LTM users, its time to stand up and be counted!

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One thing to check on your LTM Summicron 90/2 is whether it is a "real" LTM lens or one of the early Summicron M lenses with the LTM to M adapter (glued on by the factory) removed. The value is substantially different, as I believe that there were only 500 genuine LTM 90 Summicrons made (all in 1957) against quite a lot of Summicron-M Mk1's with the adapter. I forget now how to tell the difference, maybe something to do with the red mounting dot but our resident historical guru, Mr. Braconi of the post above, will I am sure, be able to give us the correct information. From memory, the early Summicron 90's are pretty large and heavy and you may find on the small IIIF body, is a bit unbalanced. A good performer for its day and a huge improvement on the 85/1.5 Summarex but don't expect it to compare with the stunning abilities of the later M fit 90mm lenses, in particular the 90 Elmarit-M and ASPH Summicron.

 

Wilson

Yes, the "LTM-with-factory-M-adapter" do have the red dot (see http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/159183-summicron-m-2-90mm-ii-1963-a-2.html) . The figure of 500 for the "genuine" Summicron90 LTM is widely reported (made not only in 1957 - 1957 was probably the year of the very first SOOZI), but I have the suspicion it's lower than reality... after all, they appear regularly for sale, and even in this forum... (me tto have one); in comparision, seems to me that LTM Summilux 50 (also around 500 reported) looks scarcer....

[gyoung]

As far as balance is concerned, if you have a heavy lens its better if its big enough to hold the kit by the lens, in effect the body is mounted on the lens, the early 90/2 certainly seems to come into this category.

It's a bigger problem, in terms of ease of avoiding camera shake, if the lens is small and heavy.

 

Gerry

[wlaidlaw]

How is the Nikkor 50/3.5 collapsible lens LTM (not the micro-nikkor or the rigid)? Is it better than the Elmar 50/3.5?

 

Thanks!

 

If I was in the market for a collapsible 50mm lens, I would be very tempted to go for the nickel plated 50/3.5 LTM Voigtlander Heliar - it looks a lovely little lens. Word of warning however - I would only now buy a Voigtlander from a reputable dealer and not via eBay or an internet dealer. It may be that I have been unlucky and from other people's satisfaction with CV lenses, I suspect I have. I have yet to buy a decent CV lens or one that did not need major adjustment. 3 bought and 3 failures (21mm Skopar, 35 Skopar and 35 Nokton). If you buy from a reputable dealer and get a duff one, he will change it for you or give you a refund.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

Yes, the "LTM-with-factory-M-adapter" do have the red dot (see http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/159183-summicron-m-2-90mm-ii-1963-a-2.html) . The figure of 500 for the "genuine" Summicron90 LTM is widely reported (made not only in 1957 - 1957 was probably the year of the very first SOOZI), but I have the suspicion it's lower than reality... after all, they appear regularly for sale, and even in this forum... (me tto have one); in comparision, seems to me that LTM Summilux 50 (also around 500 reported) looks scarcer....

 

Luigi,

 

Maybe the reported respective values as an LTM and LM lens are due to the desirability on each of the respective bodies. The 90/2 Version 1 Summicron is close to the best period LTM 90mm lens available for an LTM body. Conversely, the same lens is close to the poorest Leica 90mm lens on an M body, due to the development of lens technology from an art allied to manual computation into a science with super computers running the optical calculations and solving for optimum result.

 

I know I am always amazed just how poor my 1960's 400 and particularly the 560 Telyt's are. Probably worse than the cheapest Vivitar or Tokina 400mm nowadays and 3 times the size and weight.

 

Wilson

[philipus]

If I was in the market for a collapsible 50mm lens, I would be very tempted to go for the nickel plated 50/3.5 LTM Voigtlander Heliar - it looks a lovely little lens.

 

How does the Heliar compare to the Elmar in terms of image quality?

[luigi bertolotti]

 

I know I am always amazed just how poor my 1960's 400 and particularly the 560 Telyt's are. Probably worse than the cheapest Vivitar or Tokina 400mm nowadays and 3 times the size and weight.

 

Wilson

 

Indeed... even if a biased Leitz lover... I must admit that long f 5,6 Telyts are nothing to be enthusiast about... and the 6,8 versions have lower weight as only plus... the 2nd version of 400 f5 is better... in the only (short) period of my life in which I used a SLR (Yashica, 33 years ago, for 6-7 months) I got for cheap an almost "no name" 400 (brand was "Admiral") that, judging from prints of the era, ia not so worse than a 2 elements Telyt...

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How does the Heliar compare to the Elmar in terms of image quality?

 

I think that CV quality varies more than Leica (or one would certainly hope so) and the Elmar is one of the lenses that Leica have had a lot of practice on. So probably a good CV Heliar will be as least as good as an Elmar but there is a greater risk of an indifferent or even poor Heliar, hence my comment about only buying from a dealer who will exchange or refund. The Heliar is certainly a more modern design. I am not sure of the dates of recalculation of the Elmar in its 3.5 and 2.8 guises but I don't think they were recalculated that often, so are probably quite old designs. The 2.8 in particular can suffer from a loose aperture ring, with virtually undetectable detents (mine did). At least if you buy a Heliar, you would know that there is no fungus. I note that on eBay UK there is a 2.8 LTM Elmar, with declared fungus on sale for £199. You would have to factor in a minimum of £75 for a rebuild and probably more, as my guess is that the coatings will have been damaged. You are then talking about £200 -£250 rebuild cost, which comes up to about the same cost as a new Heliar. You pays your money and takes your choice (or risk). My personal view would be to go for either the Heliar or a better 2.8 Elmar rather than the 3.5. I don't particularly like the aperture adjustment on the front like on my 1948 version.

 

Wilson

[jc_braconi]

One thing to check on your LTM Summicron 90/2 is whether it is a "real" LTM lens or one of the early Summicron M lenses with the LTM to M adapter (glued on by the factory) removed. The value is substantially different, as I believe that there were only 500 genuine LTM 90 Summicrons made (all in 1957) against quite a lot of Summicron-M Mk1's with the adapter. I forget now how to tell the difference, maybe something to do with the red mounting dot but our resident historical guru, Mr. Braconi of the post above, will I am sure, be able to give us the correct information. From memory, the early Summicron 90's are pretty large and heavy and you may find on the small IIIF body, is a bit unbalanced. A good performer for its day and a huge improvement on the 85/1.5 Summarex but don't expect it to compare with the stunning abilities of the later M fit 90mm lenses, in particular the 90 Elmarit-M and ASPH Summicron.

 

Wilson

Wilson,

we will see when a pict of the lens will be available

But for sure about the genuine screw mount : the red dot is one reference but also the hood (removable or telescopic) and the serial number.

Edited November 16, 2011 by jc_braconi

[abusa14]

Has anybody used the collapsible Nikkor 50/3.5 LTM? Thanks.

[wlaidlaw]

This Nikkor 50/3.5 lens is rather a specialist animal. It is called a micro lens and was originally designed for taking micro photographs or for micro filming. It is supposed to have optics based on the Schneider 50 /2.8 Xenotar but I am dubious about this. This is in an 75mm version, a less than wonderful lens in Rolleiflex use, so why base a lens needing very high resolution, on it. Nikkor already had manufacturing rights to the much superior Zeiss Planar and Sonnar designs and had improved on them by recomputing these designs, so the Xenotar really does not make sense. Supposedly they recomputed the Sonnar using 100 ladies with abacuses but that may be an urban legend.

 

Anyway I am not sure how good the Nikkor 50/3.5 would be as an everyday lens. Given that it was designed as a special purpose lens, that may have compromised its performance in general use. The Nikkor 50/1.5 and 50/1.4 LTM lenses are wonderful and until the version 2 50mm Summilux came out in the early 60's, almost certainly the best fast 50mm lenses available. Zeiss were apparently not very happy that their original design had been improved upon.

 

Wilson

Edited November 16, 2011 by wlaidlaw

[pico]

One thing to check on your LTM Summicron 90/2 is whether it is a "real" LTM lens or one of the early Summicron M lenses with the LTM to M adapter (glued on by the factory) removed. [...]

 

!!!! I never knew !!!! I would have never guessed. Very helpful information! Thank you.

.

[hektor]

The Nikkor 50/1.5 and 50/1.4 LTM lenses are wonderful and until the version 2 50mm Summilux came out in the early 60's, almost certainly the best fast 50mm lenses available. Wilson

 

Dear Wilson, I have read that before, and we know the DDD started the enthusiasm for the Nikkor 50/1.4. However based on the above I bought a mint f/1.4, and after having it cleaned, collimated and checked for centering etc., compared it with my similarly treated 5cm Summarit. As you know there are tests and there are tests, but for my purposes and shooting both Rollei Ortho 25 and transparency film, the Nikkor showed greater contrast wide open and at the centre of the field, but was no where near as good as the Summarit in the field. Having said that, I have found that most of the older lenses vary from example to example. I bought five first series Tele-Elmarits until I found the best of them. Similarly with other lenses. A friend of mine bought a Luftwaffe Elmar f = 5cm 1:3.5 and is almost as obsessive about testing as Erwin Puts. The example made for the Luftwaffe was noticeably better in every way from all others of his and mine. It would seem as though the equipment made for the military was to a higher standard; a practice which continues today in the supply to the armed forces. Enough for now. Have fun.

Edited November 17, 2011 by hektor

[abusa14]

This Nikkor 50/3.5 lens is rather a specialist animal. It is called a micro lens and was originally designed for taking micro photographs or for micro filming. It is supposed to have optics based on the Schneider 50 /2.8 Xenotar but I am dubious about this. This is in an 75mm version, a less than wonderful lens in Rolleiflex use, so why base a lens needing very high resolution, on it. Nikkor already had manufacturing rights to the much superior Zeiss Planar and Sonnar designs and had improved on them by recomputing these designs, so the Xenotar really does not make sense. Supposedly they recomputed the Sonnar using 100 ladies with abacuses but that may be an urban legend.

