Vintage Glass for the M240

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The characteristics you list exist in earlier lenses, and a good thing is they are relatively inexpensive compared to later designs, so feel free to experiment.

 

My hugely biased opinion largely due to my experience going back to 1965 favor the 35m, Summilux version 2 (version 1 is strictly a collectors' item with the same optics as the 2). The 50mm Summitar is another favorite, but finding the right version is a challenge. I can elaborate if you wish. I'm keeping the list short. Can add more.

.

[joshs]

The characteristics you list exist in earlier lenses, and a good thing is they are relatively inexpensive compared to later designs, so feel free to experiment.

 

My hugely biased opinion largely due to my experience going back to 1965 favor the 35m, Summilux version 2 (version 1 is strictly a collectors' item with the same optics as the 2). The 50mm Summitar is another favorite, but finding the right version is a challenge. I can elaborate if you wish. I'm keeping the list short. Can add more.

.

keep going ! i'm loving it...

 

right now I'm thinking:

35mm pre asph

50mm sumarit (bought)

50mm  pre-asph (for more straight forward stuff)

40mm sumicron

90mm summicron

 

yea?

[Advertisement]

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

[pico]

I would drop the 40mm from your list. It's no better than the 50mm, and does not quite frame properly.

 

The 50mm Sumarit is a mystery to me so I cannot comment. A few frequent posters here like it very much. My wife's very old Leica has that lens but it has been destroyed by cleaning, or not cleaning. I dunno.

 

I can find an image to demonstrate.

Very best of luck in your quest - it is a great trip.

 

Edit: This is the only image I have of me red-head Irish mate taken with her father's ancient Leica with its Summarit.  I am at fault for not having the original frame. The dog is only a year old in that pic. He grew to a tremendous size.

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by pico

[michaelwj]

I second dropping the 40, why not just crop the 35 by the smallest amount?

[willeica]

Hey Guys -- I just bought an M240 and currently have no glass for it. Getting opinions on lenses is tough because its so subjective -- to be clear, I don't like the look of digital. I shoot 80 percent film. The reason I bought an M was because its the first digital camera I've seen that actually looks filmic and it intrigued me.

I like swirly, weird bokeh patterns. I like extreme shallow depth of field. I like funk and texture. Oh, and i LOVE flare. And want beautiful flares.

 

So what do I buy for a 35 and a 50 and maybe a 40 ?

 

I'm not opposed to the more expensive, new summilux stuff. I'm just not sure its even what I want. What would you guys recommend ?  Summicron ? Cannon 1.2 ? ??

 

The King of Swirly Bokeh is the Summar. I have done an online article about the Summar (I have 8 of them, including a rare rigid example) and its bokeh, with examples shot on the M240 and M8, which should be appearing on next Monday. I will post a link here as well as on the collectors' forum when it is up online.

 

William

[Ecar]

awesome. super helpful. ill have to look up what you mean about the 35 pre-asph...

in general, with my tastes is there ANY good reason to get the aspherical versions ?

In a nutshell, no.

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

keep going ! i'm loving it...

 

right now I'm thinking:

35mm pre asph

50mm sumarit (bought)

50mm  pre-asph (for more straight forward stuff)

40mm sumicron

90mm summicron

 

yea?

Josh,

 

With the lens recipe you set in your opening post, my advice in don't forget the Sonnars because there are many that produce very shallow depth of field and all have the Sonnar signature of very smooth de-focussed areas that are sometimes swirly.

 

I have a 1947 Carl Zeiss Jena 50/2 Sonnar that produces lovely 'olde worlde' low contrast, glowy pictures and a 1940-something Zeiss 50/1.5 Opton Sonnar that has a different but very attractive look to its pictures and a (current) Zeiss 50/1.5 ZM C-Sonnar that's designed to produce pictures with a classic, which are higher contrast than the other two but still comparatively low by aspherical standards and has very pleasing bokeh.

 

If you're determined to get a 40 mm lens then keep a Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar HFT in mind, which are small light, inexpensive, with the classic Sonnar signature and in Leica Thread Mount.

 

If you'd like to see what Sonnar pictures look like then have a leisurely browse through The View Through Older Glass thread or search on "Sonnar" Flickr.

 

Pete.

[joshs]

Josh,

 

With the lens recipe you set in your opening post, my advice in don't forget the Sonnars because there are many that produce very shallow depth of field and all have the Sonnar signature of very smooth de-focussed areas that are sometimes swirly.

 

I have a 1947 Carl Zeiss Jena 50/2 Sonnar that produces lovely 'olde worlde' low contrast, glowy pictures and a 1940-something Zeiss 50/1.5 Opton Sonnar that has a different but very attractive look to its pictures and a (current) Zeiss 50/1.5 ZM C-Sonnar that's designed to produce pictures with a classic, which are higher contrast than the other two but still comparatively low by aspherical standards and has very pleasing bokeh.

 

If you're determined to get a 40 mm lens then keep a Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar HFT in mind, which are small light, inexpensive, with the classic Sonnar signature and in Leica Thread Mount.

 

If you'd like to see what Sonnar pictures look like then have a leisurely browse through The View Through Older Glass thread or search on "Sonnar" Flickr.

 

Pete.

thank you will definitely check these out. would the be comparable to the sumarit I've just bought ?

[farnz]

thank you will definitely check these out. would the be comparable to the sumarit I've just bought ?

 

Hmm, not really because the computations are vastly different.  The Summarit is a Double-Gauss design but the Sonnar is, well, a Sonnar design so both produce quite distinct images since the light travels through differently-grouped elements in differing configurations.  I haven't owned a 50/1.5 Summarit so I'm not in a position to talk intelligently about it other than to say it was a coated successor to the (Schneider) Xenon lens adopted by Leitz and was itself succeeded by the first Summilux.  The Summarit is a very capable lens with a good pedigree but (understandably) the glass formulae and manufacturing techniques of the day struggle tokeep up with later ones.

 

The pictures I've seen from the Summarit are fairly low contrast, which might be owing to the Summarit's tendency for gather haze over the years as the Canada Balsam element adhesive gradually breaks down or marks on the front element.   (If you've found one without haze then you've done well because they're notoriously difficult to clear the haze from without damaging the delicate elements.  The front element coating is also very soft so cleaning marks and scratches are very common, which tend to produce veiling flare and reduce overall contrast.)  The pictures contain good detail and resolution although the transition from dark to light in micro-contrast areas is very gradual, which some (incorrectly imo) interpret as a lack of bite.  This is in contrast to the Sonnar whose micro-contrast transitions are more robust, which helps to provide stronger contrast (if that's something that appeals).  The Sonnar's out of focus areas are more pleasing to me, which is to a degree owing to the shape of the aperture blades that produce a perfect circle and the way that the light travels through the lens elements.

 

Pete.

[willeica]

I mentioned above my article on the Summar which is now published online, link is below. I have ended up with an 'accidental collection' of Summars as I seemed to get one with almost every camera that I collected. In recent times I have started to buy them separately, including a rigid example. In the article I show some examples of the bokeh from this lens when used on a digital M. The bokeh varies according to the f stop used and subject matter, but it is always interesting. There are some examples in the article. I really like the output from Summar, a lens which has an unjustified bad reputation in some quarters.

 

http://macfilos.com/photo/2016/12/1/leitz-summar-review-the-last-rose-of-summar

 

William

[DBAUDUI1]

Hello,

 

Please try also the summaron 28 f5.6 (or its new release, the summaron-M 28mm f5.6). Two top lenses with a lot of character.

 

Try also the summaron 35 f2.8 or the summicron 35 f2 with 8 lenses. Also the summicron 50 F2 with 7 lenses. All of them are really top lenses with very high resolution, perfectly corrected astigmatism and colour correction and the old look of the years 1960ties!

 

Best regards.

Dominique

[Beena22]

Have you considered something like the Jupiter 3 for some old school swirly bokeh and soft glowiness? Can be a crap shoot to find a decent one but they are inexpensive and produce some nice results. The Jupiter 8 lenses are ridiculously cheap and worth a punt for a few quid.

 

Sent from my SGP611 using Tapatalk