Leica LTM What lens have gone under the radar, sleepers

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Cosina/Voigtlander Heliar 50mm f/2, nickel ltm version of 2009, 600 made. Certainly obscure, so under the radar, and our host might still have a few... :)

Compared with the earlier 50/2, this one is screw mount, rigid/not collapsible, with an infinity-lock focus tab. Same 11 aperture blades, and lighter in weight at 191gr. The first nickel-plated LTM lenses since about 1938.

Herbert Keppler's column in the Dec 2006 PopPhoto praises the previous model: "The Heliar turned out to be incredibly good, comparable at all apertures to the 50mm f/2 Leica Summicron-M we'd tested in 1996." Cosina did it with "Newly developed super high-index glass (that) reduces all aberrations." This is quite a breakthrough, as the Heliar was historically not suited to small-format use, its qualities not including the necessary acutance or desired speed. As essentially a Tessar with another element cemented-in to make a front doublet, it's amazing it could exceed f/2.8. Fastest Heliar ever made. Having only 6 air-to-glass surfaces, it's extremely flare resistant and contrasty.

Positive/Negative Negative Negative/Positive 5-element sequence with cemented pairs front & rear and a free-standing negative at center next to the diaphragm. This in contrast to the symmetrical classic Planar with Positive element at front, then a Pos/Neg cemented pair, mirrored behind the diaphragm. Like the Planar, the symmetry helps close-up sharpness, and macro lenses often use this pattern.

The optics are the same as the previous collapsible M-mount model, so this should still apply: Sean Reid says that it is softer wide open, esp in the corners (likely due to field curvature), than either the Summicron or Planar, and more subject to veiling flare for a "classic" rendition. Improved noticeably at f/2.4, but evidence of a focus shift at mid apertures.

My observation: Focus about right-on wide open and I suspect a slightly concave field of focus. Not crisp wide open but pretty good at f/2.8 and up. Maybe a slight tendency to front-focus a bit at f/4. Lovely smooth bokeh with very slight doubling in near-bokeh so perhaps undercorrected spherical aberration.

U77I1312007755.SEQ.0.jpg
 
I have tried almost every Leitz, Leica made 50 starting from Summar to v 4 Cron, except Lux and some odd exotics. Planar, Nokton as well. I prefer J-3 to all of them. Size, price, performance, aperture.
But it is not very popular lens outside of small FSU RF group. Even Lomography had short run of them.

Canon 50 1.8 has very smooth focus, btw. Nothing close to Crons, but funky lens for portraits.

Orion-15 is 1/20 of current Summaron 28, does the same, if not better.
 
For a bargain, in LTM, the I-22 collapsible 50/3.5 if you can find one with clean glass and good mechanics (and there are plenty).

The Avenon 28/3.5 in LTM is hard to beat for the price in the 28mm focal length and in LTM. One can probably best it, but only with a lot more money.
 
The Canon 50/1.8 doesn't get the respect it's due because there are so many dogs out there with bad inner elements. However, when you find a clean one, it performs as good as any of the other classic 50s.
 
Oh, thought we were restricted to Leitz lenses.

Anyway, a couple of thoughts:

1) the 50mm 3.5 Elmar is far from 'lowly' and don't forget later coated (and Red Scale) versions.

2) I seem to be the only person to mention a lens over 50mm. There are some great lenses in the 75-90mm range. 135mm requires patience in ltm.

3) Following on from the above the OP needs to venture into in the fabled Visoflex Wonderland...
 
Visoflex macro wonderland takes it the other way ;)

Can't say there are many 'sleepers' left except for the 90 and 135mm lenses.
If we're talking about pricing at least. ;)
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I prefer J-3 to all of them. Size, price, performance, aperture.
But it is not very popular lens outside of small FSU RF group. Even Lomography had short run of them.
Click to expand...

The J-3 is a duplicate of the Zeiss lens, and both lenses are great 50mm lenses. I have several examples of each.
 
135mm lenses in general are sleepers, especially on rangefinders because you have to use an accessory viewfinder. It also seems odd to use such a long lens on one.

Doesn't mean they aren't fun!
 
I've had very good luck with a Nikkor 13.5cm lens in LTM on my M3. It brings up the proper frame lines and is pretty much tack sharp at f3.5, which is wide open.

Best,
-Tim
 
raid said:
How is the nickel Heliar different from the past version Heliar 50/2?
Click to expand...

1.) Optically the same
2.) Nickel finish
3.) Not collapsible though it looks like it does
4.) Old-style locking focusing tab/button
5.) Production limited to 600 samples
6.) Screw mount, comes with adapter
7.) Serial numbers divided into 6 groups starting with H, E, L, I, A or R. Numbers range from 001 to 100.
8.) Weighs 191g vs 260g for the collapsible version
 
I agree with Doug's very complete mini-review of the Heliar 50mm 2.0 and also with David's contribution of the Avenon 28mm 3.5. I own them both and dearly love them.

Also, the before mentioned Elmar 50mm 3.5 is a true gem. I own an uncoated nickel one and a chrome one with an even earlier serial number that was factory upgraded to a modern chrome and coated lens. Again, I can concur.

Two more lenses I'd like to add though.
First is a very early Jupiter-9 labelled 85mm 2.0 lens with Carl Zeiss Sonnar optical block. It has a minimum focusing distance of 1.8 meters and the index marks for distance and aperture do not line up, signalling that the lens is made from non-Russian parts. This is the second one I own and I'm constantly impressed by sharpness and rendering.
They are harder to find but aren't spotted by either collectors or sellers so can be had for reasonable prices if you invest time.

24817639847_4e5ff27b2e_c.jpg

The second lens is a bit of a rangefinder equivalent of the now much appreciated Trioplan lenses, it's the early Topcor 50mm 2.0 LTM, the non-S model. It does swirly bokeh wide open, and is pretty sharp with still softer corners when stopped down. Once at 8.0 it's sharp overall.
These are the full-chrome early lenses, fully made from brass (around 225 grammes heavy) and have whiskey colored coating with a tinge of pink. They are probably single coated.

Several of the above mentioned lenses are featured in this article on my web site.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I have tried almost every Leitz, Leica made 50 starting from Summar to v 4 Cron, except Lux and some odd exotics. Planar, Nokton as well. I prefer J-3 to all of them. Size, price, performance, aperture.
But it is not very popular lens outside of small FSU RF group. Even Lomography had short run of them.

Canon 50 1.8 has very smooth focus, btw. Nothing close to Crons, but funky lens for portraits.

Orion-15 is 1/20 of current Summaron 28, does the same, if not better.
Click to expand...

Orion 15 sounds interesting
 
Thanks for the replies everyone, although if my wife reads this thread she might divorce me because of the GAS attack that this thread has brought on
 
lxmike said:
Orion 15 sounds interesting
Click to expand...




Unlike Canon lenses or Elmars, and no denying those are nice, this lens really is under the radar.
The Orion-15, on the other hand, is more likely to elicit comments such as “the Oreo what?
The lens is sharp “wide open”, if f5.6 can be considered wide open, but is really, really sharp, closed down a bit. I added some vignetting to this shot, probably at f8, as it normally would not have much vignetting on its own.
They are not all equal. Get a very early one, or a pre-production one (they are out there). There is some information with test comparisons on the web.
It is a Topogon formula.
People balk at buying these because they go for more than the normal $30 Soviet lens. There is a reason for that. Ko.Fe is right. The closest relatives are the Leitz 28/5.6 Summaron and the ultra-rare, ultra spendy, Zeiss Contax 25/4 Topogon.
It does color well also. Still ultra cheap for what it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom