N
Nick R.
Guest
I routinely see Summicron V3 50's for just under a grand now. Can't beat that.
Sub $1k Standard M Lens
- Thread starter giganova
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 69
- Views 7K
giganova
Well-known
I wish there would be more choices! 😀
Jerevan
Recycled User
wwilliams
Member
I'm surprised there isn't more support for the 40mm Summicron or Rokkor version. I've read its performance is exceptional - is there just no love for the 40mm focal length or is it more appreciation for the older classic signatures of the early 50 crons?
nightfly
Well-known
The 40mm Summicron was the first Leica lens I bought. Never liked the focal length and sold it fairly quickly. 40mm is not for me. Too in-between. Replaced it with a 35mm Summicron and was much happier. Didn't add the 50 till much more recently.
If it's a focal length you can live with, go for it. Not sure they are still so cheap but at the time I bought mine they were well under $500. Very nice rendering didn't love the plastic tab thingy.
If it's a focal length you can live with, go for it. Not sure they are still so cheap but at the time I bought mine they were well under $500. Very nice rendering didn't love the plastic tab thingy.
bhop73
Well-known
I'm partial to my Canon 50 1.4
White Bunch by Brandon, on Flickr
Falls by Brandon, on Flickr
Lizard Life by Brandon, on Flickr
White Bunch by Brandon, on FlickrFalls by Brandon, on FlickrLizard Life by Brandon, on Flickrgiganova
Well-known
Maybe because I specifically asked about 50mm lenses 😉
bhop73
Well-known
I also have a Summitar that I use on my barnack. It's a nice lens, very "classic" feeling IMO.
edit: here's one of my Summitar pics
Sitting on Steps by Brandon, on Flickr
Excellent!
I love the Summitar. It can produce a 3D effect, with low contrast, an uncommon combination.
Seriously underrated, I much prefer it to any 50 Summicron and I've shot them all...the only negative is it doesn't focus as close as I'd like, but I've learned not to miss that.
wwilliams
Member
When you said 50mm I just assumed you were using the term generically and wanted ideas about a NORMAL lens which as we all know is 43.27 for the 35mm format. 🙂🙂🙂
calebarchie
Established
Every kid and his beard knows about about the 40 cron/rokkor and the price reflects that. Just traded mine for a nokton and the handling and finish is so much better.
bhop73
Well-known
Bingley
Veteran
I've got 6 or 7 50mm lenses not one of which I paid close to $1000 for and all are good in their interesting ways. Here's what I'd recommend:
(1) A Summicron. Good advice on the Rigid. I don't have that one. I've got the slightly later version III 'chron. A wonderful performer, not as contrasty as later 'chrons or planar lenses. Very good for black and white.
(2) The CV Skopar 50/2.5. This is a sleeper of a 50, incredibly well made, flare-resistant, sharp, compact, and you can get them in good shape for under $400 if you shop carefully. This lens got a bad rap when it was first introduced, and is sometimes described as "very contrasty." It is in a way, but it's also capable of subtleties in tonal variation in black and white.
(3) A Summitar. If you can find a good coated sample with clear glass, this is another good option. Depends on the look you're after, but I love mine (I have two).
Finally, although I've never had it, I have seen wonderful photos taken with the Leica Elmar-M 50/2.8. Mfogel has a point about how good this lens is. But if you don't like collapsible lenses, the CV Skopar 50/2.5 covers a lot of the same ground for a fraction of the price.
Have fun choosing!
(1) A Summicron. Good advice on the Rigid. I don't have that one. I've got the slightly later version III 'chron. A wonderful performer, not as contrasty as later 'chrons or planar lenses. Very good for black and white.
(2) The CV Skopar 50/2.5. This is a sleeper of a 50, incredibly well made, flare-resistant, sharp, compact, and you can get them in good shape for under $400 if you shop carefully. This lens got a bad rap when it was first introduced, and is sometimes described as "very contrasty." It is in a way, but it's also capable of subtleties in tonal variation in black and white.
(3) A Summitar. If you can find a good coated sample with clear glass, this is another good option. Depends on the look you're after, but I love mine (I have two).
Finally, although I've never had it, I have seen wonderful photos taken with the Leica Elmar-M 50/2.8. Mfogel has a point about how good this lens is. But if you don't like collapsible lenses, the CV Skopar 50/2.5 covers a lot of the same ground for a fraction of the price.
Have fun choosing!
wwilliams
Member
Bingley
Veteran
Bingley
Veteran
Bingley
Veteran
calebarchie
Established
With the quality of optics these days anything is acceptable. Unless you have a specific use or intend to use a crutch.
My sample was exceptionally well used, so much so the nokton feels miles ahead. Differences in optics are minor honestly, for the way I shoot.
My next purchase will most probably be a skopar 50 if that gives and indication for the OP.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
Your question suggests you're fairly new to photography, or at least to rangefinder photography, or at least to black and white photography. If I've misinterpreted your question and you're an experienced shooter you can skip the next two paragraphs.
Much depends on what look you want and what subject matter you intend to shoot. Modern lenses are sharper but sometimes at the expense of smooth bokeh. The exception would be the Sonnar designs which are sharp in the center, but softer away from the center at large apertures. Some older designs have 'swirly' bokeh which you may or may not want. Modern lenses tend to have higher contrast than older designs.
Older designs and lens coatings flare more but this can add character and interest when it's controlled. Some would say older lenses (or modern Sonnar design lenses) are better for portraiture that is flattering to the subject as they are sharper in the middle but not as sharp at the edges of the frame. For architectural images you may want a sharper, more modern lens.
Modern: Zeiss Planar ZM 50mm f2 ~ $875
Semi-modern to modern: Summicron-M ('type 3' 1969-1979 or 'type 4' 1979-1994) 50mm f2 ~ $750-$975
Mid-century: Summicron ('type 2' or 'Rigid' 1956-1968) 50mm f2 ~ $650-$900
Vintage 1a: coated Summitar (1946-1953) 50mm f2 ~$350-$475; screw mount, will need LTM to M adapter for ~ $50. Avoid cheap knockoffs.
Vintage 1b: Zeiss Opton 50mm f2 ~$125-$150; will need Amedeo adapter Contax RF to Leica M ~$250. Sonnar design.
Prices are best guesstimates. Pristine examples can go for more. The Summicron is still made today but post 1994 examples ('type 5') will likely cost more than $1K in decent condition. Even older 50mm Summicrons can cost more than $1K. All of the used glass should hold its value, so if you try one and don't like it you can sell it. Some older lenses may need a CLA. About $90.
Obviously, in my list only the Zeiss Planar ZM is new (you could also buy used). I've owned all lenses listed except for the Zeiss ZM. I've owned a similar lens, the Contax G 45mm Planar f2 which is outstanding, so the ZM should be comparable as it's essentially the same design. I've also seen many fine images done with the Planar ZM posted here on RFF and elsewhere.
I excluded the new Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 as it's faster than the others listed and can be more difficult to use for someone learning the craft. Faster lenses are also more expensive. I also excluded anything slower than f2. While Canon made both Sonnar and Planar designs, I excluded older Canon LTM lenses as many are prone to haze. I excluded Cosina-Voigtlander lenses as I'm not familiar with anything but ultra wide angle examples.
Much depends on what look you want and what subject matter you intend to shoot. Modern lenses are sharper but sometimes at the expense of smooth bokeh. The exception would be the Sonnar designs which are sharp in the center, but softer away from the center at large apertures. Some older designs have 'swirly' bokeh which you may or may not want. Modern lenses tend to have higher contrast than older designs.
Older designs and lens coatings flare more but this can add character and interest when it's controlled. Some would say older lenses (or modern Sonnar design lenses) are better for portraiture that is flattering to the subject as they are sharper in the middle but not as sharp at the edges of the frame. For architectural images you may want a sharper, more modern lens.
Modern: Zeiss Planar ZM 50mm f2 ~ $875
Semi-modern to modern: Summicron-M ('type 3' 1969-1979 or 'type 4' 1979-1994) 50mm f2 ~ $750-$975
Mid-century: Summicron ('type 2' or 'Rigid' 1956-1968) 50mm f2 ~ $650-$900
Vintage 1a: coated Summitar (1946-1953) 50mm f2 ~$350-$475; screw mount, will need LTM to M adapter for ~ $50. Avoid cheap knockoffs.
Vintage 1b: Zeiss Opton 50mm f2 ~$125-$150; will need Amedeo adapter Contax RF to Leica M ~$250. Sonnar design.
Prices are best guesstimates. Pristine examples can go for more. The Summicron is still made today but post 1994 examples ('type 5') will likely cost more than $1K in decent condition. Even older 50mm Summicrons can cost more than $1K. All of the used glass should hold its value, so if you try one and don't like it you can sell it. Some older lenses may need a CLA. About $90.
Obviously, in my list only the Zeiss Planar ZM is new (you could also buy used). I've owned all lenses listed except for the Zeiss ZM. I've owned a similar lens, the Contax G 45mm Planar f2 which is outstanding, so the ZM should be comparable as it's essentially the same design. I've also seen many fine images done with the Planar ZM posted here on RFF and elsewhere.
I excluded the new Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 as it's faster than the others listed and can be more difficult to use for someone learning the craft. Faster lenses are also more expensive. I also excluded anything slower than f2. While Canon made both Sonnar and Planar designs, I excluded older Canon LTM lenses as many are prone to haze. I excluded Cosina-Voigtlander lenses as I'm not familiar with anything but ultra wide angle examples.
Similar threads
- Article
