What is the cheapest Leica M mount lens out there?

[msg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all,

 

I recently bought a Leica M3 DS with a 50mm F2 Summmicron. I'm absolutely loving using this camera. I completely enjoy shooting with the 50mm and I like that I have to discipline myself and think more. However, I would love another lens. Since I don't want to take out a loan and I have very little cash, can anyone tell me what are the most inexpensive Leica lenses out there. Are there any???

 

Matthew

[john_newell]

New or used? Leica or 3rd party?

 

The Cosina / Voigtlander lenses sold by CameraQuest and others are in many cases very good. Mechancially and optically they are not Leica lenses but they are mostly great values.

 

Zeiss has a line of more expensive lenses that are, IIRC, made by Cosina and are optically and mechanically very close if not in some cases equal to Leica lenses. They are not cheap but they are less expensive than the Leica lenses.

 

Leica's "budget" line, the Summarits, are actually very reasonably priced and IME exceptional performers, but they are a little slower (f/2.5 in most cases).

 

There are generations of used Leica lenses on the markets, with prices varying according to all kinds of factors, such as rarity/collectability, image quality, condition, etc.

 

It's very hard to answer your question...with an M3, going below 50mm will require either a 35mm with bugeyes or an accessory finder. 75mm presents a similar issue.

 

You might consider something like the excellent C-V 90mm Apo-Lanthar to see how you feel about 90mm lenses. High performance, affordable cost, especially if you can find a good used copy.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[msg]

Thanks for your response John! Of course I would prefer to have a new Leica lens, but used and even off market would be ok. I am very interested in a 90mm. I have seen some older Elmar F4 M lenses on Ebay recently go for ridiculously low prices. Like around $100. What is wrong with those lenses? And how can you tell if a lens is a tri-element?

[andybarton]

Nothing wrong with an Elmar. Elmar-C lenses are great value (and worked prefectly on my M2)

 

If you want the best value Leica 35mm find a Summaron f2.8 and wonder why it didn't cost you a lot more money

[enboe]

For a pinhole body cap, that is. Don't laugh, it's a fun tool to try someday.

 

I second the vote for a 90/4. I picked one up for $100 in the M mount to match my M2.

 

You can also find a 135/4.5 for about $100.

 

CV lenses are great performers, and a good value.

 

Have fun!

 

Eric

[msg]

Thanks guys! Forgive my ignorance here (I'm a Leica newbie) but what does CV stand for?

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

CV = Cosina Voigtlander

[danmitch]

I think the 135 f4 Tele-Elmar is a great lens and well suited to the M3 - perhaps not as cheap as some of the others mentioned here, but you should get one in excellent condition for well under £200 - less for a "user".

[msg]

Daniel,

 

Thanks! Just did a little research on the 135mm Tele-Elmar. Very affordable. Pics I saw look sharp. That is more my price range.

 

Best,

Matthew

[danmitch]

Daniel,

 

Thanks! Just did a little research on the 135mm Tele-Elmar. Very affordable. Pics I saw look sharp. That is more my price range.

 

Best,

Matthew

 

Definately sharp - mine is around 45 years old - it was a long running lens, there is an example taken with my M3 on my Flickr site here. I think the price is relatively low as people are not keen on using it on anything with a shorter rangefinder base length than that of the M3 (understandably).

[john_newell]

The Tele-Elmar 135mm yields nothing IMO to any 135mm Leica ever made and is a bargain, the but f/4 Hektor delivers most of the goods for a fraction of the price....but I came back to mention 90s...

 

I think the suggestion of the Elmar-C, a modern lens that should focus well on regular Ms (it was made for the Leica CL) is brilliant. The image quality if top notch and prices are too low. (Full disclosure: I speak as a would-be seller.)

 

There is a page on the cameraquest.com website where Steven offers his subjective views of every Leica-mount lens ever made. Life is subjective and his opinion may not be the same as yours or mine, but it is worth reading. I will post a link later unless someone beats me to it.

[NZDavid]

I second the Hektor 135 as most affordable. You don't need a separate viewfinder on the M3. Google it on Ebay. You can have quite a lot of fun with landscapes, action, portraits -- and even experimental pictures close-ups of your garden!

 

Otherwise, ago wide. Either the 35 Summaron with eyes or you need a separate viewfinder (which isn;t really a hassle at all). I have the 35/2.8 eyes version but seldom use it since I got the 35/2 ASPH. Even a 28 with separate finder would be worth considering. More pricey, but a very useful focal length.

 

In fact, all Leica stuff is pricey -- but once you've got it, you wont regret it!

[Guest Austerby]

I'd have thought the very cheapest lens would be one of the Russian ones made with the Leica screw mount and with an M adaptor fitted. I'm no expert on these so someone else may be able to make specific recommendations - I gather the quality is variable but they're actually very capable lenses and have many admirers.

 

My least expensive Leica lens was a Tele-Elmar 135/4 which I picked up for less than £80 on an internet auction site - a definitive bargain for a terrific lens that I've used a lot more than I expected.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Austerby

[earleygallery]

The 9cm Elmar f4 is inexpensive and - if you find an optically clean example - a very useable lens. For the money definately worth a try. The Elmar C 90 f4 is a later lens made for the CL, they go for about £200, double the price of the older lens but still cheap in Leica terms.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[4X5B&W]

Another vote for the 135 Tele Elmar, all the performance most people need for a hand held telephoto, at a very reasonable price.

 

The optics are amazingly good, and it's a compact, easy to use lens.

[thomasw_]

Another vote for the 135 Tele Elmar, all the performance most people need for a hand held telephoto, at a very reasonable price.

 

The optics are amazingly good, and it's a compact, easy to use lens.

 

You must not be serious? The emphasis is mine Virtually any 135/4 is not compact and the Tele-Elmarit I owned was certainly not compact. Unless you want to split hairs and compare SLR lenses with RF lenses, then perhaps it can be compared favourably in this way. But outside of that apples/oranges comparison, the Tele-Elmarit 135/4 is a fine, slow-ish lens, though it is not compact in terms of other RF lenses.

 

But the larger question is why would you want a 135mm focal length lens anyway? Head shots, Mnts.? IMO as a new M3 user you'd find the 90mm focal length more functional as a RF lens. Perhaps try a different 50mm to find a different look? My 2 cents.

[4X5B&W]

Thomas, compact is a relative term, the 135 Tele Elmar is compact relative to the 135 Tele Elmarit, the same way a 75 Summicron is compact relative to a 75 Summilux.

 

Why the 135 Tele Elmar......it obviously isn't an everyday lens, but it does answer the question "What is the Cheapest Leica M lens....."

 

IMO, the Tele Elmar is excellent value for money......YMMV.

[tbarker13]

Love the 90 elmar-C, particularly if you are looking for small and inexpensive.

I'd also suggest the CV 75 heliar, but you wouldn't have the correct framelines for it on the M3.

[mhulbert]

I have an old, I think uncoated, 90/4 Elmar but I get a lot of flare with it. I don't have a shade, which you really need, but even in low light it is foggy. I fear it may need a good CLA, but frankly that would probably cost me as much as the lens. I just don't have much of a need for a 90 really.

 

I any event, caveat emptor re the optics on the 90/4 -- buy in person if pos and try it out before if at all possible.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[earleygallery]

I have an old, I think uncoated, 90/4 Elmar but I get a lot of flare with it. I don't have a shade, which you really need, but even in low light it is foggy. I fear it may need a good CLA, but frankly that would probably cost me as much as the lens. I just don't have much of a need for a 90 really.

 

I any event, caveat emptor re the optics on the 90/4 -- buy in person if pos and try it out before if at all possible.

 

I suspect you have a hazy or scratched lens. Coating helps of course but if clean - as with any of the vintage lenses - its still very useable. Here's another 90 f4 shot to illustrate;

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!