Your pick for "good" M mount 50mm lens

[Toastybunzz]

I like my Planar, no wobble here. It's just ridiculously sharp with great coatings.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I agree with Kostja that a good B+W 50mm lens for Leica LTM or M is not easy to find, no matter cheap or expensive. The problems Kostja had with the Color-Skopar 50mm I had too - exactly the same - but the fix was easy and since then I've had no problems anymore. I had the impression that the lens did not had a final control. The male thread was wrongly positioned, so the infinity mark was not in the middle when mounted on the camera and the focus tab and the lens block were loose.
But once fixed, I never had any problems with the lens. So Cosina only cutted back on the final check I think.

What else is there?

- the aspherical 50mm lenses all are too contrasty for B+W.

- the Summicron rigid is very nice in my opinion, but the LTM version of the lens is extremely hard to find and expensive.

- the collapsible lenses are annoying to use because the sliding in and out.

- the Heliar collapsible is calculated dead. The corrections are driven too far. A very dull bokeh.

- the contrast of the Summicron V4 is much too high. The highlights are difficult to print, even with split grade printing. And there is no LTM version.

- The Summicron Collapsible always has a scratched front lens, just like the Summar and the Summitar.

- The Elmar-M is only sharpness. There is no character or body of the image. The corrections are driven too far. And there is no LTM-version.

- The original Elmars f/2.8 and f/3.5 are quite good, but the Color Skopar is better and does not have the annoying sliding in and out.

Erik.

 

[Andy Kibber]

No one can seriously question the image quality from the Zeiss Planar. I had one with very slight wobble. Nothing that affected focus. One consideration is that with ZM lenses you are signing up for 1/3 aperture stops, instead of the conventional 1/2 stops. That may take some adjustment on your M4-2, depending on how you do your metering.

I recommend the Konica Hexanon 50mm lens. It's excellent. Wonderful image quality, not too expensive and I like the built-in hood.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Erik, OP is looking for lens to have it on M4-2.
I had Summar, Summarit, Summitar and v1 Cron without scratched front. v1 Cron had some changes due to removed fungus. And so was Summitar.
For bw rendering I highly grade v1 Cron and Elmar-M 50 2.8. Both had heck a lot of micro contrast on BW. Summitar was in the same legue for it, but weaker optically.

I had Nokton 50 1.5 ASPH (masochist focus ring version) and while it was so so on digital for colors, I adored it well ballanced rendering on bw prints.

We still don't know which film OP is using, btw, BW or Color. Many fifties I have used were fine on color but flat on BW or in the opposite.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Erik, OP is looking for lens to have it on M4-2.

The M4-2 accepts the LTM lenses via an adapter.

I hope your M4-2 has a slightly higher number because at the beginning of the production of this camera the setting of the machines in Canada was not correct. Therefore, these early cameras have many technical problems. This information comes from a trusted source.

Erik.

 

[brusby]

My experience is very different from the list above:

- the aspherical 50mm lenses are NOT too contrasty for B+W unless you prefer flat, muddy, low contrast final prints.

- I actually enjoy using the collapsible lenses and love that they represent a bygone era in amazing lens design. But I understand it's a matter of personal preference not all share.

- the Heliar collapsible is not "dead" and is certainly capable of very beautiful photos.

- the contrast of the Summicron V4 is only "much too high" if your preference is for dull, low contrast prints.

- There are many Summicron Collapsible, Summar and Summitar available without scratched front lens. Although, like any older lens, pristine copies are getting harder to find. I know this from personal experience because in just this past month I bought a collapsible ltm Summicron from a forum member and a 40's Summitar off eBay with clear, clean front elements. And like any other lens, minor scratches have little to no effect in most instances.

- The Elmar-M is a fine lens, typically indistinguishable in blind tests at similar apertures from most of the ones listed above. I think the often repeated comments about it lacking character or body are more related to pride of ownership of the color skopar.

 

[Erik van Straten]

My experience is very different from the list above:

Do you have much experience in making analog gelatine silver prints?

- the aspherical 50mm lenses are NOT too contrasty for B+W unless you prefer flat, muddy, low contrast final prints.

Did you make a lot of analog gelatine siver prints? Can you show us some?

- I actually enjoy using the collapsible lenses and love that they represent a bygone era in amazing lens design. But I understand it's a matter of personal preference not all share.

How many pictures like that did you make? Can we see them here on RFf?

- the Heliar collapsible is not "dead" and is certainly capable of very beautiful photos.

Does it? Can you show us some?

- the contrast of the Summicron V4 is only "much too high" if your preference is for dull, low contrast prints.

