50mm M-Mount Lens Suggestions

[Huss]

I've owned 2 J-8 and 2 J-12. None focused correctly on my Leicas. Focused great on my Soviet cameras AND created very nice pics. Just did not work well with the Ms.

 

[gone]

I'd buy an old black Jupiter 8 50mm f2 lens for $50, and use it w/ an LTM to M adapter. That adapter can save you a lot of money over time when you buy FSU and LTM Leica lenses for much less than the price of comparable M mount lenses. Unless you really need photos so sharp you can cut yourself, those J-8's make surprisingly nice images. I like the later black ones because you won't have possible issues w/ dried lube on the focus threads, and they look great w/ a black slotted hood. For less than $100 you could get a J-8 lens, filters, a hood, and maybe a roll of film.

 

[gone]

I've owned 2 J-8 and 2 J-12. None focused correctly on my Leicas. Focused great on my Soviet cameras AND created very nice pics. Just did not work well with the Ms.

I hear that a lot, and don't doubt it. But on the other hand, I've never had to shim a lens on any camera. Not when going from FSU to Leica, or otherwise. So this doesn't always happen.

 

[AZD]

Lots of good suggestions here.

The Jupiter 8's are appealing for the price, might have to go for one just as a placeholder for now. No issues with using an adapter.

A collapsible Elmar 2.8 would actually be awesome, but prices hover around lenses that are perhaps a bit more capable in low light. Other than that, it'd do everything I want or need, and the compact size is a bonus for sure. Maybe a 3.5 Elmar and just be prepared to push an extra stop? Perhaps.

I wouldn't mind a 40mm Voigtlander, as I've been enjoying the 38mm on my HiMatic AF2 recently. The price is certainly right, and I'm not opposed to cropping during printing if needed. Might lose a couple Analog Camera Purity Points for not always printing full frame, but meh, I'm over it.

After looking at a lot of images, the ZM Planar does a lot of what I like, as does the Voigtlander 50mm Nokton 1.5 aspherical with the gear wheel focus ring.

Honestly any of them would work fine, so it's probably a matter of which one I find first for a good deal.

 

[reddesert]

I've owned 2 J-8 and 2 J-12. None focused correctly on my Leicas. Focused great on my Soviet cameras AND created very nice pics. Just did not work well with the Ms.

I did some calculations once, based on the nominal explanation that has been offered for the rangefinder offset: the idea that the two systems are based on slightly different focal lengths for the normal lens and thus different amounts of rf cam movement per focus distance. If the RFs and lenses agree at infinity, the error roughly goes up as focal length squared, and down as 1/focus-distance. In theory: the 35mm should be fine; the 50mm-ish lenses should be okay when focused at 3 meters (maybe not quite ok when used at f/2), but not acceptable when focused at 1 meter; and the telephotos should be way off at 3 meters (again, assuming they all focused correctly at infinity).

As someone said, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is." I have not yet tried to do a systematic comparison of the systems. I think that the dependence on focus distance, and maybe individual variation in lenses, might explain why some people get acceptable results (if they rarely expose wide open less than 10 feet away) and others don't.

 

[Huss]

I did some calculations once, based on the nominal explanation that has been offered for the rangefinder offset: the idea that the two systems are based on slightly different focal lengths for the normal lens and thus different amounts of rf cam movement per focus distance. If the RFs and lenses agree at infinity, the error roughly goes up as focal length squared, and down as 1/focus-distance. In theory: the 35mm should be fine; the 50mm-ish lenses should be okay when focused at 3 meters (maybe not quite ok when used at f/2), but not acceptable when focused at 1 meter; and the telephotos should be way off at 3 meters (again, assuming they all focused correctly at infinity).

As someone said, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is." I have not yet tried to do a systematic comparison of the systems. I think that the dependence on focus distance, and maybe individual variation in lenses, might explain why some people get acceptable results (if they rarely expose wide open less than 10 feet away) and others don't.

That's the thing. I've seen it where people had to buy multiple copies until they got a 'good one'. Which is costly in time, and well, money. Maybe they got lucky with the first or second one.
Or just buy a different lens that may be more expensive for a SINGLE copy (!) but it works correctly from the get go.

The other thing about the J-8 is that it has a clickless aperture ring. With a camera like an M3 that means that it is very easy to not realize that the aperture has changed (no built in light meter) resulting in incorrect exposures. Both my J-8 lenses had very light aperture rings. A lens like my 7Artisans 50 1.1 (really a great lens and only $200 used..) also has a clickless aperture ring, but it is heavily weighted/damped so it stays put.
So it's not just optical quality we are talking about (I liked the optics on the J8), but also the ease of use to get a decent shot. Unintentionally missed focus and/or exposure is not a good use of film.

 

[__Brian]

The Canon 50mm F1.4 can suffer the same problem with etched glass as the Black 50/1.8. Just be aware. It will be very close in rendering to the Pentax 50/1.4 that you like.

The Jupiters typically (90%) do better when adjusted for Leica. These lenses can be cans-of-worms. Unless you like taking lenses apart, or find one already adjusted- best to get something else. The rendering is very different from the Pentax. The Jupiter is a Sonnar formula lens, the Pentax is a Double-Gauss. The Canon 50/1.4 is a Double-Gauss.

The Black Canon 50/1.8 is very sharp, also Double-Gauss. Many have etched glass. Have return rights.

Obscure lenses out of Japan that have come down in price: Minolta Chiyoko 5cm F2, very close to a Summitar, 43mm filters (on most). Hard-coated optics, usually in very good condition. Rigid design. Around $150 these days.

 

[Huss]

Leica M3 DS, Rollei 40mm 2.8, Arista 100, Cinestill DF96 Monobath.

 

[rulnacco]

Loads and loads of great suggestions here. May I offer an alternative? I know you said 50mm, but if you don't mind a little wider but exceptionally good and reasonably priced lens, you might try to get ahold of one of the Minolta 40mm/F2.0 Rokkor-Ms. Particularly the second version, for the CLE, with the serial number on the outside of the barrel.

It takes in a bit more than the 50mm frame lines on the M3, of course, but you could use almost the whole viewfinder to compose, with reasonable accuracy. (You could put a bit of black tape over the frameline illumination window, and then you'd have an unobstructed view of the whole viewfinder.) Those lenses are sweet: tiny, well built, extremely good performers. I had one and loved it, but traded it in on a 35mm Summicron when one became available at an accessible price. I'd love to get my hands on another one of these days--maybe even attached to a CLE--as I really do miss it.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

My first M mount lens was a Minolta CLE 40/2. Cost was around $350 in 2006. Its a great optic better than a Cron 35/2 type 2/3. Higher center contrast and sharper to the corners at 2.8 and 4.0. The best part is focal length and I still prefer it to a 35. It also is the best handling m mount lens I own. If using a post M4 body the 40 matches on the negative the field of view of the finder 35 frame. Using the 40 on my M5 the (easy to see) 50 frame line comes up. I estimate the 40 field of view.

I recently bought a mint Konica M-Hex 50/2. Sharper than my mint collapsible now used as a special purpose Bokeh lens. The Hex is low to no flair, sharp without being clinical, ten blades, robust build quality, built in hood, smooth out of focus rendering. Cost 18 months ago was $650.

 

[AZD]

Well, I have a solution for now. Thanks to AnselMortensen for offering an Industar-61 that needed a little work, I have a functional setup. The lens and adapter were far less than my anticipated ~$300 budget. Despite the potential focus inaccuracies, manufacturing variance, etc. I’m willing to state on the record that the Idustar is a good lens. Not great, but certainly good. I might try to fine-tune the close focus, but that’s just because I like to mess around with this stuff.


The lens was a bit stiff, but that was remedied with disassembly, cleaning, and new synthetic grease. It’s 10X better than before. I also attached a clear Series VI filter to the front with a strip of black electrical tape (an old trick I’ve used for years on other lenses) with a Series VI extension ring over it. Now I can easily attach any of my colored filters.




Just for fun, here is a quick and dirty scan of a small 3.5” x 5” proof print. Nothing great, just one of those pictures you take when you test a lens. Focus was on the middle N of INTERNATIONAL. Taken at f/8 if I remember. Not perfect but pretty good. The print is sharper than the crappy scan. Other shots at f/2.8 are off a little. And in all fairness I might not be the steadiest hand at 1/50 second and four cups of coffee. (Delta 100, ID-11 stock, Fomabrom 111, in case anyone was wondering)




This is an ideal solution for the meantime. It gets me outside with the M3. Better to use a cheap lens than none at all. And after thinking things over (and over and over and over again) the lens I really want is the DR Summicron. It was on the first M3 I ever held, and it’s part of what drew me in. The size, image quality, mechanical precision, and ability to close focus would really make the M3 a do-it-all rangefinder for my purposes.

