Best M mount 35mm to 50mm lens for $1000

I bought my Leica 50/2 with the built in hood for right around $550 a couple years ago. I sold it for the same price about 9 months ago. If you look you can find them for around that price. I personally liked the built in hood.

Pick your focal length and go from there. Not knowing what you really like, I'd say a Leica 50/2, a Zeiss ZM 50/2, or a Zeiss ZM 35/2 (great lens). The Leica 35's tend to be a bit more than $1000. You could also look at the new Leica Summarits - 35/2.5 and 50/2.5. All are good lenses. Some are smaller than others.

The Rigid has less contrast than the later Summicrons. The Rigid is great for high resolution, medium contrast and beautiful build. Gives a creamy look on B&W film...but use a good deep lens hood to reduce unwanted flare... If you seek high res, high contrast, by all means go for the latest version Summicron 50/2 or the Zeiss alternative.

Good luck
Dan

Thanks for the replies: you guys are great!

Here's where things stand at this point. I'm probably going to get an M4 and am leaning heavily towards a 50mm lens. My style of photography, though developing, is more impressionistic, emotional, surreal, and less precise, descriptive. More Robert Frank than Walker Evans (at the risk of comparing myself to incomparable Olympians). I lean towards the 50mm because to me it seems more intimate, and human-scale, two qualities I want my photography to develop.

I am also doing this as a Leica/rangefinder experiment in which I will use this one camera, one lens pretty much exclusively for a significant period of time so as to simplify my life and get to know one style and let the equipment subside as any kind of issue. And, also very important, so that I can develop my exposure sense without a meter.

For these reasons, I am leaning towards a more vintage lens with a distinctive look and lower contrast, and am less interested in the high resolution, high contrast super sharp newer lenses. The Summicron DR is at the top of my list now; although concerned about weight and the usefulness of the close range goggles, it appears to be something I would like and that would fit well with my type of photography. Flare is definitely a concern for me and something I will have to work around and/or deal with.

If the lens or camera don't work for me, I can always sell for near what I paid, generally speaking. This, for me, is one of the real beauties of using older film equipment, especially Leica.

Any thoughts on the Summicron DR versus the Summicron Rigid? Pretty much the same optically aren't they?

Thanks again. This is fun.

You'll find no shortage of advice here. Given what you say, where I you, I wouldn't bother with the DR, excellent lens though it is. A rigid 'cron of the same era will look the same. Lots of other vintage 50's are out there. For that matter, given what you want to do, I would look at the VC 50's or even a Jupiter 8. Screwmount lenses work perfectly on M cameras with the adapter. There would be a lot of money left over for film. The M4 is great, but a built in meter is a great thing to have, so I would look at the M6 too. Or go back to your original thought of a VC camera like the R3.

The Rigid and DR summicron are optically identical. The usefulness of the DR is limited in my experience...if I want close up, I use a (D)SLR. I also think the Rigid lens just looks nicer than the DR ( with or without googles on ). See here for a Rigid lens image http://www.camera-exchange.de/images/leica-summi-50-rigid-863.jpg


Good luck
Dan

I used the Summicron 50/2 which to me is excellent+
But I preferred the 35/2 which is more versatile, you can take portraits in situation, not really close ups (still, this is open to discussion). The aspherical version is extremely good and I think you could find one for ca. 1000$ if lucky (I got mine for 1200$ on ebay Germany where prices generally are higher than on the US market).
As for bodies, I would go for a Leica M if I were you. M4/M4-P or M6 if you prefer to have a built-in meter.
RF is great, I don't mean it's better than SLR (I use Nikon F3 too) but it is smaller and I attract less attention which is an advantage with street scenes (my #1 subject).

I would go for the CV Nokton Classic 40mm, and spend the change on another lens.

If you wish for a lens which draws consider a collapsible with clean glass. The ridged is reported to be slightly better, up close & wide open. With any 50 year old optic it comes down to which has the cleanest glass. Both 50s have a sharp/smooth look with great OOF effects. The earlier cron at F2.0 may have too low contrast for average pictures but between 2.8 and 4.0 the "classic look" is there. The collapsible cron was HCBs prime lens throughout his career.

Go to the M-mount group on flickr. You can select your lens based on a comparative rendering analysis.
I suggest the summicron collapsible....superb lens, a classic, proven performer for a reasonable cost.

If you go with a 50, I would recommend a M3 over a M4 for a few reasons.

1. higher magnification finder ,91x. the effective base length is higher which makes focussing more accurate than the M4's ,72x magnification.
2. cost. you will find user M3s can be found for a few hundred less than user M4s.
3. positive film loading. folks pay more for the m4 tulip film loading. but the m3 loading to a clipped spool is quick enough --- I mean we are working with a film RF here, try to get a little more contemplative and philosophical --- as well as being very positive. Once the film is in, you are sure it is advancing. The M3 method is not a hindrance, it is a feature It takes but a few seconds longer than the tulip catcher of the later Ms. No biggie.
4. Clean solid framelines. So simple and beautiful.
5. The VF is brighter.

Andy K said:

I would go for the CV Nokton Classic 40mm, and spend the change on another lens.

Click to expand...

Yeah! Or the Summicron / Rokkor 40mm lenses. Great lenses at a ridiculous price. You'll be amazed at how good they are, especially considering what they cost.