In fact, I really like beautifully drawn prints without clogged blacks and bleached lights. But if you want to call that "dull", then is this your problem. Still, I don't like clogged blacks and bleached lights.

- There are many Summicron Collapsible, Summar and Summitar available without scratched front lens.

I never see them.

I know this from personal experience because in just this past month I bought a collapsible Summicron from a forum member and a Summitar off eBay with clear, clean front elements. And like any other lens, minor scratches have little to no effect in most instances.

Lucky you.

- The Elmar-M is a fine lens, indistinguishable in blind tests at similar apertures from most of the ones listed above. I think the often repeated comments about it lacking character or body are more related to pride of ownership of the color skopar.

Do you think that or do you know that?

Erik.

 

[brusby]

In my 20s, I printed professionally all the b&w prints for several years from one of the leading architectural/commercial studios in this area. Everything from portraits, including official portraits of our State's Governor, to architectural stuff including the building of the Superdome, to commercial work, such as documenting Manheim Galleries collection of art and furniture, which included the largest collection of fine jade for sale outside of then Communist China. I also printed all the bw stuff that was regularly published in national magazines like Better Homes and Gardens and Architectural Digest, and used for many commercial publications like auction catalogs which were distributed world wide and where the prints had to meet certain standards.

We also often did large format negative development by inspection.

So, if you're looking to establish that I don't have experience or don't know what I'm talking about, you might want try another argument.

Do you have much experience in making analog gelatine silver prints?

Did you make a lot of analog gelatine siver prints? Can you show us some?

How many pictures like that did you make? Can we see them here on RFf?

Does it? Can you show us some?

In fact, I really like beautifully drawn prints without clogged blacks and bleached lights. But if you want to call that "dull", then is this your problem. Still, I don't like clogged blacks and bleached lights.

I never see them.

Lucky you.

Do you think that or do you know that?

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

In my 20s, I printed professionally

Is that long ago? I mean, did you try to make high quality b+w gelatine silver prints from negatives made with modern aspherical lenses? Most people who made gelatine prints thirty years ago do not know the extreme contrast coming out these modern lenses. That is why good old lenses are pricey.

Erik.

 

[brusby]

Is that long ago? I mean, did you try to make high quality b+w gelatine silver prints from negatives made with modern aspherical lenses?

Erik.

It was in the film era, before digital, when everything we did was analog.

There's nothing that unique about gelatine silver prints. There are plenty of examples of full range, less muddy or midrange centric printing.

I'm sure there are many fans for your way of printing. I just prefer something different.

 

[brusby]

I Most people who made gelatine prints thirty years ago do not know the extreme contrast coming out these modern lenses. That is why good old lenses are pricey.

Erik.

We typically used a Hasselblad SWC for architectural work when a view camera was impractical. It had a beautiful and very contrasty lens. Not too far removed from most current designs.

But with most stuff, some dodging and burning is required to maintain detail in shadows and highlights. If you depend on a low contrast lens to do that work for you, you often end up with a dull, low contrast print.

In my view, better to get a lens with good contrast to set the global contrast of the image, then dodge and burn where needed to make things look natural and as they appear to the human eye.

It's more work and takes a bit more skill, but the results, if done right, usually result in images with more impact and without the blocked up highlights and loss of shadow detail you describe.

 

[Erik van Straten]

There's nothing that unique about gelatine silver prints.

Personally I make gelatine silver prints since 1966, when I was twelve years old. But everything was different then.

Gelatine silver prints - split grade prints - are now easier made with a lower contrast lens like the Color Skopar 50mm than with a super contrast lens like the Summicron 50mm f2 v4. There is no burning and dodging needed with split grade printing. It is more like duotone in offset. In fact you make two prints on the same paper, a very soft one and a very hard one in two exposures, with different filters.

Erik.

This is a split grade print from a negative made with a Leica I and an uncoated Elmar 50mm f/3.5 from 1928.

 

[brusby]

Yes, I'm familiar with that. I can't quite understand some people's aversion to dodging and burning. After all, we're both trying to achieve the same end -- shadow and highlight detail with a full range of tones in between. That's at least part of what you're trying to get with your split process.

The benefit of dodging and burning -- which btw is the preferred method of everyone from Ansel Adams to most professional printers I know -- is you have much more precise control than you do with the split printing you describe.

I'm not trying to be critical of you or your methods, but you posted your opinions, many of which I disagree with and I don't know any other way to describe our difference in approach than to discuss them frankly. I just have a different concept of what a good final print is based upon years of having to produce professionally acceptable ones.

I fully understand there can be drastically different standards for commercial work versus art. So, I don't suggest you adopt my preferences. Just discussing them here.

