Austerby
Well-known
I'm looking to make my IIIa truly pocketable yet remaining fast to use. I have an Elmar 50/3.5 on it which does disappear nicely when retracted but requires assembling before use. I'm looking for a non-collapsible lens that protrudes minimally beyond the camera body and is ready to use as soon as the lens cap is removed. Prefer 50mm - any suggestions?
A Canon 50/1.5. It is fast, and as small as the Summicron in the collapsed position.
Also- a Good J-8 for something less expensive, or a J-3.
Leica IIIf with a Canon 50/1.5.
And it does not obstruct the viewfinder.
Also- a Good J-8 for something less expensive, or a J-3.
Leica IIIf with a Canon 50/1.5.
And it does not obstruct the viewfinder.
Last edited:
BillP
Rangefinder General
I prefer 50mm too, but for real, non collapsible portability and fidelity to your camera, go for a 3.5cm 3.5 Elmar. It looks like a collapsed 50 Elmar, and takes up no more room. Stopped down, performance is more than adequate. When I go out with my IID these days it "wears" my 50 Elmar (pulling it out takes no more than a second, after all. A 3.5cm and a 9cm go in a LowePro spectacles case, together with a Helios viewfinder in it's leather case. You really can't have a three-lens system smaller than that...!
Performance?
Taken the weekend before last, with my IID and Kodak 400CN.
This shot is with the 3.5cm Elmar:
And this with the 5cm:
Regards,
Bill
Performance?
Taken the weekend before last, with my IID and Kodak 400CN.
This shot is with the 3.5cm Elmar:
And this with the 5cm:
Regards,
Bill
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
The Summaron 35/3.5 is also small, and it is much to be preferred to the Elmar 35. For a 35 mm lens, though, you will need an accessory finder. There is no rigid 50 mm which is as small as the collapsibles. Is it really such a hassle to pull out the lens front and lock it?
tripod
Well-known
In 50mm, the Canon f1.5 and the CV50f2.5 are both as compact as they get without collapsing. In 35mm the Summaronf3.5, and in 28mm the Canon f3.5 are tiny. Add the CV28/35 minifinder and you have a tiny camera and lens system.
raid
Dad Photographer
For 50mm lenses, you also have the Canon 50/1.4 that is quite small. The Canon 35mm/2.8 is unbeatable for small size and performance at a relatively low cost.
Graham Line
Well-known
I notice you are saying 'Canon' rather than "Serenar." Are the later Canon-labeled lenses a significant improvement, or just easier to find?
tripod
Well-known
Personally, I would not describe the Canon 50f1.4 as a small RF lens. Very obviously larger than the Canon 50f1.5 and CV50f2.5
Bingley
Veteran
I was going to mention that the Canon 35/2.8 is really tiny, but Raid beat me to it. Another 50 mm option would be the first (chrome) version of the Canon 50/1.8, which is about the same size as the 50/1.5 in Brian's shot above (maybe a fraction longer), and much more widely available and considerably cheaper. The 50/1.5 is a truly special lens, however, so if you can find one in good shape go for it!
tripod
Well-known
Think of the Canon 35mmf2.8, then reduce it's size by 40%. That's the size of a Summaron 35mmf3.5
raid
Dad Photographer
Joe,
I don't think that the Serenar lenses are different optically from their non-Serenar newer counterparts.
raid
Dad Photographer
raid
Dad Photographer
I don't measure lens sizes in millimeters; there are many small 50mm lenses around. In contrast, the Canon 50/1.2 is a large lens.
tripod
Well-known
I was just trying to be accurate in the description of the sizes of these lenses that the OP may not ever have seen, and needed to rely on these descriptions. In this case, a little more precision is called for.
The Canon 50/1.4 uses a 48mm filter. It is a short lens, but obscures about 1/3rd of the IIIf's viewfinder.
Leica IIIf with Canon 50/1.4
And the black 50/1.8.
Leica IIIf with Canon 50/1.4
And the black 50/1.8.
Last edited:
BillP
Rangefinder General
Guys, read the OP's parameters again. Beautiful as these Canon 50's are, they do not meet the "truly pocketable" requirement.
