Fast telephoto lenses on the Leica.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1937 CZJ 8.5cm F2 Sonnar by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

1937 CZJ 8.5cm F2 Sonnar by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Rendering on the pre-war Carl Zeiss Jena 8.5cm F2 is gorgeous. It is 7 elements in 3 groups, same as the 5cm F1.5- just bigger.

 

The 8.5cm F2 Nikkor is 5 elements in 3 groups, "elements merged" using different glass.

 

I "indexed the Cam" on the Contax to M-Mount adapter to use the Contax mount pre-war lens. Works wide-open from close-up to infinity.

 

The Nikkor 8.5cm F1.5 is 7 elements in 3 groups, same block diagram as the pre-war 8.5cm F2 Sonnar. The Post-War 8.5cm F2 Zeiss Opton moved to the 5/3 formula.

 

As far as blown highlights, another advantage of shooting Raw with the M8 and using M8RAW2DNG. The sensor of the M8 has higher dynamic range than the M9. DNG-8 throws  away shadow detail. With RAW mode you can underexpose and push up to 5 stops in Post processing. Use a curve, retain the highlights. The amount of detail that can be pulled from the shadows is amazing.

How can the sensor of the M8 have a different DR from the one on the M9 when it is exactly the same sensor that only differs in size? The differences in the filter stack are not relevant for DR.

[farnz]

How can the sensor of the M8 have a different DR from the one on the M9 when it is exactly the same sensor that only differs in size? The differences in the filter stack are not relevant for DR.

Not wishing to put words into Dirk's mouth, Jaap, but I expect that Dirk's referring to being able to extract the full 14-bit raw file from the M8's sensor using M8RAW2DNG along with 'extended' (ie not compressed) dynamic range where it's not possible to do the same with the M9's raw files.

 

Pete.

[Advertisement]

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

[wlaidlaw]

It was quite curious to find out that the 85/1.5 is not just a "blown up" 85/2 Nikkor, which was just so successful when they introduced that lens together with the 50mm Nikkor rangefinder lenses.

For the 85/1.5 a different design was needed indeed to make it a high performance lens  (it is indeed optically the best of the contemporary 85mm super speed lenses with Leitz, Canon and Nikon offering 

I presume Nikkor had to find some more work for their 100+ ladies with Abacuses, after they recomputed the Zeiss 5cm f1.5 Sonnar, which they were making under licence, to the Nikkor 5cm f1.4 or maybe they were "time sharing" - mornings the 5cm, afternoons the 8.5cm. 

 

Wilson

[menos I M6]

Not wishing to put words into Dirk's mouth, Jaap, but I expect that Dirk's referring to being able to extract the full 14-bit raw file from the M8's sensor using M8RAW2DNG along with 'extended' (ie not compressed) dynamic range where it's not possible to do the same with the M9's raw files.

 

Pete.

Well, it wasn't me who commented this ;-) but I think Brian refers to the full 14 bit files one can extract from the M8 after enabling the RAW file writing (opposed to the standard compressed DNG files) in the M8.

 

I am not knowledgable enough about the math behind but I am sure with Brian's background he did the science and knows …

 

I presume Nikkor had to find some more work for their 100+ ladies with Abacuses, after they recomputed the Zeiss 5cm f1.5 Sonnar, which they were making under licence, to the Nikkor 5cm f1.4 or maybe they were "time sharing" - mornings the 5cm, afternoons the 8.5cm. 

 

Wilson

 

;-)

 

Here is a good read about how the 85/1.5 became to be:

http://www.nikkor.com/story/0019/

 

I would not just dismiss the enormous effort Nippon Kogaku went through to produce an entire product range easily rivaling the then world leading manufacturers (hence the big success the company enjoyed since then).

 

It is not like Nippon Kogaku took one lens, copied it and sold it cheap, they did an unimaginable effort to dominate the market with their offerings.

[fiftyonepointsix]

How can the sensor of the M8 have a different DR from the one on the M9 when it is exactly the same sensor that only differs in size? The differences in the filter stack are not relevant for DR.

The KAF-18500 in the M9 is full-frame, and most likely the difference in Dynamic Range is from the Saturation Count dropping as a result of sensor thinning to accommodate larger off angle light.