And regarding gelatin silver or any other process. I want to be in control of the medium -- not have the medium control me. So if gelatin silver was incapable of giving me the kind of final results I envisioned, I'd consider using a different process, or at least modifying things so it did, if possible. But that's just me.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Yes, I'm familiar with that. I can't quite understand some people's aversion to dodging and burning.

That is easy to understand, because it cannot be repeated. Split grade printing can exactly be repeated. However, you can perform as much dodging and burning you like when making split grade prints.

Split grade printing was invented in the 1950's by Pierre Gassmann, the founder of Picto - the famous lab in Paris - wich finally led to duotone printing.

Erik.

 

[brusby]

That is easy to understand, because it cannot be repeated. Split grade printing can exactly be repeated.

I'd have to take issue with that too. Just have to perfect technique. For example, I had to print 50 bw prints of the Govenor's portrait. They all had to match and there was more than a little dodging and burning required of each, plus had to compensate for aging/exhausting developer.

The trick to being able to repeat local adjustments like dodging and burning was to set the enlarger footswitch controlled timer to a small increment. For example, if the total print needed 60 seconds exposure, I might set the timer to 10 seconds or whatever amount the most common dodging or burning needed. Hit the footswitch 6 times for the total exposure. Dodge and burn in those increments. With two black L shaped pieces of cardboard I could make a hole for burning of almost any size. For dodging I'd use one of a number of paddles of various sizes which could be fashioned from black tape or cardboard on a piece of coat hanger or even my hand.

Results can be remarkably consistent with practice. It's actually the accepted norm in pro printing and done all the time.

p.s., there's actually a failed example of burning I posted yesterday in the bw post in this group. It's a print I rejected cause it was my first test print and the burning I used for a bit of vignette was too coarse looking. I backed that off in later prints which were given to my friend. But that's an example of simple burning for vignetting that was commonly used at the time for artist headshots.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I'd have to take issue with that too. Just have to perfect technique. For example, I had to print 50 bw prints of the Govenor's portrait. They all had to match and there was more than a little dodging and burning required of each, plus had to compensate for aging/exhausting developer.

The trick to being able to repeat local adjustments like dodging and burning was to set the enlarger footswitch controlled timer to a small increment. For example, if the total print needed 60 seconds exposure, I might set the timer to 10 seconds or whatever amount the most common dodging or burning needed. Then with two black L shaped pieces of cardboard I could make a hole for burning of almost any size. For dodging I'd use one of a number of paddles of various sizes which could be fashioned from black tape or cardboard on a piece of coat hanger or even my hand.

Results can be remarkably consistent with practice. It's actually the accepted norm in pro printing and done all the time.

Of course, this is part of the craft of the master printer. Professional color printers too have such sophisticated tools and skills, but how many true color printers are there left? Everything is now done via the computer.

But nothing beats a beautiful handmade gelatin silver print!

Very nice talking to you, brusby! Have a nice day.

Erik.

 

[brusby]

Nice talking to you too, Erik. I appreciate many of the lovely photos you take.

When I was in school the university library had some original prints by Ansel Adams. I used to spend much of my time there devouring all I could about photography cause it was all so new to me then. But I remember being awestruck by Adams original prints. I'd suggest to anyone interested in good print quality to try to view original prints from the old "masters" of that golden age. Reproductions in books and even on line just don't do them justice. There is a stunning realness and 3d quality to them in person.

I think I still recall the library call numbers for the Adam portfolio entitled What majestic word; in memory of Russell Varian: TR650 A2

Adams prints in that portfolio are gelatin silver.

here a link to the portfolio but display sizes are too small: https://www.loc.gov/item/64002325/

 

[Erik van Straten]

Thank you, brusby, I surely will take a look!


Erik.

 

[Andy Kibber]

I, for one, like the direction this thread took! Experienced printers discussing their respective techniques and approach.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I, for one, like the direction this thread took! Experienced printers discussing their respective techniques and approach.

Thank you Andy!

A point that brusby and I did not discuss, is the price of the paper. For the method that brusby used, quite a lot of test strips are needed to determine the exposure time. For split grade printing test strips are only needed for finding out the exposure time of the lightest and the darkest parts of the print. This systematic approach is not possible when a lot of burning and dodging is used. Then you'll have to make several complete prints so in the end you can choose wich one you like best. The test strips used for split grade printing can be quite small.

The price of high quality photographic paper is very high at this moment, EUR 120 for a box of 100 sheets Ilford MGFB 18cm x 24cm. The Adox MCC 110 was better and cheaper, but is not available at this moment.

Erik.