 

Anyway I am not sure how good the Nikkor 50/3.5 would be as an everyday lens. Given that it was designed as a special purpose lens, that may have compromised its performance in general use. The Nikkor 50/1.5 and 50/1.4 LTM lenses are wonderful and until the version 2 50mm Summilux came out in the early 60's, almost certainly the best fast 50mm lenses available. Zeiss were apparently not very happy that their original design had been improved upon.

 

Wilson

 

Hi Wilson,

 

I was referring to Nikkor 50/3.5 which was Made in Occupied Japan not the Micro-Nikoor 50/3.5. I do understand that was a special lens. I found info about the Micro-Nikkor 50/3.5 and the Rigid Version of the 50/3.5 (non Micro).

 

The 50/3.5 Nikkor was one of the original lens options for the early 1950's Nicca cameras. I haven't found anybody commenting on its performance. I was wondering it it performs vs the Leica 50/2 or the 50/3.5.

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

AB

[wlaidlaw]

Hektor,

 

That is very interesting to hear about the Nikkor 50/1.4 and 1.5. I regularly use a 50mm/f1.5 Opton Sonnar on my M9 with an Amadeo Muscelli focusing adapter. It is certainly much better than my version of the Summitar, which I had always understood was supposed to be better than the Summarit. The Sonnar is sharper at f1.5 than the Summitar is at f2 and much constrastier all the way through the range. If my Leica books are correct, the Summarit was pretty much a coated version of the pre-war Xenon (a Schneider design), with very little in the way of re-computation.

 

Whereas I am a big fan of Schneider's large format lenses and their developing lenses, I have never thought a great deal of their miniature and medium format stuff. The 75/2.8 I had on my previous Rolleiflex was softish, low on contrast and suffered badly from veiling flare, in comparison to the 75/3.5 Zeiss Planar I have on my current Rolleiflex, which is excellent. I spent quite a bit on having the Xenotar rebuilt with absolutely no detectable improvement at all - money thrown away.

 

I have seen comparative test shots of charts with the Nikkor 1.4 and Opton-Sonnar 1.5 and at the test distance (maybe around 2 to 3 metres), the Nikkor was noticeably better but as you day, sample variation on these older lenses can put the results of these sort of tests in doubt. The problem is that the Nikkor lenses don't focus properly on a Contax body due to different thread pitches on the helix, so it would not be a lens of interest to me in bayonet fit. If I were to buy an LTM one to use on my Leica bodies, it would really be doubling up on the Opton Sonnar I already have, which is good enough for my purposes.

 

Wilson

[Keith (M)]

A fascinating thread and I am now in a position to "stand up and be counted."

 

This morning my first venture into the world of LTM arrived from Red Dot. An absolute delight to behold! Yesterday I downloaded a .pdf copy of the original manual plus a copy of the film-leader template, so hopefully will be putting a film through the IIIg very shortly.

Question - what is the purpose of the small peg screwed into the lens mounting flange adjacent to the 7m distance mark? Is this just something to grip against when fitting/removing the lens?

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!

[bill]

Keith, congratulations! It looks a beauty

 

A couple of things - trimming the leader by hand is easy, just make sure you don't cut through a sprocket hole. If someone else is doing the developing for you, twll them the leader has been trimmed - I had one place not do it because the film was "obviously damaged by the camera"

 

I *think* that the little post is there to act as a "stop" so that you don't overstress the focussing helical, but I am happy to stand corrected.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[greyelm]

A fascinating thread and I am now in a position to "stand up and be counted."

 

This morning my first venture into the world of LTM arrived from Red Dot. An absolute delight to behold! Yesterday I downloaded a .pdf copy of the original manual plus a copy of the film-leader template, so hopefully will be putting a film through the IIIg very shortly.

Question - what is the purpose of the small peg screwed into the lens mounting flange adjacent to the 7m distance mark? Is this just something to grip against when fitting/removing the lens?

 

It is the close focus stop and prevents the lens barrel from screwing all the way out.

 

Nice camera.

[Keith (M)]

It is the close focus stop and prevents the lens barrel from screwing all the way out.

 

Nice camera.

 

So it is - I can see that now! Thanks for the information.

[earleygallery]

Very nice lllg. If you haven't shot with the 5cm Elmar before you're in for a real surprise (a good one!).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Keith (M)]

Very nice lllg. If you haven't shot with the 5cm Elmar before you're in for a real surprise (a good one!).

 

Thanks. I have just been out and about around our local lake putting the IIIg & Elmar through their paces. Later I'll put it on a tripod and test the slow shutter speeds (by ear they sound OK) and hope to develop the film tomorrow. Am certainly looking forward to making the comparison twixt the 1951 Elmar and modern day equivalents.