39mm filters for collapsible lens

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, nefarious said:

Just to add; there is only one 12549 on eBay at $100 plus postage and taxes - seems a lot when the filter, which actually includes some glass, was about a quarter of that!

They were expensive when I bought my 12549, 2 years ago. I assume supply and demand equation. The annoying thing is that I included the 12549 when I sold my 2007 nasty sloppy Elmar, for nothing, albeit it was a black one and I wanted a chrome one to go with my older and very well made Elmar-M 2.8. As I posted above, in contrast to the Chinese ventilated hoods, the original metal lens cap fits over the 12549. You can sort of push the cap which is designed to go over the reversed hood into the front of a 12585 hood but they tend to either stick in there, so you have to remove the hood to pop the cap out or they drop out of their own accord, usually when you are not looking. 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

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

[Pyrogallol]

These are the traditional Leitz hoods:

from left to right 12585, IROOA, ITDOO and ITOOY on the lens, this is the hood specifically for the 50mm f2.8 Elmar.

(Nikon S, Vith handbook and 200mm f4.5 Telyt in the background)

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 March 19, 2020 by Pyrogallol

[Pyrogallol]

If you can get one the ITOOY reverses over the lens and has a cap to go on the reversed hood.

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!

 

[nefarious]

49 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

These are the traditional Leitz hoods:

from left to right 12585, IROOA, ITDOO and ITOOY on the lens, this is the hood specifically for the 50mm f2.8 Elmar.

(Nikon S, Vith handbook and 200mm f4.5 Telyt in the background)

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!

Great info - thank you so much!

My GAS is driving me inexorably towards a 35mm lens too - probably a Summaron or Elmar (though there is a gorgeous looking Schneider Kreuznach on eBay that is tempting me).  Would any of the above hoods work with one of these 35mm lenses or would I need yet another?? (I already have a VIOOH finder, hence I wouldn't go wider than a 35)

[Pyrogallol]

The first three in the picture of four will all cover 35mm lenses with E39 front as well, only the ITOOY does not, but if you are looking at an earlier screw fit 35mm Elmar or f3.5 Summaron with the smaller A36 front you will need a different lenshood, the FOOKH 

if you like trawling through e bay look at the pictures and watch for something that has not been described very well. I got a 12585 hood for £5 last year, that is the easiest to find, the others are older and more for collectors than everyday use. The 12585 or 12585H is more durable and you will be less worried about damaging it. I don’t know what the difference is between 12585 and 12585H, cannot see any ?

See picture of two FOOKH.

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 March 19, 2020 by Pyrogallol

[Pyrogallol]

If you are looking at the Schneider Xenogon, which I had one of until last year, you might also like the Nikon version. It takes the same size clamp on hoods and filters as the Leica A36 Elmar/Summaron.

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 March 19, 2020 by Pyrogallol

[nefarious]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

If you are looking at the Schneider Xenogon, which I had one of until last year, you might also like the Nikon version. It takes the same size clamp on hoods and filters as the Leica A36 Elmar/Summaron.

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!

thanks - any views between the Summaron 3.5 and the Elmar 3.5??

[wlaidlaw]

I don't know about the f3.5 version of the Summaron but I have the 2.8 version in LTM. It was not cheap, as it was a near mint version in its perspex case from Leicashop and I did somewhat question the wisdom of buying it before I had tried it out. I mostly leave it on my IIIg using an SBLOO bright line finder. I did some comparative shots on my M240 of the Summaron against a recent 35 ASPH Summicron. Other than slightly more vignetting on the Summaron, it was close to impossible to say which photo was taken with which lens. I was very surprised just how good the Summaron was. It was one of the last LTM designs other than the 1999 Special Editions, which were really just M lenses of the same period,  with a different mount.

If you are considering an LTM 2.8 Summaron, be careful you don't pick up an unscrewed spectacles lens, which also has an M39 x 26 mounting thread. These do not focus correctly, as they expect the spectacles to be in front of the RF windows. The easy way to tell is that the spectacles lenses have a focus scale to 0.7m whereas the true LTM lenses have a focus scale to 1m. The spectacles lenses, meant for use on an M3, fetch considerably less than the true and rarer LTM versions, hence why some unscrupulous sellers try to pass one off as the other. 

Wilson

[a.noctilux]

Wilson, nice warning for new Summaron 2.8/35 buyer.

I just add that the best "indication" of unspectacled screw mount Summaron is the marking at the end of focussing scale "0.65" (maybe warning in red 2'2" just above meter scale)

 

 

[Jul]

To add to what Wilson and Arnaud wrote, if you intend to use the 35mm with a SBLOO or any other external finder on a rangefinderless body like a "Ic", "If", … and an accessory rangefinder (FOKOS, …) it does not matter whether the LTM 2.8 Summaron comes from an unscrewed lens for the M3 or  M2 or is an original LTM as the focus marks on the scale are correct in any case and that is what you would use. If you intend to use it on a body with built-in rangefinder as well, sticking to Wilson's and Arnaud's advice is the sensible choice.

[wlaidlaw]

50 minutes ago, Jul said:

To add to what Wilson and Arnaud wrote, if you intend to use the 35mm with a SBLOO or any other external finder on a rangefinderless body like a "Ic", "If", … and an accessory rangefinder (FOKOS, …) it does not matter whether the LTM 2.8 Summaron comes from an unscrewed lens for the M3 or  M2 or is an original LTM as the focus marks on the scale are correct in any case and that is what you would use. If you intend to use it on a body with built-in rangefinder as well, sticking to Wilson's and Arnaud's advice is the sensible choice.

That assumes of course, that scale focus is correct or near enough. The LTM and M lenses are generally fairly accurate on scale focus. The R lenses are often not accurate. I found this out when trying to use an 80-200/4 Vario Elmar on my M4, along with a Leica laser rangefinder. I am sure the rangefinder was quite accurate but the scale was not. When I had it rebuilt by Will van Manen, I asked him to look at this but on its return, it still focuses beyond infinity, when showing infinity on the scale. A lot of the longer R lenses (e.g. my 500-MR and 280 APO Telyt seem to be like this, so I wonder if it was a deliberate feature or maybe just anticipating "Toy Story". 

Wilson

[Ko.Fe.]

21 hours ago, nefarious said:

So I've acquired an orange filter and I've been playing! Now, if I may, I'd like some advice re hoods. Looking at the post above, are there any other specific codes I should be searching for on eBay etc??

I never got anything good or special with orange filter on modern films.  Modern bw films works best with clear filters. From what I have seen after taking, developing, printing from thousands of negatives. 

With protective filter you only need hood if lens flares. Does yours?

[Pyrogallol]

58 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

I never got anything good or special with orange filter on modern films.  Modern bw films works best with clear filters. From what I have seen after taking, developing, printing from thousands of negatives. 

With protective filter you only need hood if lens flares. Does yours?

I prefer to use an orange rather than yellow. Remember that for landscape pictures it is used to give contrast to the sky by darkening the blues to bring out the contrast between white clouds and blue sky. If the sky is overcast grey it won’t help as there is no blue to darken. The relative tones of any other reds and blues will also be affected more by an orange or red filter than by a lighter yellow or green.

all this of course only applies to normal panchromatic black and white film.

[wlaidlaw]

1 hour ago, Ko.Fe. said:

I never got anything good or special with orange filter on modern films.  Modern bw films works best with clear filters. From what I have seen after taking, developing, printing from thousands of negatives. 

With protective filter you only need hood if lens flares. Does yours?

I would agree that orange filters generally produce overly blocky results on modern higher contrast B&W films. However in the often grey flat light of the higher latitudes wintertime, a yellow filter is still a useful tool for B&W. This especially applies when using older lower contrast non-coated lenses. With non coated lenses, a hood never does any harm and basically I use hoods 95% of the time with all lenses, from 90 year old to 1 year old. When I am travelling and often taking photos in the less favourable high sun angle midday light, I often have a polarising filter mounted. The only times I never use a filter, is indoors or in artificial light, where the risk of flare or filter artefacts is high. I used to use multiple square filters, such as the Cokin 75 and Lee 100 systems quite a bit with variable density, tinting and multi EV stoppers. I came to the conclusion that these produced hackneyed looking photos and those square filters are rarely now taken out of their drawer. 

Wilson

[Ko.Fe.]

13 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

I would agree that orange filters generally produce overly blocky results on modern higher contrast B&W films. However in the often grey flat light of the higher latitudes wintertime, a yellow filter is still a useful tool for B&W. This especially applies when using older lower contrast non-coated lenses. With non coated lenses, a hood never does any harm and basically I use hoods 95% of the time with all lenses, from 90 year old to 1 year old. When I am travelling and often taking photos in the less favourable high sun angle midday light, I often have a polarising filter mounted. The only times I never use a filter, is indoors or in artificial light, where the risk of flare or filter artefacts is high. I used to use multiple square filters, such as the Cokin 75 and Lee 100 systems quite a bit with variable density, tinting and multi EV stoppers. I came to the conclusion that these produced hackneyed looking photos and those square filters are rarely now taken out of their drawer. 

Wilson

Agree on yellow with old lenses. Maybe older than 50 2.8 even in LTM. :). 

[nefarious]

17 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

I never got anything good or special with orange filter on modern films.  Modern bw films works best with clear filters. From what I have seen after taking, developing, printing from thousands of negatives. 

With protective filter you only need hood if lens flares. Does yours?

Ok - will be interested to see what I get!  As for flare, I can happily shoot into the low sun on my MF cameras without a hood but I got quite a lot of flare on my first rolls with the Elmar 50.  I've managed to pick up an ITOOY for £30 from eBay, which didn't seem too bad

[nefarious]

16 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

I would agree that orange filters generally produce overly blocky results on modern higher contrast B&W films. However in the often grey flat light of the higher latitudes wintertime, a yellow filter is still a useful tool for B&W. This especially applies when using older lower contrast non-coated lenses. With non coated lenses, a hood never does any harm and basically I use hoods 95% of the time with all lenses, from 90 year old to 1 year old. When I am travelling and often taking photos in the less favourable high sun angle midday light, I often have a polarising filter mounted. The only times I never use a filter, is indoors or in artificial light, where the risk of flare or filter artefacts is high. I used to use multiple square filters, such as the Cokin 75 and Lee 100 systems quite a bit with variable density, tinting and multi EV stoppers. I came to the conclusion that these produced hackneyed looking photos and those square filters are rarely now taken out of their drawer. 

Wilson

I keep the square Cokin filters for my Hasselblad, though I haven't used them as much as I thought I would yet...

[nefarious]

On 3/19/2020 at 10:31 AM, wlaidlaw said:

I don't know about the f3.5 version of the Summaron but I have the 2.8 version in LTM. It was not cheap, as it was a near mint version in its perspex case from Leicashop and I did somewhat question the wisdom of buying it before I had tried it out. I mostly leave it on my IIIg using an SBLOO bright line finder. I did some comparative shots on my M240 of the Summaron against a recent 35 ASPH Summicron. Other than slightly more vignetting on the Summaron, it was close to impossible to say which photo was taken with which lens. I was very surprised just how good the Summaron was. It was one of the last LTM designs other than the 1999 Special Editions, which were really just M lenses of the same period,  with a different mount.

If you are considering an LTM 2.8 Summaron, be careful you don't pick up an unscrewed spectacles lens, which also has an M39 x 26 mounting thread. These do not focus correctly, as they expect the spectacles to be in front of the RF windows. The easy way to tell is that the spectacles lenses have a focus scale to 0.7m whereas the true LTM lenses have a focus scale to 1m. The spectacles lenses, meant for use on an M3, fetch considerably less than the true and rarer LTM versions, hence why some unscrupulous sellers try to pass one off as the other. 

Wilson

Ideally, I was hoping not to need to spend the sort of sums required for a 2.8.  In a way, it would be nice to just get really familiar with the 50 first but I do take a lot of pictures of buildings and it's often challenging to get far enough back with a 50, hence the desire for a 35.  I am also loving the fact that the iiif fits in a coat pocket (all my other cameras are medium format)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wlaidlaw]

The Canon 35/2.8 LTM lens has a very good reputation and if my 50/1.8 LTM Serenar is anything to go by, excellent optics as well (at least as good, if not slightly better than my contemporaneous rigid Summicron). The earlier all chrome version is smaller than the later black barrel ones. The later lenses also have something of a reputation for fogging of the rear element, which is in the glass and not usually cleanable. Apparently the earlier all chrome lenses used a different glass which does not suffer this problem. I would still get an agreement with the seller that a lens can be returned if there is any fogging present if buying any Canon LTM lens, given that these are all over 60 years old. The Canon 35/2.8 fetches around a third of the cost of a 2.8/35 Summaron. Unlike the Russians lenses, Canon LTM lenses focus correctly on Leica bodies. The other upside compared with Leica lenses, is that the Canon coating is far more robust than the soft "drip" coating that Leica used up to the early 1960's. 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

Canon also did f1.8 and f1.4 versions of their 35mm LTM  lens. I am told the 1.4 version is a bit soft at larger apertures but the 1.8 has a good reputation. The 1.4 tends to be expensive also. 

Wilson