 

KAF-10500 has a saturation count (60Ke-, from the KAF-10500 long sheet) that is almost 50% greater than the KAF-18500 sensor (42Ke-, KAF-18500 long sheet)  used in the M9, and the CMOSIS sensor in the M240 (which I read somewhere was ~40K). I was very surprised

 

DR for the KAF-18500 of the M9 is listed as 68.1dB. DR for the KAF-10500 of the M8 is listed as 71.5dB. Using Raw mode with the M8 allows much more shadow detail to be recovered, and the DR really stands out. I'm lucky to have a zero-defect KAF-10500 sensor in the M8, very late run. I use the M8 as much as the M9 and M Monochrom, always use M8RAW2DNG.

Edited September 24, 2015 by fiftyonepointsix

[dkCambridgeshire]

Bought a poor man's Summarex today c/w all its bits  … 

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

Canon 85/1.5 LTM lens c/w hood, caps and original cases. 

 

Black & Chrome Type 3 ; 1204 Type 3 units manufactured April 1953 - March 1960; total production Type 1, Type 2, Type  3 and Type 4  during period July 1952-June 1960 = 2198 units.

 

Thus more scarce than the Leitz 85/1.5 Summarex … 4342 manufactured 1943-1960. 

 

Lens elements are coated; after unscrewing and cleaning rear element group, optics are pristine. 

 

African lady model and one male forum member are lined up for some portraiture next week when plan to use the lens on the SL.

 

Best wishes

 

dunk 

Edited August 24, 2017 by dkCambridgeshire

[Ecar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nice find! Looks in great condition. Very hard to find one with all the accessories - the hood in particular.

Mine is optically beautiful, but I don't have the original hood.

Lovely "classic" rendering - ie, soft wide open, low contrast.

Only drawback: it weighs a ton. But that applies to all the telephotos of that era...

[wlaidlaw]

I got an LTM version Summarex 85/f1.5 earlier this year. I expected it to behave like a longer version of my 5cm/f1.5 Summarit. Very soft and low contrast wide open but with beautiful swirly OOF rendering. I was astonished, considering this complicated lens with huge lumps of glass in it, was designed in the days of hand cranked computation (maybe an electric NCR comptometer if they were lucky), just how good the Summarex is. The centre portion of the image is amazingly sharp and contrasty, even wide open. If you consider these lenses cost nearly $500 in the early 1950's, the price I paid for mine, at just over $1000 was quite reasonable. It actually balances better and focuses more easily on an M than an LTM camera. You do have to be quite careful about where the light is coming from, as it is very prone to getting veiling glare, if you get it wrong. 

 

Wilson

 

 

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!

[Ecar]

You do have to be quite careful about where the light is coming from, as it is very prone to getting veiling glare, if you get it wrong. 

 

Wilson

 

Indeed. You may want to try using it with a cheap screw-in 58mm hood. Rather ugly, but I have found it to be more effective on the Summarex than the (beautiful) original one. It doesn't vignette and leaves more of the VF uncluttered.

[Ecar]

And a quick size comparison of my 85/1.5 lenses.

From left to right: Nikkor, Canon and Summarex.

Apologies for the crappy iPhone snap.

The relatively smaller size of the Nikkor - combined with arguably *better* performance than the other two - indeed demonstrates Nikon's optical engineering prowess at the time.

 

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!

.

[dkCambridgeshire]

I got an LTM version Summarex 85/f1.5 earlier this year. I expected it to behave like a longer version of my 5cm/f1.5 Summarit. Very soft and low contrast wide open but with beautiful swirly OOF rendering. I was astonished, considering this complicated lens with huge lumps of glass in it, was designed in the days of hand cranked computation (maybe an electric NCR comptometer if they were lucky), just how good the Summarex is. The centre portion of the image is amazingly sharp and contrasty, even wide open. If you consider these lenses cost nearly $500 in the early 1950's, the price I paid for mine, at just over $1000 was quite reasonable. It actually balances better and focuses more easily on an M than an LTM camera. You do have to be quite careful about where the light is coming from, as it is very prone to getting veiling glare, if you get it wrong. 

 

Wilson

 

 

Looks as if Canon maybe 'improved on' the Leica Summarex hood design … Canon hood is a little deeper. Price I paid was nowhere near Summarex £$€. 

 

dunk 

Edited August 25, 2017 by dkCambridgeshire

[wlaidlaw]

Dunk,

 

I think my photo of the Summarex hood foreshortens it a bit.

