Barnack Leicas

[cliveh]

Am I just being a snob? Or is putting any lens other than a Leica lens on a Barnack sacrilege?

 

[madNbad]

You could use a smeary Summitar that had the front element cleaned with a necktie for years or try the fabulous Voigtlander 50 2.5 Color Skopar.

 

[Laurent]

A Jupiter 12 is a nice lens on a Barnack. So is a CV ( I LOVE the 21 Skopar on my III)

I would not call you snob though

 

[JerseyDoug]

I use a mix of Leica lenses as well as Nikon and Canon lenses from the same era on my Barnacks, as did a number of photographers when the Barnacks were new.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

I'd call it a matter of taste rather than religion/morality, Clive. I think you could persuade me that it's a bit tasteless. I'm pretentious enough to like pre-war lenses (3.5, 5 and 9cm Elmars and 13.5cm Hektor) for my 1938 Leica II and a postwar Summitar and Summaron for my 1952 IIIf. It would be a bit much to die for the cause, though.

 

[Pioneer]

I understand how you feel sometimes Clive. There are times when I want nothing but my pre-war, uncoated Elmar 50 on my Leica II. But it is really neat that there are other times when I love my Voigtlander 50/3.5 Heliar hooked to the front of that same camera and would not even consider another lens because I want that modern look. It is really awesome to have the option with a camera that was built before WWII.

 

[guangong]

As already noted, early on folks were putting non Leitz lenses on their Leicas.
Adapting a Zeiss Sonnar was especially popular because it was far superior to any Leitz lens at the time.

 

[Moose22]

Am I just being a snob? Or is putting any lens other than a Leica lens on a Barnack sacrilege?

You're being a snob.

/thread


Seriously, I have a 15mm that isn't a leica and it's super fun. Don't know if anyone but Voigtlander makes a 15 in ltm. I don't care who makes a lens, if it's fun to shoot and I get photos I like I'm happy.

You do you.

 

[MattKing]

You are only a snob if you insist others must not use non-Leica lenses.
If you convince yourself that nothing else will do, you are being merely pretentious .

You do you.

I agree with Moose22.

 

[rulnacco]

I'd think that's one of the great things about using a Barnack--other companies made some truly excellent lenses in Leica screw mount.

I once tested for a few shots a Nikkor 50/1.4 in LTM on an M9 with an adapter. I know some folks think that lens is kinda meh--but the sample I was using was very sharp and impressive, and compared to other lenses of that vintage, I'm sure it was quite competitive. Canon made some excellent LTM lenses, too, and I've heard great things about the Super Rokkors as well--I've always kind of wanted to get a Barnack and pop one of those on it.

And when I got my M3, the only lens I could initially afford was a Jupiter-8 with an adapter. I actually got some pretty decent shots with it, and I've kept it in case I get a Barnack one day. And I once owned the Voigtlander 25mm that wasn't rangefinder coupled, again used on my M3 with an adapter. I'm sure it would have been big fun on a Barnack!

So yeah--use whatever floats your boat on your Barnack, I can't see that limiting yourself to only Leica lenses would maximise your joy.

 

[mshchem]

You are missing out on a lot of great lenses if you limit yourself to Leitz.

 

[250swb]

Only a snob if you (wrongly) assume Leica always made the best lenses. There are too many great LTM lenses in the world to imagine Leica have the monopoly on quality or handling. And photography has a long history, it's absurd to imagine photographs only became good when such and such a lens or camera was invented, but if it's about snobbery the demoralising fact is that if it's a great image nobody but the photographer will care if a Zorki or a Leica made the photograph. But the license a Barnack Leica gives to a photographer to explore imagery with a massive number of lenses is immense, that is the bit that's exciting about owning one.

 

[guangong]

In a Japanese film version of the novel The Makioka Sisters, the wealthy status of the family is established at very beginning of the film by making a point that one of the brothers has a Leica.

 

[guangong]

While looking through my original copy of Arnold Genthe’s Old Chinatown (old being pre earthquake SF), one can only fantasize what Genthe could have achieved with a small discreet Barnack, rather than (sometimes) a camera hidden in a lunchbox. Historically Leica did revolutionize photography.