Regards,
Bill
raid
Dad Photographer
Some coats have very big pockets!
I don't see any pocket size specifications.
Is it the shirt pocket or a coat pocket?
I don't see any pocket size specifications.
Is it the shirt pocket or a coat pocket?
Glenn2
Well-known
Luddite Frank
Well-known
"Serenar" vs "Canon"...
The Serenar-marked lenses are Canon'c early series of LTM lenses, and generally bear the most resemblance to their Leica models, including slow speeds ( like f:3.5).
They are also actively sought by collectors, and are therefore getting pricey.
The later Canon LTM lenses generally run a bit cheaper than their Serenar equivalents.
I don't have any Canon 50's yet, but I do have an f 1.8 Canon 35 that is not bigger than my collapsible Summicron stored.
The Leitz Elmar 35 and Hektor 28 mm lenses are the most compact, period.
I think a later Canon LTM 50, somewhere in the f 2 range is probably about as compact a rigid 50 as you will find.
I have heard several folks here speak of carrying their Barnacks around in their pockets; I'm afraid to try it... maybe I'm clumsy, but I've had "pocketed" cameras (folders) get squashed or dinged from doors, collisions with furniture, etc.
One thing about the 50mm lens: I have a couple-dozen 35mm cameras by now: RFs, scale-focus, SLRS, etc. Even with my tiniest scale-focus RF 35 (Vito-B, or AkA Rex), if you laid them on their back, next to a Leica LTM with a collapsible 50 pulled-out and locked, I think you'd find that they're all about the same depth from film-plane to front element... I think that's a pretty standard factor with the 50mm lens on 24 x 36mm format.
And, if you want a "fast lens", (faster than f 2.8), then you're going to be stuck with a big chunk of glass out front, and a fat barrel....
I think there may have been a 40 to 45mm Rokkor lens (Minolta) that was pretty compact, but they're also in "collectible" territory... Minolta lenses are famous for good optics though.
Just my two-cent's worth... I think it's pretty hard to beat the Elmars if compactness is your goal.
Good luck !
Luddite Frank
The Serenar-marked lenses are Canon'c early series of LTM lenses, and generally bear the most resemblance to their Leica models, including slow speeds ( like f:3.5).
They are also actively sought by collectors, and are therefore getting pricey.
The later Canon LTM lenses generally run a bit cheaper than their Serenar equivalents.
I don't have any Canon 50's yet, but I do have an f 1.8 Canon 35 that is not bigger than my collapsible Summicron stored.
The Leitz Elmar 35 and Hektor 28 mm lenses are the most compact, period.
I think a later Canon LTM 50, somewhere in the f 2 range is probably about as compact a rigid 50 as you will find.
I have heard several folks here speak of carrying their Barnacks around in their pockets; I'm afraid to try it... maybe I'm clumsy, but I've had "pocketed" cameras (folders) get squashed or dinged from doors, collisions with furniture, etc.
One thing about the 50mm lens: I have a couple-dozen 35mm cameras by now: RFs, scale-focus, SLRS, etc. Even with my tiniest scale-focus RF 35 (Vito-B, or AkA Rex), if you laid them on their back, next to a Leica LTM with a collapsible 50 pulled-out and locked, I think you'd find that they're all about the same depth from film-plane to front element... I think that's a pretty standard factor with the 50mm lens on 24 x 36mm format.
And, if you want a "fast lens", (faster than f 2.8), then you're going to be stuck with a big chunk of glass out front, and a fat barrel....
I think there may have been a 40 to 45mm Rokkor lens (Minolta) that was pretty compact, but they're also in "collectible" territory... Minolta lenses are famous for good optics though.
Just my two-cent's worth... I think it's pretty hard to beat the Elmars if compactness is your goal.
Good luck !
Luddite Frank
Bingley
Veteran
The OP is looking for a small 50, and doesn't want to extend his 50/3.5 Elmar. The Canon 50/1.5 is shorter than the Elmar when extended, IIRC. It's a heavy lens, though (the Canon).