Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
techpan

Most compact leica lens made...

Recommended Posts

I don't have the 50/2.8 but I agree with you when using the 90/4. More than once, I've been taking pictures after forgetting to extend it. Not great results...

 

I really wanted to like the 50/2.8 but when extended its not much shorter than a 50/2.0. And the 50 'cron is a whole stop faster too. I think if anyone wants a compact normal lens then the 40/2.0 is IT. Its close enough to 50mm and its just SO small. My only bain with the 40/2.0 is the focusing knob. and the build quality is not as high as the other lenses. Its not as easy to use as the tab on the 35/2.0 IV or the 50/2.0 tabbed. But heck you chuck that rubber collapsible hood on the 40/2.0C, drop the 5.5 series filter in and it is one COMPACT Unit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...35/1.4 Pre-ASPH. This is probably the fastest most compact lense that Leica ever made. 28mm in length and only 195g Black late series. Titanium versions weigh more. 7 series filter. This is probably the best for shooting. But not as flare resistent as the ASPH lux's and night time shooting of lights produces swirling type effects. This lens is a venerable Leitz/leica classic. Produced for close to 34 years with a couple of optical adjustments along the way. This should tell you how good this lens is before it was replaced by the Aspherics. Nothing can touch this lens for its combination of speed, compactness and light weight. Get a late serial number, just prior to the release of the 35/1.4 ASPHERICAL...

Agree for those who don't like the bokeh of the CV 40/1.4 which looks generally sharper otherwise. My rather late (1989) Pre-Lux 35 is not fond of high lights at full aperture (produces some coma, flare and CA then) but proves quite usable IMHO and results at f/1.4 don't look that soft contrary to what i've read here and there on the net. Remains softer than the late Pre-Lux 50 though. At f/2 and upwards the 35/1.4 reminds me of the 'cron 35/2 IV or 40/2 with reasonable sharpness and smooth bokeh.

(28/2.8A - 35/1.4 - 35/2 IV)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...My only bain with the 40/2.0 is the focusing knob. and the build quality is not as high as the other lenses...

I guess the focus knob is not a problem for those who're used to use the convex focus tabs of 'crons 35 and 50 of same period but i am like you i prefer concave ones personally. Now the 40/2 is so tiny that i wonder if we could use a concave tab confortably instead. Quality not as high as other lenses? Are you sure? I don't see significant differences personally but i may be wrong of course. It's just that i've been using my copies of the cron 40 for many years now and they look as solid as my other lenses, even more so than the 35/2 IV perhaps as the lens head of the latter tends to unscrew from the barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree for those who don't like the bokeh of the CV 40/1.4 which looks generally sharper otherwise. My rather late (1989) Pre-Lux 35 is not fond of high lights at full aperture (produces some coma, flare and CA then) but proves quite usable IMHO and results at f/1.4 don't look that soft contrary to what i've read here and there on the net. Remains softer than the late Pre-Lux 50 though. At f/2 and upwards the 35/1.4 reminds me of the 'cron 35/2 IV or 40/2 with reasonable sharpness and smooth bokeh.

(28/2.8A - 35/1.4 - 35/2 IV)

 

 

I checked out the CV 40/1.4 It's still not as compact and light as the 35/1.4 Pre or 40/2.0C, but its lighter than the 35/1.4 pre

 

CV 40/1.4 29.7 175g

35/1.4 pre 28mm 195g

40/2.0C 22mm 120g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the focus knob is not a problem for those who're used to use the convex focus tabs of 'crons 35 and 50 of same period but i am like you i prefer concave ones personally. Now the 40/2 is so tiny that i wonder if we could use a concave tab confortably instead. Quality not as high as other lenses? Are you sure? I don't see significant differences personally but i may be wrong of course. It's just that i've been using my copies of the cron 40 for many years now and they look as solid as my other lenses, even more so than the 35/2 IV perhaps as the lens head of the latter tends to unscrew from the barrel.

 

I guess what i meant was it isnt built to the same standard and finishing such as the black anodization seems like a lighter application as it wears quicker than the 35/2.0 IV, has only 5 mount screws vs 6, 6 lens elements vs 7 elements and its overall styling and design lacks a sense of refined ergonomics. I think a concave tab would have been fabulous with the 40/2.0. I wonder why they didn't use it. But youre right with respect to the 35/2.0 IV known for its 'loose head'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I guess what i meant was it isnt built to the same standard and finishing such as the black anodization seems like a lighter application as it wears quicker than the 35/2.0 IV, has only 5 mount screws vs 6, 6 lens elements vs 7 elements and its overall styling and design lacks a sense of refined ergonomics. I think a concave tab would have been fabulous with the 40/2.0. I wonder why they didn't use it...

I have used and i still own 3 copies of the 40/2 from 1972, 1973 and 1974.

The black anodization looks exactly the same as that of my M lenses and in 30+ years use it has not weared quicker at all. The painting quality looks exactly the same as well.

It was a 'cheaper' lens of course as it was sold with the Leica CL but otherwise, as a modest owner of 20+ Leica lenses, i can tell you that i don't see any significant difference in building and finishing quality.

About tabs there were two different ones with the 35/2 IV and the 'cron 50 in the seventies / eightees, a convex and a concave one as you know. The convex tab is less ergonomic than the knob of the 40/2 IMHO but it is a matter of tastes of course. Why did'nt Leica choose a concave one for the 40/2? Perhaps it would have been less confortable given the tiny size of the lens, i don't know but the knob of the 40/2 is OK for me.

In response to your previous post, 39mm rubber hoods may be used with the 35/2 IV but they block the viewfinder too much, at least mine (pic 1).

I do not remember if the # 12504 Leitz hood (pic 2) can be reversed on the 35/2 IV. I've lost mine in the last century unfortunately. Just ordered another one for my 35/1.4 so i'll check when i get it.

 

 

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/LeicaM_Hood_12504.jpg&key=2ce48ed8424bd7369fb7cf8a54a876b046922c8da4fd56732f0300a6e4272eb5">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 12504 hood will fit on a 35/2 IV, but not when reversed. Its such a slim hood to begin with that there's not much benefit reversing it to be anymore compact. Unlike the 50/1.4 pre lens hood 12521G/XOOIM and the 12586 for the 50/1.4 ASPH LHSA lens which are quite a bit longer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Sparkie but wasn't it a hoodcap for the 12504 as well? Is it made for the 35/1.4 only?

BTW one might also wish to try the 35/2 IV with the 40/2 rubber hood (pics).

Fine move if you don't use filters, otherwise you only save roughly one millimeter over the regular hood if you screw the 40/2 hood onto the filter.

Now my trick with the 40/2 should not be difficult to use with the 35/2 and another rubber ring i guess. See http://tinyurl.com/2cwtqs.

Also remember that the filter thread of the 40/2 rubber hood (0.75) is not the same as that of M lenses (0.5), so better refrain from screwing the hood too tight on the lens.

No problem in practice, i often use the 40/2 hood on my 50 'cron with no harm whatsoever.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats a good tip LCT

Problem is the 40/2.0 rubber hood is hard to come by. So you will have to swap it about and it can wear and tear only being rubber. It really is a great hood for ultimate travel compactness. Even with a filter attached to the 35/2.0 IV its still more compact when collapsed compared to the square hood made for the 35/2.0

 

The 12504 lens hood was never made with a hood cap. The lens did come with a lens cap (14268). And yes the 12504 hood was made specifically for the 2nd version of the 35/1.4 which takes the drop in series 7 filters [11870 black, 11860 titanium] after the 1st version (with OLLUX hood)

 

By the way the other compact lens is the: Nikkor 3.5/1.8 in leica screw mount. Put a bayonet M mount on it for use with an M8. Its about the same compactness as a 35/2.0 IV. But its quite a rare lens though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to the regular hood and hoodcap i save only one millimeter or so when i stack a filter, the 40/2 hood and its snap-on cap onto the 35/2.

Otherwise my 40/2 rubber hoods are still in good shape after 30 years. I seem to recall that Leica USA had still some new copies in stock some time ago but it might be 5 or 10 years ago

so i can't swear of it.

Then the 12504 is not reversible. Sorry to hear this. I felt that the 12585 hood could be reverted on the 35/1.4 if its focus tab were out so i hoped that a slim hood like the 12504 could do it. Oh well... Thanks anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the regular vented hood for 50 and 35mm lenses with 39mm filter thread. Here on a 'cron 50 # 11817.

 

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/LeicaM_5020_11817n_01.gif&key=2f031a9c773cdaec13ceaaa06b2a047eb2ea92d528f3e610dcd1e26e7d89d8c9">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoa, what anti-gravity device are you using?

 

... smart use of PS or similar...

for me the best original lems for M8 in the mix of compactness/quality/usefulness as focal/price is the Summicron 40 C: great lens, easy to find, cheap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

Cheers,

Sean

Would be great to see what you mean Sean. Would you mind to show the smooth(?) bokeh you get with the CV 35/2.5 when you have some time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M8 with Canon 3.5/25mm.

 

Doesn't get much more compact than this, without having to use a collapsible lens:

 

Best,

 

Jan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Elmarit-C 40/2.8 is even smaller but it is very rare.

There is one on eBay right now:

Leica M (CL) Lens 2,8/40mm Elmarit-C en vente sur eBay.fr (fin le 30-Sep-07 03:35:30 Paris)

 

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/LeicaCL_4028.JPG&key=2cd2d1daabe585034f52274e1025daec360724b9ffaf3a044ed78be0fe040f78">

 

 

I'm very sorry that I saw this thread - just did an impulse buy.

 

I'll post my reaction to it once it arrives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M8 with Canon 3.5/25mm.

 

Doesn't get much more compact than this, without having to use a collapsible lens:

 

Hektor 28/6.3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hektor 28/6.3?

 

Yes!

 

Or a Summaron 5.6/28mm and Elmar 3.5/35mm! As far as image quality is concerned however, the Canon 25mm will outperform all of the above. I am using it daily!

 

Best,

 

Jan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...