 

[snusmumriken]

What I understand of historical use is that quite a few PJs in the 1940s/50s using Leica cameras substituted Zeiss or (later) Nikon or Canon lenses, which they considered superior to the early Leica lenses. There was a lens tester working for Amateur Photographer in the 1970s who did up-to-date tests and documented the real differences, but regrettably I didn’t keep that review. Neither can I remember at what date Leica took back the reputational lead.

I would probably want to keep everything matching, whilst recognising that I was being ridiculous. When I ‘collected’ my Rollei 35 in the 1980s for very little money, I then felt compelled to hunt around and acquire cute little Rollei-branded filters and lens hood to match. Although I wanted the camera to use, it was also a nostalgic historical artefact. Strange psychology compells some of us, while others don’t care!

 

[Kodachromeguy]

And when I got my M3, the only lens I could initially afford was a Jupiter-8 with an adapter. I actually got some pretty decent shots with it, and I've kept it in case I get a Barnack one day.

I've had some great results from a 1962 Jupiter-8. Maybe I was lucky; mine had perfect coating. I like it on b&w film and on a Fuji X-E1:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2021/07/optical-treasure-1960s-jupiter-8-lens.html

 

[Mogens]

Robert Frank shot The Americans at least in part with Nikkors. Among the reasons that I bought a Leica IIIc a couple of weeks ago was my interest in understanding that era of street photography better. I've been obsessed with The Americans for decades now, so that's what's forming the basis for my use of this camera. In other words, there are multiple ways of understanding these machines. I guess Leica purity would be one of them. Being judgmental about how other people understand them, I think, would be a little close minded.

 

[MarkS]

I'd let your pictures tell you. Certainly Leica did not have a monopoly on quality lenses in the screw mount. My limited experience with LTM lenses tells me that some are better than others.
If I owned a Barnack Leica I'd experiment freely with lenses, and keep the ones I liked. Certainly that's what the photographers who made their (and Leica's) reputations with those cameras would have done.

 

[RDW]

You could use a smeary Summitar that had the front element cleaned with a necktie for years or try the fabulous Voigtlander 50 2.5 Color Skopar.

Nice Summitars can still be found. They seem to be much more common than nice Summars (usually heavily hazed) or collapsible Summicrons (often with front elements like skating rinks), and the later ones are nicely coated. But of course it's great to have the option of modern lenses, and a shame that Voigtländer largely abandoned LTM when they switched to M. I'd rather have a screwmount option than a choice of metals or finishes or coatings.

 

[Boomlight]

The Soviet Elmar copies are excellent lenses, and a good Industar 22 or 50 can be had for less than $60US. I recently took some test shots with all my 50mm lenses, and the Industar 22 compared favorably with a modern Canon EF50.

 

[Don_ih]

the Industar 22 compared favorably with a modern Canon EF50.

The Industar 61 is a pretty good lens, too - at least the one I have is.

Nice Summitars can still be found.

They can. I have one. It has absolutely no scratches. Yet.

 

[cliveh]

Is it possible to get a 50mm Zeiss Planar to fit onto a Barnack camera?

 

[snusmumriken]

Is it possible to get a 50mm Zeiss Planar to fit onto a Barnack camera?

I believe there was a period in the 40s when PJs would buy Leica bodies and fit Zeiss/Contax lenses to them. Or maybe one PJ did once. Who knows. There’s a lot of mythology about. But if true, it opens your options.

But why do you want to? I love the results you already get.

 

[guangong]

Using Zeiss lenses on Leica cameras was not uncommon. But keep in mind the substantial difference in prices between Leitz and Zeiss lenses at that time. Not absolutely sure, but Zeiss may have made some lenses in LTM. However, Zeiss lenses in LTM, no matter who fabricated mount, are now collector items beyond the reach of mere users.
In movies of ‘30s and ‘40s, one prop used to illustrate a character living a life of leisure would be holding a Contax. A working wealthy family, such as in The Makioka Sisters, would own a Leica.

 

[Mr Flibble]

Not absolutely sure, but Zeiss may have made some lenses in LTM.

They did produces some Sonnars in LTM in-house. They stopped somewhere towards the end of World War 2 (1944 IIRC) . There was a sharp increase in custom Contax-to-LTM conversions after VE-day.