which m-mount 35 renders like a canon ltm 50/1.8?

P

paulfish4570

Veteran
Local time
8:19 AM
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
9,816
or a nikkor (slr) 50/1.8?

i am deliriously happy with my ltm 35/2.5 and 50/2.5 color skopars with adapters for my r2m.
they are very contrasty lenses. but i'd also like a little less contrast and an f stop or two more speed in an m-mount lens. the canon 50/1.8 and the slr nikkor 50/1.8 have the rendering i am looking for, if that is any help.
i am not a tech oriented shooter who can converse in optical formulae, yet i MUCH appreciate those who are.
what am i looking for?
thanks,
paul
 
Last edited:
yeah, but i want an m-mount. it has been 30 years since i had an m-3 and elmar 50/2.8. the elmar renders much like the canon, according to my eyes, but i want more speed, say f2 or better ...
 
i might do that, fe. i have been eye-balling them via 'net.

a better description of the rendering i am looking for is what my nikkor 50/1.8 does with black and white film. i can readily see the differences between it and the skopar because i soup the same film the same way whether it is shot with my fe 2 of the r2m ...

rffimg889.jpg


R1-08523-0003rff.jpg
 
Last edited:
Shot in the dark, but maybe the 50mm CV Nickel Heliar? (Oops 35mm sorry)
 
Last edited:
Remember that you can adjust contrast by souping your film a shorter time. Much cheaper than buying a bunch of new lenses.
 
Mablo said:
Remember that you can adjust contrast by souping your film a shorter time. Much cheaper than buying a bunch of new lenses.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you can't control the character of the midtones, or tonal transitions, by simply souping for more or less time, or am I wrong ?
 
needs to be 35mm focal length.
and i need a stop or two more speed. changing developing time cannot do that and maintain the same grain for box speed. and i sometimes shoot actual color ... :)
 
I use the 50/1.8 Serenar with my Leica IIf and Canon P.
If I ever can afford the M2 or M3, I will buy an adapter.
The Serenar is a wonderful piece of glass.
My other favorite lens is the Canon 35/2.0. Fast (enough)and light, Summicron quality.
I sold my 35mm Skopar which was as sharp as the Canon
but a bit too contrasty for my taste.
Oh, I just noticed that you want an M mount...
Why no adapter?


Thomas
 
Last edited:
Reason why I recommended the CV 35/1.4, is that I find bokeh and distortion actually very, very similar to the Canon 50/1.8. Also, it's sharp enough in the center, but not too much. And if you get the SC version, you also get the single coated contrast, induced by veiling flare, and as shown in your pictures, Paul.
 
aleksander, i have no idea. there are no bessa/leica/zeiss shops around here in which to compare.
but i do figure f1.4-f2 would be fast enough ...
 
Reason why I recommended the CV 35/1.4, is that I find bokeh and distortion actually very, very similar to the Canon 50/1.8. Also, it's sharp enough in the center, but not too much. And if you get the SC version, you also get the single coated contrast, induced by veiling flare, and as shown in your pictures, Paul.

The Canon 35/2 is higher contrast, harsher bokeh, a very different beast.
 
damien.murphy said:
Yes, but you can't control the character of the midtones, or tonal transitions, by simply souping for more or less time, or am I wrong ?
Click to expand...

Damien, I shot for years B&W with Canon LTM lenses (35mm/1.8, 50mm/1,8, 50mm/1.4, 50mm/1.2, 100mm/3.5). For various reasons I had to part from my Canon RF gear and I bought a Hexar AF for a replacement. At first I was shocked how contrasty my images turned out with the Hexanon 35mm/2 lens. Then I simply cut 10% or so away from the development time I had accustomed to and so far I'm alright.

About tonal transitions and such things I think Mr. Hicks would be the right man to give you a good advice. I just know how thick I want my negs to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom