IIIF lenses?

[romanus53]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 33 Minuten schrieb willeica:

 

I was talking about the modern L mount giants, Alfonso, and not classics like the Summarex. The point I was making was that I don’t like the tendency towards giant lenses produced to get slightly more perfection to facilitate barstool bragging or, worse still, pixel peeping. One only has to look at the perfection of the I  Model A to realize what Barnack had in mind. He was far seeing in that respect as most of the world now uses a smartphone that fits in a pocket for photography. That may be heresy here, but it is indisputable. What would Oskar use for photography if he were alive today?

William

 

 

 

perhaps https://www.dpreview.com/news/4813927750/iphone-case-for-leica-lovers otherwise a Leica I or Standard with digital sensor inside would be cool

[Advertisement]

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

[willeica]

2 minutes ago, romanus53 said:

perhaps https://www.dpreview.com/news/4813927750/iphone-case-for-leica-lovers otherwise a Leica I or Standard with digital sensor inside would be cool

I have that. I bought it on a whim some years ago, but never used it. I would prefer using one of my original I Model As to using one with a digital sensor inside. If Oskar were alive today he would either use a smartphone or something like a CL with a small lens so that it would fit in a pocket. I suspect that he would love the ability of a smartphone to send images to the furthest corners of the world instantly which is one of the main reasons why it has conquered 'conventional' small cameras. I suspect that Leica Fotos would infuriate him, just as it has infuriated a lot of Leica users.

William

[wlaidlaw]

On 2/27/2019 at 8:03 AM, jaapv said:

But they don't match the classic aura of the camera. If not the Elmar Luigi proposes, I would go for a Canon 50/1.8 LTM. It was the better lens at the time.

I would agree about the Canon 50/1.8. The earlier all chrome "Hiroshi" versions seem to be somewhat less prone to rear element fogging than the later black barrel models but this needs to be checked carefully for either version before buying or get a return agreement in the even of fogging being discovered. The coating on these lenses is much more robust than the Leica "drip" coating of the period. I think the one I have is at least the equal of my rigid Summicron I and maybe even a touch sharper in the centre. The other regular lens I like is the f2.8 version of the 50 Elmar. Nearly one extra stop is worth having over the f3.5 Elmar. My current favourite LTM lenses are the 35/2.8 Summaron and the 50/1.4 Summilux III-SE but neither of these fit into the good value category. 

Wilson

[ChrisGlasow]

Hi I'm new to this also, strangely none of you have mentioned the Summicron 5cm f/2. Is there a reason for this, is it not considered a good lens? I'd welcome your advice. Thanks, Chris

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!

[Anbaric]

The collapsible Summicron is considered to be a very good lens. They can be harder to find in nice condition than some of the other options, as the front element is a quite soft and easily scratched, and they tend to be a bit on the expensive side by LTM standards, but if you have a good one you are all set.

[ChrisGlasow]

Thanks Anbaric, that's most reasuring, I have done the 'torch test' and thankfully the lens is in excellent condition.

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is a good idea also with an old lens to shine an Ultra Violet LED torch through it. Fungus which can be close to invisible with regular light, can fluoresce with UV light. The fungus will then cause flare in regular photography. I use one of the cheap torches used for detecting fake bank notes. 

Wilson

[jimofnyc]

I am surprised no one has mentioned this lens: the collapsable Elmar f/2,8.  I inherited this one on my Dad's IIIf - a converted IIIc.  It's a fine performer with an outer ring of clip stop adjustable aperture settings.  I believe it is in the correct time period too.

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!

[UliWer]

vor 30 Minuten schrieb jimofnyc:

I believe it is in the correct time period too.

Not really - as the Elmar with 1:2.8 was introduced in 1956 when only some last batches of the IIIf were made.  The front part of the lens is too large so it covers too much of the viewfinder of the IIIf. The screwmount version of the 1:2.8 Elmar was meant for the IIIg. 

[wlaidlaw]

My late 1950's 2.8 50 Elmar is in M mount and is sitting on my M4. This is the second one I have had. I had back in 2007, one of the last 2.8 Elmars made, a factory coded lens, which must have been made just before it went out of production. It was a disgrace. The barrel was so loose it could drop out under gravity and even when so called locked in extended position, the front of the lens could be wiggled up and down. There were no perceptible detents on the aperture ring. Obviously the first owner did not like it either and must have sold it on within weeks of buying it. It should really have gone back to Leica for a total rebuild. I also sold it on after a few weeks via a dealer to become someone else's problem. I showed him the problems and he said don't worry, all the late Elmars are like that. My late 1950's lens is the complete opposite. It is beautifully made and the barrel extends and retracts like a close fitting hydraulic piston and is completely rigid when locked. The detents on the aperture ring are as definite and "clicky" as the day they were made. It is also a good performer and I would say not far off my later 1999 Summicron V Special Edition (LTM mount). 

Wilson

[willeica]

On 12/8/2023 at 3:21 AM, ChrisGlasow said:

Hi I'm new to this also, strangely none of you have mentioned the Summicron 5cm f/2. Is there a reason for this, is it not considered a good lens? I'd welcome your advice. Thanks, Chris

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!

I use one of these on a IIf Red Dial and it is superb. It actually came to me on a IIIg, but I much prefer the IIf, in fact I prefer the IIf RD to the two IIIf RDs which I have. I also have a an f2.8 Elmar in LTM, but I much prefer the Summicron.  There are a lot of taste and handling factors at work here.

William 

[wlaidlaw]

39 minutes ago, willeica said:

I use one of these on a IIf Red Dial and it is superb. It actually came to me on a IIIg, but I much prefer the IIf, in fact I prefer the IIf RD to the two IIIf RDs which I have. I also have a an f2.8 Elmar in LTM, but I much prefer the Summicron.  There are a lot of taste and handling factors at work here.

William 

I actually prefer my IIIg to my IIf because the viewfinder is so much brighter but the Barnack I use most is my IIIa, as it has a MOOLY clockwork motor drive on it, which means I don't have to grit my teeth to wind on with my arthritic fingers. I currently am using it with a very late 1960 35/2.8 Summaron on it with an SBLOO bright line finder, which is a whole different world to the somewhat dingy VF on the IIIa. I have been looking out for a chrome MOOLY-C at a price that does not require a second mortgage but the prices just keep going up. My IIIg can be modified to use a MOOLY-C but I could use it on my IIIc red blinds Stepper as is. 

Wilson

[willeica]

4 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

I actually prefer my IIIg to my IIf because the viewfinder is so much brighter but the Barnack I use most is my IIIa, as it has a MOOLY clockwork motor drive on it, which means I don't have to grit my teeth to wind on with my arthritic fingers. I currently am using it with a very late 1960 35/2.8 Summaron on it with an SBLOO bright line finder, which is a whole different world to the somewhat dingy VF on the IIIa. I have been looking out for a chrome MOOLY-C at a price that does not require a second mortgage but the prices just keep going up. My IIIg can be modified to use a MOOLY-C but I could use it on my IIIc red blinds Stepper as is. 

Wilson

I prefer cameras with no self timer or slow speed dial under my right hand, as I use neither of those features, but, as I said, it is down to taste and handling factors. I have a IIIg, but, while the viewfinder is brighter, it has never really appealed to me as a user camera. The 35mm f 2.8 Summaron is superb and so also is the SBLOO viewfinder. I have the prewar-size MOOLY, but it is only for display purposes. It makes for a very heavy camera, but I can understand which you use it. I have a Leicavit SYOOM for postwar-size cameras. I use it on a IIIc/IIIf BD camera, just like the one shown by the OP. It is from 1949 with a conversion done in 1954.

William 

[jc_braconi]

4 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

I actually prefer my IIIg to my IIf because the viewfinder is so much brighter but the Barnack I use most is my IIIa, as it has a MOOLY clockwork motor drive on it, which means I don't have to grit my teeth to wind on with my arthritic fingers. I currently am using it with a very late 1960 35/2.8 Summaron on it with an SBLOO bright line finder, which is a whole different world to the somewhat dingy VF on the IIIa. I have been looking out for a chrome MOOLY-C at a price that does not require a second mortgage but the prices just keep going up. My IIIg can be modified to use a MOOLY-C but I could use it on my IIIc red blinds Stepper as is. 

Wilson

The III g have a lot of improvement comparing to the II, IIIf but it is relatively heavy in comparison and for that I prefer to use the last ones

[nitroplait]

That IIIg finder is only a practical improvement if one uses the 90mm framelines on a regular basis IMO.

For 50mm the finder doesn’t offer much added eye relief compared to a IIf/ IIIf, but adds permanent bulk. A IIIf with a SBOOI offers the flexible choice of an extraordinay 1:1 finder - or a low profile camera when that is called for.

Easier film loading, combined viewfinder & rangefinder, unified shutter (non lifting) speed selector. Any one of these improvements would have made the IIIg a significantly improved camera over the IIIf.

The simultaneous release of the superior M3 just makes the IIIg look more historically out of place and like a missed opportunity.

With that said; when exercising my LTM 90mm’s, my IIIg is my go-to body.

Who’s using Barnack Leica’s for rational reasons these days, anyway? 😉

[TomB_tx]

3 hours ago, nitroplait said:

With that said; when exercising my LTM 90mm’s, my IIIg is my go-to body.

Before SLRs became so popular with their advantages for longer lenses, the 90 was a popular lens for rangefinder cameras, and was actually the first Leica lens I bought with my first Leica instead of a 50. Notice that the M3 finder could also handle 90 & 135, but nothing wider than 50, as they thought that was what the market wanted. The IIIg was slightly modified to add a 90 frame as a valid selling point, while also adapting it for built-in 35 would have required more drastic changes. Also note the success of the M3 showed that users would buy a larger Leica if the improvements were worthwhile, so the slight increase in size of the IIIf was worth a try. That said, I still prefer the size and feel of the IIIf, but appreciate the improvements in the IIIg.

[StephenH]

4 hours ago, nitroplait said:

That IIIg finder is only a practical improvement if one uses the 90mm framelines on a regular basis IMO.

For 50mm the finder doesn’t offer much added eye relief compared to a IIf/ IIIf, but adds permanent bulk. A IIIf with a SBOOI offers the flexible choice of an extraordinay 1:1 finder - or a low profile camera when that is called for.

Easier film loading, combined viewfinder & rangefinder, unified shutter (non lifting) speed selector. Any one of these improvements would have made the IIIg a significantly improved camera over the IIIf.

The simultaneous release of the superior M3 just makes the IIIg look more historically out of place and like a missed opportunity.

With that said; when exercising my LTM 90mm’s, my IIIg is my go-to body.

Who’s using Barnack Leica’s for rational reasons these days, anyway? 😉

I, too, believed that when I bought my IIIf i did so for irrational reasons.  However, I soon discovered that with the magnified (albeit separate) rangefinder, focusing was much easier and positive for me.  I enjoy using it for that as well as it's small size.  

[wlaidlaw]

I find the IIIg viewfinder noticeably brighter than my IIf and yes, my IIf has had a CLA, even though it did not really deserve it, probably only have had 10 or fewer rolls of film through it in its life. I have had it since 1968, when I lent my father my M4 in exchange for his IIf (bought in Brooklyn in 1953), as he just could not get on with the side by side RF/VF of the IIf, having been a IIIa user, with split RF/VF for the previous 27 years. The IIIa was stolen when my parents car was broken into in Madrid. He was devastated to lose that IIIa, as it had been presented to him by the Polish diaspora in 1940, for his help in resettling them in the north of Scotland, with housing and jobs and was engraved to that effect. I did not use the IIf much as I soon bought a second hand SS 1966 M3, which I still have.  In memory of my father, I have bought a IIIa with a MOOLY just like he used, which was a one owner camera, bought new from Wallace Heaton in 1937 and I acquired it from the late owner's daughter. I sometimes use this with one of my Summar lenses but really I would like to find a coated Summar like the one my father used. 

Sadly just a few months after borrowing my M4, my father had a severe stroke and could no longer manage a manual focus camera as he had lost the use of his left arm. The M4 then disappeared for the next 40 years, until my uncle and I met when were both on holiday in South Africa in 2007. He saw me using my M8 and said: "Do you know I have one of your father's cameras and if you come over to see me when we are back in the UK, I will show it to you." I went and visited him in Farnham and when I saw the camera exclaimed: "OMG it's my missing M4" and verified by checking the serial number, which shows it is one of very earliest production M4's, 1175047, the 47th production M4, bought on the day of UK release of the M4 in July 1967 as my 21st birthday present. Much embarrassment from my uncle who said he had been given it by my mother, some time after my father's stroke, as she had no interest at all in photography and my father could not use it. He had hardly used it and just left it in his attic. It still had the 1937 Summar lens on it, which my father bought to use on the M4 (with an LTM to M ring), as that was his favourite lens and what he had always used on his IIIa.  I assumed my mother had taken it to a jumble sale like she did with my father's as new, Bulls-eye Contarex. 

Wilson

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by wlaidlaw

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jc_braconi]

Wilson,

I appreciated the story (as I like to read biography) but did you get the M4 back after all ?

[wlaidlaw]

Yes I was given the M4 back with grovelling apologies from my uncle, who was a lovely person. He said if he had only known it was mine, he would have got it straight back to me after his elder brother died some 40 years ago. I told my uncle not to worry as it was not his fault at all. I have to admit I don't use it that much, preferring my M7 due to built in metering and Motor M, thus sparing my graunchy right thumb from using the lever wind. I also have an M4-P with one of the huge M4-2 Motor Winders but that is a bit of a handful. 

Wilson