Inexpensive LTM lens recommendations

[macrorie]

The Canon 50/1.8 is probably your first best choice, but it's going to be at the top of your price range or beyond unless you get lucky. Canon and Serenar lenses are optically identical.

FWIW, I happily used a Jupiter-8 on my Canon P for a while before I got a Canon 50/1.5. Buying from a reliable seller (Fedka is one that has an excellent reputation) should ensure you get a good one. The discrepancy between the Leica standard and the Soviet (Contax) standard (described well by Dante Stella - worth reading if you haven't already) is very minor; on an f/2 lens like the J-8 you will likely never even notice it, and if you do it will only be wide open and close up. Within your desired price range, the Jupiter-8 is what I'd go for (and I did).

I support this view completely. Given the variability in FSU lenses, I think it makes a lot of sense to buy from Fedka, who stands by his products. I shot with a Jupiter 8 on a IIIf for quite a while, and thought the image quality was great. I also own and like the coated Summitar, but you would not find a clean one in your price range.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I just devved my first roll shot with my new-to-me (but in absolutely beat-up condition with decent glass) Industar 61.
The industar was £5.50, and comparing it to my also-new-to-me $450 Nokton 40/1.4, the images certainly do look rather similar (except of course the FOV and faster aperture)

 

[Роберт]

You can be very lucky with any Jupiter lens. I own a J-8 and J-12 resp. F/2,0-50mm ; F/2,8-35mm and to be honest the difference between my Leica F/2,0-50mm Summicron and J-8 is not that big .......

And also that little J-12 has amazing optics. They are calculated according old Zeiss lenses design. J-12 is a Biogon type with the last lens element very deep into the body hence you can not use this lens on every LTM camera. The most important thing is to use a lens hood on these type of older lenses.

 

[Ken.Cartouche]

Well, okay. I didn't do what I said I was going to do. I ended up buying an Industar 61 L/D. At $23 shipped for one in (reportedly) clean condition, it was too hard to pass up.

I still plan to buy a Canon 50/f1.8, and probably something else in a 35, and in an 85 or a 90. That's down the road, though.

I think I may use the money I saved by getting an Industar to get Mark Hama to do a CLA on the P body (Peabody?)

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Well, okay. I didn't do what I said I was going to do. I ended up buying an Industar 61 L/D. At $23 shipped for one in (reportedly) clean condition, it was too hard to pass up.

I still plan to buy a Canon 50/f1.8, and probably something else in a 35, and in an 85 or a 90. That's down the road, though.

I think I may use the money I saved by getting an Industar to get Mark Hama to do a CLA on the P body (Peabody?)

From what research I've done, that I-61 LD can be very good. I found a comparison between the J-12 35/2.8 and a fairly recent Leitz 35, and while not identical, that Soviet Biogon stood up pretty d@mn well! I know, I've caught what might be an unhealthy fascination with Soviet lenses; I bought a J-8 for a Canon IIb that I will be restoring. I've yet to see negatives from it, but if it performs like the old Zeiss Sonnar I had I will be very happy. As for the build quality of the J-8, I'm impressed. The focussing is very smooth (without regreasing the helicoid), and there is no play in the helicoid. The fit of the lens' threads to the mount on the camera is excellent and the index lines up correctly. I had to remove enough old separated grease from the aperture mechanism to grease several of these, aperture and helicoid. I also degreased the aperture blades and blackened them with a magical marker. The internal glass surfaces had a very very stubborn lubricant haze, almost like a plasticiser haze, which I finally shifted with trichloroethane. I want to add clickstops to the aperture ring. I'll also improve the internal blacking of the lens mount. I'll sort out the focussing issue next, but I have a feeling that for the way I will be using it, it may not be an issue. This lens was made in 1975, and after inspecting the screwheads with a loupe I'm pretty sure I'm the first one to mess with it.

 

[Xmas]

A Canon P is not compatible with some wides e.g. J12 and Kobalux 28mms they can interfere with the light baffles, some people use force. The 28mm Orion should be ok.

The FSU LTM lenses can be very good if you get one that has not been mistreated.

A Nikon f/2 in LTM is very good but very expensive.

A Canon LTM /2.8 or /1.8 also very good but both can fog and be etched if they have been neglected.

There is the Cosina Voightlander /2.5 if you can find one modern glass and multi coating.

There are other LTM lenses but all the LTMs have been inflating in price.

A Canon P can tolerate work Id not bother with a CLA until it breaks a ribbon or you get shutter taper.

 

[ntenny]

A Nikon f/2 in LTM is very good but very expensive.

They shouldn't be that bad. There's one on eBay now for the strangely exact price of US$241.33, for instance. I think I paid slightly more than that for mine at KEH, a few years ago. I mean, they're more expensive than the fSU lenses, of course.

-NT

 

[Xmas]

Hi Nathan

J8<Canon/2.8<Canon/1.8<Nikkor/2 in GBP

the Canons and Nikkors have all gone up recently this side of Atlantic.

the 1.8 is the best off axis of these four but if you can get a nikkor cheap id buy.

or both my 1.8s are better off axis but the Nikkors signature is nice

but for the op a Cosina Voightlander LTM 35mm f/2.5 is probably the cheapest modern lenses. A Canon P is well suited to a 35mm.