I have officially joined the Leica club

[albada]

Kyle, The slight misfocus in your I-61 might be due to poor calibration of the lens. Soviet equipment is not known for its quality control.

Mark Overton

 

[Jim Jones]

My first really top quality camera was a new iiif with the 50mm Elmar. A five element Minolta 45mm f/2.8 Rokkor seemed a bit sharper than the Elmar, but Minolta products in those days were usually inferior to Leitz. The Barnack Leicas with compact lenses were jewels for small size and good performance. Loading them is easy without trimming the leader. Slip a thin card like a business card in the film gate, load the film behind the card, remove the card, and you're ready to go.

 

[cliveh]

My first really top quality camera was a new iiif with the 50mm Elmar. A five element Minolta 45mm f/2.8 Rokkor seemed a bit sharper than the Elmar, but Minolta products in those days were usually inferior to Leitz. The Barnack Leicas with compact lenses were jewels for small size and good performance. Loading them is easy without trimming the leader. Slip a thin card like a business card in the film gate, load the film behind the card, remove the card, and you're ready to go.

I have never heard of this before. Does it really work without damaging the camera?

 

[Kyle M.]

My first really top quality camera was a new iiif with the 50mm Elmar. A five element Minolta 45mm f/2.8 Rokkor seemed a bit sharper than the Elmar, but Minolta products in those days were usually inferior to Leitz. The Barnack Leicas with compact lenses were jewels for small size and good performance. Loading them is easy without trimming the leader. Slip a thin card like a business card in the film gate, load the film behind the card, remove the card, and you're ready to go.

I might have to give that card trick a try. Once the leader is trimmed I find that it is indeed easy to load just a little different, I'm sure it's going to end up being my main 35mm camera. Right now I'm leaning towards the Canon 50mm 1.8.

 

[Fixcinater]

I've not used one but the collapsible Canon 50/1.9 seems like a neat option, more like the Summitar and older look than the 50/1.8.

 

[frank]

IMO, the Canon 50f1.8 is the best bang for the buck. Collapsible lenses are a bit of a bother. The CV 50f2.5 is nice and compact.

 

[cliveh]

IMO, the Canon 50f1.8 is the best bang for the buck. Collapsible lenses are a bit of a bother. The CV 50f2.5 is nice and compact.

How can you value aesthetic value (image making) in terms of best bang for the buck?

 

[Kyle M.]

I have never heard of this before. Does it really work without damaging the camera?

I have heard of this a few times, and I have also heard that when Canon's rangefinders were new they came from the factory with a red card inserted into a slot in the ever ready case for this very purpose.

 

[frank]

How can you value aesthetic value (image making) in terms of best bang for the buck?

If you are on a limited budget and looking for an inexpensive lens with good technical qualities (rendering of fine detail, contrast, flare resistance) then I recommend the Canon 50f1.8 as money well spent.

If money is no object and you are looking for a technically excellent lens, I would recommend the latest Leica 50mm Summicron or summilux.

If money is no object and you are looking for a lens giving a rendition with character, then I recommend a vintage noctilux for 50mm.

 

[Kyle M.]

If money were no object I'd be ordering the nicest Summicron I could find. Next week I'll most likely pick up a Canon 50mm 1.8, and maybe someday I'll pick up a Summicron, I have no issues with using a non Leica lens on my Leica. If the Inductors focus weren't a bit wonky I'd just stick with it, it is a very sharp and contrasty little lens.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you are looking for a collapsible lens then try to pick up an I-50, an I-22 or an I-10. I have never heard this on the internet, and it is pure conjecture on my part, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the I-10 is an Elmar copy and the later I-22/I-50 is a Tessar. They are all so cheap though that you could buy them all yourself. I have an I-50 and it is a good lens. A collapsible lens is really what your teeny Leica is designed for.

As others have said, the Canon lenses are great too. I have always wanted to pick up a chrome Serenar 50 1.8.

Welcome to the slippery slope by the way. Within a couple years you will be using an M.

 

[Kyle M.]

If you are looking for a collapsible lens then try to pick up an I-50, an I-22 or an I-10. I have never heard this on the internet, and it is pure conjecture on my part, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the I-10 is an Elmar copy and the later I-22/I-50 is a Tessar. They are all so cheap though that you could buy them all yourself. I have an I-50 and it is a good lens. A collapsible lens is really what your teeny Leica is designed for.

As others have said, the Canon lenses are great too. I have always wanted to pick up a chrome Serenar 50 1.8.

Welcome to the slippery slope by the way. Within a couple years you will be using an M.