 

[__Brian]

The Industar-61L/D does better on a Leica if you increase the shim. If you shoot a measuring tape, or some other object and can state how far off the accuracy is when used at 1M I can usually compute the required change in the shim.

 

[AZD]

That was going to be my next experiment. It’s a bit slow though as I have to finish a new roll first. When I had the lens apart I noted how easy it would be to shim. I have made similar shims from aluminum cans, brass sheet, and a very thin adhesive copper foil. I was going to use trial and error, but if you can calculate it that’d be quite helpful.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you have your M3 modded so it will focus down to .7m you might not then want or need the dual range if you get an appropriate lens. Personally I think the dual range is more annoyance than it is worth for the close focus. Notice how Leica abandoned it when the later lenses and rangefinders focused to .7m.

Just keep using the I-61. You might find it is all you need.

 

[AZD]

Fair point, and I have time to consider it. Admittedly it’s not the most practical setup, but I’m notoriously impractical. The beat up International in the picture is one example. Sure, you can get a truck that isn’t 70 years old and already runs, but it wouldn’t be as interesting.

I read a little about the .7m adjustment but I’m not sure whether mine can or can’t do it. It’ll go down to .85m as is, so maybe?

 

[Huss]

The DR focuses down to .5m, which is a significant difference. But it is a PIA to use w the goggles. I basically use it as a 'regular' lens and it is fantastic for that. I think this is the best built Leica lens that I have.

 

[Hassasin]

Seeing Jupiter/ even more so, the Industar, in the "Summicron" inspired thread is strange and downright perplexing.

They both can be useful, yet both are hit and miss. Accepting what a particular sample delivers is the only way to deal with it. Some samples can actually be very good, except mechanics are such a far cry from almost anything made West of the Berlin Wall.

Reading this thread because I am in the same forest looking for a tree that will give me a 50 not called Summicron. While it is a sin to put a non-Leica lens on a Leica, what happens on film is more important. At this point the only 50 I have is the Summarit 50 and that will do for a while, but it is fine for a Barnack, yet I don't like using it on M5.

Options are aplenty, Nokton 1.5 came to mind, so have a few of the "Artisanal" makes. Zeiss Planar is a possibility (never thought of it until I read it here), but as strange as this may sound, I want whichever lens I get to also look "right" on the M5, and that is easier said then done.

 

[chuckroast]

Seeing Jupiter/ even more so, the Industar, in the "Summicron" inspired thread is strange and downright perplexing.

They both can be useful, yet both are hit and miss. Accepting what a particular sample delivers is the only way to deal with it. Some samples can actually be very good, except mechanics are such a far cry from almost anything made West of the Berlin Wall.

Reading this thread because I am in the same forest looking for a tree that will give me a 50 not called Summicron. While it is a sin to put a non-Leica lens on a Leica, what happens on film is more important. At this point the only 50 I have is the Summarit 50 and that will do for a while, but it is fine for a Barnack, yet I don't like using it on M5.

Options are aplenty, Nokton 1.5 came to mind, so have a few of the "Artisanal" makes. Zeiss Planar is a possibility (never thought of it until I read it here), but as strange as this may sound, I want whichever lens I get to also look "right" on the M5, and that is easier said then done.

The M5 was made from 1971-1975, though there are rumors that Leica made a limited production run in the early 1990s for Japanese collectors. So, the corresponding lens would be a mid-1970s Summicron, which would make it a Type 3. (https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-summicron-comparison-table.htm)

I have "50 Jahre" black M5 just back from a DAG overhaul. I am less interested in cosmetics matching than I am best possible optical performance. For that reason I am looking for a Type 5.

(I do have an LTM Collapsible Summicron for sale - I think this one is from 1955 or thereabouts. It will work on the M5 so long as you Never EVER collapse into the camera body. You'd need an LTM to M adapter ring for 50mm which I also have available. That lens was just CLAed by YYE earlier this year, so its ready to go. PM me if interested.)