intermediatic Posted September 5, 2013 Share #1 Posted September 5, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) My beloved Cosina Voigtländer 75mm f/1.8 Heliar Classic is going away for a while to be repaired at CV. In the meantime, although I have a beer can 70-200mm Leica R, I really need a small telephoto lens to tide me over. I can't haul that with me every day. I own an M 240 and found the R mount to easy enough to deal with (I bought a $40 Pro Optic mount from Adorama… it fits well enough… if the Leica has advantages, I will buy it, if not, this is fine). I could use another R lens, an M mount lens, or really anything under the sun that doesn't require an expensive adapter. Since this is to tide me over, I don't want to spend much money. Think inexpensive! I do love the CV 75 because it opens up so wide. I probably don't want to go shorter. I certainly don't want to get into the pricey Leica glass. It can render beautifully but I don't always need that. The CV 75, for example, was truly first rate. It'd be lovely to get a mid-range between 75 and 110 that I would want to keep later on. I'm thinking something from eBay. Yesterday's tech, not today's. $300 would be perfect. Any thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Hi intermediatic, Take a look here Can you help me find an inexpensive mid-range tele for a 240?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted September 6, 2013 Share #2 Posted September 6, 2013 M-Rokkor 90/4. Excerpt of Modern Photography attached. Very good results on the M240. M-Rokkor 90mm F4 with Caps Filter Case | eBay M-Rokkor 90mm F4 | Sunrise-Camera.com http://tinyurl.com/lklg9t4 http://tinyurl.com/l5guksx Rokkor_9040_review_810600.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted September 6, 2013 Share #3 Posted September 6, 2013 What about the 70-210 R zoom? Decent pricing right now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted September 6, 2013 Share #4 Posted September 6, 2013 I've been quite pleased with the 90 Elmar C I picked up for under $300. Better than expected - may be overlooked as a CL lens, but is especially nice in closer ranges. Small and nice handling. Filters can be a problem. I also have the CV 75 2.5 and the Elmar C has similar handling. How about the CV APO 90 3.5? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted September 6, 2013 Share #5 Posted September 6, 2013 What about the CV 75mm f/2.5 Heliar? According to Sean Reid it is s good as a 75mm Summarit and is one of CVs best lenses. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
intermediatic Posted September 6, 2013 Author Share #6 Posted September 6, 2013 Thanks, all! M-Rokkor 90/4. Interesting! I'm not enamored of such a slow aperture but still very interesting … Could be the winner. 70-210 R I misspoke. I have the 70-210. So I have it. It's a BIG lens though. 1 pound 10 ounces. 90 Elmar Again, a slow lens, but given my budget maybe I can't expect more? Seems pretty nice. I could get a half-decent LTM Leitz for under $200. Not so bad. Maybe that's the one? CV APO 90 3.5 Very interesting! Maybe the one for me. Nice too. CV 75mm f/2.5 Heliar I'm finding that even if I've got a slightly better lens, the faster lens in an aperture is the one that stays on the camera. Again, thanks all! And keep the suggestions coming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted September 6, 2013 Share #7 Posted September 6, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) 70-210 R I misspoke. I have the 70-210. So I have it. It's a BIG lens though. 1 pound 10 ounces. Again, thanks all! And keep the suggestions coming. Yes, but all you need is a cheap M to R adapter like $40 and it gives endless possibilities from 70 all the way up to 210. You can use 75 or 80 and 90 and then 135 and 180. Those 5 lenses would weigh way more than this one weighs. Plus with a zoom you change lenses less frequently thereby keeping the sensor cleaner in the long run. I will be getting a coded M-R adapter from China soon and will let you know if it is any good and how it works with your lens. This could be the least expensive alternative for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 6, 2013 Share #8 Posted September 6, 2013 I thought the OP wanted a small 300$ telephoto. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 6, 2013 Share #9 Posted September 6, 2013 90 Elmar Again, a slow lens, but given my budget maybe I can't expect more? Seems pretty nice. I could get a half-decent LTM Leitz for under $200. Not so bad. Maybe that's the one? Get the LTM or an M version of the 90/4. Given that this will be a 'stop-gap' lens, it seems sensible to (a) not spend too much on it and ( buy a lens which offers something different to your Voigtlander. You MUST buy a good example, avoid haze and cleaning marks, and you will find it gives a lovely rendering. It makes a great portrait lens, and it's about as small and light as a telephoto you can find. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted September 6, 2013 Share #10 Posted September 6, 2013 It'd be lovely to get a mid-range between 75 and 110 mm that I would want to keep later on. [...] Any thoughts? So what do you actually want? A mid-range tele, or a lens between 75 and 110 mm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfhrased Posted September 6, 2013 Share #11 Posted September 6, 2013 I have a copy of the M-Rokkor 90/4. I never use it (I tend to use 35/40/50/75), and I paid very little for it if you're interested. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! best shot I've taken with it - back when I had the M8.2. I have the 40/2 as well, but it would be hard to convince me to part with that one Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! best shot I've taken with it - back when I had the M8.2. I have the 40/2 as well, but it would be hard to convince me to part with that one ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/212227-can-you-help-me-find-an-inexpensive-mid-range-tele-for-a-240/?do=findComment&comment=2414528'>More sharing options...
