Shallow question: short/long silver lens for M240?

[Dante_Stella]

For a longer portrait lens, I'm really enjoying the 73mm Sonnetar. It's much more functional as a general-purpose lens than the 50 Sonnetar (my 73 focuses accurately at all distances and apertures, without having touched the coma ring), but the images still have enough of that signature Miyazaki weirdness that you either love or hate.

If you pick one up, I highly recommend getting a JJC LH-JX70 kit to go along with it. Originally for the Fuji X70, this gives you an adapter for 49mm filters in the correct direction, as well as a functional hood that sits cleanly overtop. Plus the silver chrome version matches it exactly!

You are right about the JJC, but you can also just mount a 49mm filter backwards. For reasons I just don't get, the JJC outer front thread is 53 or 54mm, not 55. Inner is obviously 49mm.

How are you finding the focusing accuracy near and far? I have been testing a "used" copy (looked pretty new to me...), and from min-1.5m, which is really your normal range for head shots, it is phenomenally sharp at f/1.5 and unbelievable at f/4, but as the distance increases, so does the front-focusing, almost to the point I joke you need to use an f/stop equal to the distance in meters. I got to ultra close focus heaven by nudging the adjuster from 3m a hair or two toward infinity.

It's not theoretically different from the 50/1.1, but I am debating whether to use the adjuster recalibrate the lens for longer distances and make a change to the profile of the RF cam (non-destructively) from min to 1.5m to make it focus correctly everywhere on a single calibration. I thought that the 75/1.4 Leica lens was relatively high-strung, but there is always time to learn!

The mind-blowing thing is how small the Sonnetar is - barely longer than a 50/2 Summicron.

Stephen - I'm sure the CV is next in my 75mm collection!

Dante

 

[zuiko85]

All way over my head as I only have a scratched up M4-2 and a CV 35 PII. But since long ago days I've never been able to use 'ugly' cameras. The top ugly 35 SLR (that is well known) being the Bulls Eye Contarex. There are a whole slew of 60's & 70's Japanese SLR's that are at lease moderately ugly. Never gave much thought to lenses though, had to like what I was willing to pay, (not much) although that attitude resulted in purchasing a few "coke bottle" lenses.

 

[WJJ3]

"I have CDO. It's like OCD, but the letters are in the right order."

So for reasons that seem to boil down to color coordination and may only be fully understood by a psychiatrist, I use lenses with my (silver) M240 and (black) MM246 based on what matches the camera. I also have a ton of black lenses I use with very low frequency.

The M246 pretty much lives with a 21/4.5 ZM or an MS Sonnetar 50 on it. Sometimes an 90mm M-Hexanon. Or a 28mm PC Nikkor.

For the M240, I generally use a 35mm Hexanon L (E46) with a 50mm Sonnar-C (E46) or Hexanon L (E40.5). But I feel like this needs a third focal length. If you had to pick a third silver lens for this, based on external aesthetics and some pretext of additional functionality, would you pick:

• 18mm ZM (which I have in black but would be sweet in silver instead);
• 21mm ZM Biogon 2.8;
• 75mm Summarit-M;
• 73mm Sonnetar;
• 75mm f/1.5 Nokton;
• 90mm Elmarit-M; or
• 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor (which I have but painfully slow to focus)

Something else outside the 35-50mm range? Only catch is that it has to be silver.

Dante

21-35-90.

For the silver 90mm lens, well the obvious answer is Silver MEM

MEM on my M3

 

[Rob-F]

Dante, I have the original chrome 90mm Elmarit. It looks stunning on my chrome M2! It is also very, very sharp. To see it at its best, I have to use it on a tripod. So this is one lens I can recommend from long personal experience: I bought it new when I was 19. For quite a while, I used only it and a 35/2.8 Summaron.

 

[Ronald M]

I wish I didnt buy any of my Leica and M mount lenses in chrome/silver.
I think they look great on my silver bodies but not on my black bodies.
Whereas my black lenses look great on both.

Agreed. Why I have 2 50 mm 2.8 Elmar M lenses.

 

[Richard G]

Dante, I have the original chrome 90mm Elmarit. It looks stunning on my chrome M2! It is also very, very sharp. To see it at its best, I have to use it on a tripod. So this is one lens I can recommend from long personal experience: I bought it new when I was 19. For quite a while, I used only it and a 35/2.8 Summaron.

This I am impressed by.

 

[lonemantis]

You are right about the JJC, but you can also just mount a 49mm filter backwards. For reasons I just don't get, the JJC outer front thread is 53 or 54mm, not 55. Inner is obviously 49mm.

How are you finding the focusing accuracy near and far? I have been testing a "used" copy (looked pretty new to me...), and from min-1.5m, which is really your normal range for head shots, it is phenomenally sharp at f/1.5 and unbelievable at f/4, but as the distance increases, so does the front-focusing, almost to the point I joke you need to use an f/stop equal to the distance in meters. I got to ultra close focus heaven by nudging the adjuster from 3m a hair or two toward infinity.

It's not theoretically different from the 50/1.1, but I am debating whether to use the adjuster recalibrate the lens for longer distances and make a change to the profile of the RF cam (non-destructively) from min to 1.5m to make it focus correctly everywhere on a single calibration. I thought that the 75/1.4 Leica lens was relatively high-strung, but there is always time to learn!

The mind-blowing thing is how small the Sonnetar is - barely longer than a 50/2 Summicron.

Stephen - I'm sure the CV is next in my 75mm collection!

Dante

You can totally just mount a 49mm filter backwards, and this is likely the easiest way to do it if you change filters often. I'm not a heavy filter user (usually just a UV for protection), so I prefer the cleaner look and separate hood mount with the JJC.

I must have lucked out with my 73 - at least to my eye, it seems to focus perfectly from minimum to infinity at all aperture settings, with no adjustment. It's very sharp wide open, but pleasant at the same time. Maybe the accuracy has something to do with the translated cam movement for a longer focal length, compared to the 50?

My 50 1.1, on the other hand, needed a huge adjustment - about halfway between the 4m and infinity settings to get accurate focus close up and wide open. (you would lose infinity at this setting, of course) I just sold it after getting the new 50 1.0 ISM, which has a very similar image quality and much less fuss.

 

[Ronald M]

Silver Macro Elmar M. Very fine lens up with the best, just 4.0 only