Summar is better in the centre across all apertures. The Summar wins in usability, though - A36 is a lot easier to find filters and hoods for than whatever the hell the Serenar's doing.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I picked the Summitar for being closer to the 50/1.9 based on the diameter of the optics in both lenses, designed to subdue vignetting that is especially noticeable with color film. This is in the description for the Summitar is documented in the "Leica Manual" by Morgan and Lester. The 50/1.9 uses 40mm filters, and I have a series VI adapter ring as well. The Summitar uses custom-made filters, are fluted. I have a full set made by Walz. The Summitar is center-sharp. The Serenar 50/2 and 50/1.9, and the Leica Summar and Summitar all show "swirlies" and are over-corrected for spherical aberration.

No lens is "exactly" like any other, unless is is a "rebrand", like a ZK Sonnar to a Zeiss Sonnar, or made with the same glass and cut exactly the same- as in a KMZ V1 J-3 to a Zeiss Sonnar. The closest lens to a Summitar is the Minolta 5cm F2, but even it is not exactly the same. The Canon Serenar 50/1.9 compared with the Seranar 5cm F2- to me, similar to Leica Summitar compared with the Summar.

Summitar, wide-Open.





Canon 50/1.9, wide-open.




I still have both lenses, actually have Two 50/1.9 Serenars. Picked up dirt cheap, $50 and $60, The first needed work, found I could use screwes from the Much later Canonet to replace missing screws in the mount. The SUmmitar- needed a good CLA, was also $60. Those days are gone! Having the 50/1.9, I would not pick up a Summitar. Go to a Collapsible Summicron, or better yet- the Canon 50/1.8 Black version look for a clean one.

 

[Coldkennels]

I think I'd agree with your statement that I wouldn't pick up a Summitar if I already owned a 50/1.9 Serenar - if only because you're jumping from one awkward filter situation to another!

Personally, I turned down a Summitar years back because I owned a Summar and collapsible Summicron, and I didn't see it having any "benefit" over either; it just seemed like a bit of a halfway house between the two, if that makes sense.

I do need to do a bit more shooting with the Serenar. Looking at the shots you just posted, I suspect it may be better for the Summar for colour... if I ever shot any colour film. It's just tough to pick it up while the Summar exists!

 

[Bingley]

I’m a fan of the Summitar and it’s a lens that matches the IIIf very well (although by the time the IIIf went into production the collapsible ‘chron was available). And Summitars in good condition are still relatively available, although prices have gone up. But if the Summitar is too much like the Serenar 50/1.9 (I’m skeptical that it is, but for the sake of argument), then maybe look a little further afield? If it were me, I’d look for a lens w/ a different ”look,” like the Canon 50/1.5 (a beautiful lens that’s great for color as well as bw), or the Nikkor-HC 50/f2.0. Either of these lenses would balance well on a IIIf and are more or less contemporaneous w/ the camera. Just a thought… YMMV…

 

[Coldkennels]

I'd argue the "best" alternative 50mm for a IIIf if you already own the f/1.9 Serenar would be the f/3.5 Elmar.

It's a much more "neutral" rendering, very predictable, incredibly compact, and the lens a lot of screwmount Leicas were sold with.

Plus it's as iconic as it gets - owning an early Leica and not having an Elmar just seems wrong somehow.

 

[wlewisiii]

Which actually makes me curious - how good was the Canon 50/3.5 lens when compared to the Elmar?

 

[Pfreddee]

I don't think I will be getting an Elmar, much as I'd like to: All the offerings I've seen are junk. They look like their previous owners cleaned them with 240 grit sandpaper. Anyway, I'm happy with what I have.

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[Mackinaw]

Which actually makes me curious - how good was the Canon 50/3.5 lens when compared to the Elmar?

Since they're both Tessars (optical design looks to be identical) I suspect both are quite similar in their performance. I don't have the Elmar, but am quite happy with the Canon. According Peter Kitchingman's Canon rangefinder lens boo, I have a "Type 6" 50/3.5.

Jim B.

 

[Darinwc]

The Canon 50mm f3.5 is a tessar type, but the Elmar is not.
Yes the Elmar is a 4-element in 3 group design. But the aperture is between the 1st and 2nd element, and the rest of the lens is calculated around that. I dont have an Elmar to compare, I wish I did. The Canon f3.5 is sharp, but otherwise not very exceptional to my eye.