algrove Posted September 6, 2013 Share #12 Posted September 6, 2013 I thought the OP wanted a small 300$ telephoto. True, but it sounded like he forgot he had the 70-210 and only $40 would get him an adapter for it. He can still keep thinking/shopping for the lens he wants, but at least this option gives him endless tele possibilities for the moment and maybe a chance to determine precisely which tele mm he could use best when eventually getting his small one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 6, 2013 Share #13 Posted September 6, 2013 ...it sounded like he forgot he had the 70-210 and only $40 would get him an adapter for it... I thought he bought an adapter for this lens but i may be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted September 6, 2013 Share #14 Posted September 6, 2013 ... It'd be lovely to get a mid-range between 75 and 110 that I would want to keep later on. ...? What about a Carl Zeiss Jena 85/2 Sonnar? They're usually found in Contax RF mount so an adaptor would be required for use on the M but they're also available in LTM mount. Or the Russian Jupiter J9 copy of the CZJ 85/2 although Russian lenses are notorious for their sample variation but they can be found very cheaply. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dentamax Posted September 6, 2013 Share #15 Posted September 6, 2013 If weight is not a problem, and if you use an EVF for tele work, have a look at the Nikkor P 105mm f2.5, it can be had for well under $300, including an screw mount to M adapter; it has horrible focus shift (at least my copy has) but the EVF solves the problem very well with focus peaking, and you may find the rendering different enough to your CV 75mm that it may be worth keeping. Cheers from DownUnder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
intermediatic Posted September 9, 2013 Author Share #16 Posted September 9, 2013 Yes, I do have the $40 adapter. Yes, I have that tele. Yes, I want an inexpensive mid-range tele. As I understand it, mid-range tele is between 75 and 110 or so. Perhaps we differ on our terminology. Yes, under $300. Funny thing and maybe this will help eliminate some possibilities. I LOVED my Contax G2 and until the M240 did not feel I had a camera that could beat it. I loved all its lenses although the 21 was too wide for me and … (the 28mm Biogon may still be my favorite lens) the 90 2.8 Sonnar … there was something about it that I didn't love. I never used it. Meanwhile the 75 CV I use all the time! Also I have a 70-200 Canon EOS L that I don't love. I suspect that while my beercan Leica/Minolta is nice, it may replace the Canon tele as a lens that is good to have but that isn't beloved. I suppose it's that the 75 opens wide and renders bokeh well for portraits. Hmm…*I'm thinking that yes, I'm a whore for fast glass. I never loved a 50mm as much as my CV f 1.4 either …*And I do have a Summarit 50, which maybe I should put up on eBay given how often I use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted September 9, 2013 Share #17 Posted September 9, 2013 As I understand it, mid-range tele is between 75 and 110 or so. Perhaps we differ on our terminology. Oh, I see. Well, 70 to 110 mm is short-range telephoto. Mid-range would be, say, 120 to 250 mm or thereabouts (for 35-mm format, that is). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted September 9, 2013 Share #18 Posted September 9, 2013 What about the CV 75mm f/2.5 Heliar? According to Sean Reid it is s good as a 75mm Summarit and is one of CVs best lenses. Steve I second the 75/2.5 Heliar - it is one of the surprise lenses for me - very lightweight and compact, so even a nice keeper when your faster 75 is coming back. It has a classic rendering, yet is sufficiently sharp. It also goes in line with it's exterior design, build quality and fit, finish and feel with the faster CV variant - it will feel very familiar. I like the nice build quality of the 75/2.5 with black paint on brass construction (surprising at it's relatively low weight - you hardly feel it in the bag as an extra lens). If you can find a 85/2 Sonnar, as Pete suggests, you are golden - the trick is to find them! Absolute killer lenses in the short tele range are the Nikkor 85/2 LTM (HEAVY brass build though but a wonderful and astonishingly detailed lens), the late, black Canon 85/1.8 LTM and of course the nice selection of 90/4 Elmar lenses, Leitz built over the years. My choice no. 1 among them would be the Canon 85mm - it is on par with the 75 Summilux in character as a portrait lens (but it tends not to be a "cheap" lens. Best bang for the buck is probably an old 9cm Elmar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted September 9, 2013 Share #19 Posted September 9, 2013 I agree with what Dirk has said but I notice now that you said you were looking for a small telephoto lens that you can take with you every day in which case the light, collapsible 90/4 Macro-Elmar is worthy of consideration. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted September 10, 2013 Share #20 Posted September 10, 2013 Lens rental.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.