 

I was a bit put off old Japanese lenses by an 85mm LTM Nikkor I bought from Japan earlier this year. It was supposedly in exc++ condition but when it arrived it looked as if it was last owned by Fungus the Bogeyman. The seller agreed to take it back but I had a fight to get the postage and customs processing charges back. I just received back my customs fee and VAT, five months later. I have sent HMG a bill for four months interest (at the same rate that HMRC charges for unpaid tax) and said if they don't pay it, I will happily take them to court.

 

Wilson

[dkCambridgeshire]

Good luck with the interest reimbursement Wilson. My Canon 85/1.5 was bought in a hurry without full examination; it was a case of 'buy it now' or lose it to someone else - and I suspected the hood alone was worth the negotiated price. On arriving home I was disappointed to discover concentric circular white tram lines inside the lens elements. After unscrewing the rear lens mount, the whole rear lens module unscrewed - revealing the front surface of the innermost element covered in concentric circles.  Whatever the cause, wiping the tram lines with a lens tissue dampened with 'ECLIPSE' optical cleaning fluid removed them - leaving the glass beautifully clear. Quite a relief to find that they lifted off easily; maybe 60 years worth of accumulated dust which had somehow been deposited and built up as circular trails. 

 

dunk 

Edited August 25, 2017 by dkCambridgeshire

[farnz]

... On arriving home I was disappointed to discover concentric circular white tram lines inside the lens elements. ...

They must have been tiny little trams to have fitted inside the lens.

 

Pete.

[pico]

I had the Canon 85mm f/1.5 LTM long ago because it was inexpensive. I bought it from a corner of a shop relegated to unpopular gear. Certainly, it was cranky to focus, and heavy. I could not appreciate its quality until I sold it. I almost cry remembering just how stupid I was. I'm no smarter today.

 

One picture of an early friend using the lens.

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by pico

[Guest JMF]

man on rooftops by JM__, on Flickr

 

85 1.8 canon on M9

 

Juveny by JM__, on Flickr

 

85 1.8 Canon on M8

 

test 125 Hektor 2.5 1953 by JM__, on Flickr

 

125 Hektor 2.5 on M9

[Guest JMF]

I got an LTM version Summarex 85/f1.5 earlier this year. I expected it to behave like a longer version of my 5cm/f1.5 Summarit. Very soft and low contrast wide open but with beautiful swirly OOF rendering. I was astonished, considering this complicated lens with huge lumps of glass in it, was designed in the days of hand cranked computation (maybe an electric NCR comptometer if they were lucky), just how good the Summarex is. The centre portion of the image is amazingly sharp and contrasty, even wide open. If you consider these lenses cost nearly $500 in the early 1950's, the price I paid for mine, at just over $1000 was quite reasonable. It actually balances better and focuses more easily on an M than an LTM camera. You do have to be quite careful about where the light is coming from, as it is very prone to getting veiling glare, if you get it wrong. 

 

Wilson

 

Wilson,

congrats on such a nice find, hope you can share some photos soon !

 

Best, Jean-Marc.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Bought a poor man's Summarex today c/w all its bits  … 

 

 

Canon-85_1-cases--rslf.jpg

 

 

Canon-85_1--rslf-2.jpg

 

 

Canon 85/1.5 LTM lens c/w hood, caps and original cases. 

 

Black & Chrome Type 3 ; 1204 Type 3 units manufactured April 1953 - March 1960; total production Type 1, Type 2, Type  3 and Type 4  during period July 1952-June 1960 = 2198 units.

 

Thus more scarce than the Leitz 85/1.5 Summarex … 4342 manufactured 1943-1960. 

 

Lens elements are coated; after unscrewing and cleaning rear element group, optics are pristine. 

 

African lady model and one male forum member are lined up for some portraiture next week when plan to use the lens on the SL.

 

Best wishes

 

dunk 

 

 

Couple of portraits taken with Leica SL and the Canon 85/1.5   https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253460-3rd-party-lens-performance-on-sl/?p=3347718

 

dunk 

[jaques]

i posted in this thread a few years ago- but seeing as we are talking canon telephoto again- I thought I'd chime back in and repeat how happy I am with my 100/2 Canon LTM lens. It's a superb lens- sharp even wide open.

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

Here is one taken today on M240 with 8.5cm/f1.5 Summarex at f1.5. Sadly it is of a bird which flew into one of my large picture windows. It does not seem to have broken its neck as it is moving but it is badly concussed. I am no ornithologist (Just about recognise an owl and a sparrow) so I don't know what sort of bird it is. For an old design, and wide open, this lens is surprisingly sharp and contrasty. 

 

Wilson

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!

Edited August 31, 2017 by wlaidlaw