The only fear I have about the Soviet lenses is that even though I know several people who use them with no problems it seems to be fairly common for them to have focus issues on Leica bodies due to poor quality control. My own Industar 61 is back focussed about 4 inches at minimum focus, it's only noticeable at f2.8 and I rarely use f2.8, but it would be nice to have one thats dead on. I doubt I'll be using an M anytime soon unless I win the lottery.

 

[frank]

Kyle, quality control and misadjustment of focus is the knock on fsu lenses, which CAN be very good once adjusted and shimmed properly. The Canon 50f1.8 is the least expensive, consistently works well right out of the box lens that I know of.

 

[Kyle M.]

Kyle, quality control and misadjustment of focus is the knock on fsu lenses, which CAN be very good once adjusted and shimmed properly. The Canon 50f1.8 is the least expensive, consistently works well right out of the box lens that I know of.

I've managed to find what I personally feel to be a good deal on a Canon 50 f1.8 in near mint condition with original caps and a 3 month guarantee. I will be picking it up later this week.

 

[ambaker]

Leica and Hasselblad aren't the only quality cameras in the world. Nor are they the only quality lens makers. I would suggest, that if one gets a chance, they should run a few rolls through one. They are just really nice tools in the hand. Even if you don't care to buy one, the experience of using one is something I have enjoyed.

That being said, I am still quite fond of my old Canon A-1 that I bought new in 1981.

 

[Jim Jones]

I have never heard of this before. Does it really work without damaging the camera?

I used this with no problem, and have heard of a few others using it too. One should be careful to avoid catching a corner of the card in the film gate. If the card is centered in the camera body, this should not be a problem.

 

[Hatchetman]

It takes roughly 2 seconds to cut the leader with a small scissors, so I'm not sure why the "card trick" is appealing. (?)

 

[02Pilot]

I really prefer collapsible lenses on screwmount Leica bodies; the bodies are really compact, and with the lens collapsed the whole rig becomes truly pocketable. I have a FED-50/3.5 (AKA I-10), which is certainly a very compact option, as well as a Canon 50/1.9 and a Summitar, which are a little larger. The 50/1.9 is closer to the Summar than the Summitar optically, giving a rather different look. I like them all, but I find the results from the Summitar are most satisfying to my tastes.

The full-bodied (non-collapsible) all brass lenses tend to make the camera rather front-heavy. I've tried the 50/1.5 and I didn't like the balance at all, so it stays on one of the bigger later Canon bodies (love the optics, just not how it works on the Barnack body). Personal preferences come in to play here, of course.

 

[Kyle M.]

It takes roughly 2 seconds to cut the leader with a small scissors, so I'm not sure why the "card trick" is appealing. (?)

I guess maybe if your out and about with your camera and don't happen to have scissors on you. I went ahead and pre-trimmed 10 rolls so I shouldn't have to worry about it for awhile at the rate that I shoot 35mm.

 

[bdial]

You can also tear the film by hand to lengthen the leader. It's ugly and you need to be careful to do it without mangling the sprocket edge too much, but works. This is what I did the last time I was out and about with no scissors and a Barnack-style camera that needed film in it.

 

[frank]

I pre-trim rolls for my llla. If I was out in the field, I'd use the business card procedure before ripping the leader by hand and teeth.

 

[cuthbert]

The only fear I have about the Soviet lenses is that even though I know several people who use them with no problems it seems to be fairly common for them to have focus issues on Leica bodies due to poor quality control. My own Industar 61 is back focussed about 4 inches at minimum focus, it's only noticeable at f2.8 and I rarely use f2.8, but it would be nice to have one thats dead on. I doubt I'll be using an M anytime soon unless I win the lottery.

Of all the SU lenses I have none required shimming, evidently I was lucky.

For me the best bang for the bucks is an early all chromed I-61:

It's sharp:

Probably even too sharp for portraits, for that application I prefer the Jupiter 8 or 3.

It takes roughly 2 seconds to cut the leader with a small scissors, so I'm not sure why the "card trick" is appealing. (?)

I agree, that's the official procedure I dont' understand why people make simple things more complicated.

 

[frank]

The card trick works too.

 

[Xmas]

I have never heard of this before. Does it really work without damaging the camera?

Not recommended bit like drawing aces and eights with back to door...

Dead Link Removed

Jay is a member here.

 

[cliveh]

Not recommended bit like drawing aces and eights with back to door...

Dead Link Removed

Jay is a member here.

Thanks for that and I will stick with cutting an extra long leader, even if it means wasting a couple of frames.