Lens Choices

[ColColt]

With the recent acquisition of an M2 I'm looking at two 50mm lens, the Zeiss 50 f2 Plannar and the Voightlander Nokton 50 f1.5 ASPH lens. Which would you go for? I'm unfamiliar with either. The Leitz 50 f2 is out of sight.

 

[Nathan King]

Have you considered the 50mm Elmar-M? They're under $1,000.00 and are under appreciated. I can get sharp 11x14 prints from mine.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

After I made some deep research over internet and looked at hundreds of scans from each - none of them. They are both modern lenses. Too modern for bw film and even for color in my taste. And both don't have normal focusing tab, which is important for me.
Do not get mislead by SH and other digital gearheads reviews as you seems to be.
Crons are affordable as long "it needs to be only new" is dropped and looking at used ones in places where gear isn't overpriced for profit.
But if all you need is sharpness and crazy contrast, both are good and new, which is nice.

 

[ColColt]

I haven't looked at the Elmar series of lens-primarily the Summicrons I'm familiar with as I had a DR 50 f2 Summicron years ago and was happy with it and the 35 f2 Summicron but they were more affordable back then than now. Used ones are more than what I paid new for the 35 f2 back in thje early 80's.

I looked at used Summicrons but most of what I've found have had problems either with the f-stop detents not functioning or problems with haze or fungus or both. I wouldn't spend what they're wanting for an new 35 or 50 f2 Summicron today.

As I mentioned in the first post, I know little of the Nokton or Zeiss lens.

 

[cuthbert]

They are both outstanding lenses, if you need something sharp and sterile probably the Planar is the right choice, if you need something smoother the Nokton is the one to take.

If you want a vintage lens there are plenty of options on the market in L39, just get and adapter.

Regarding used 'crons the old collapsible are as good as Summitar (that means not so much), the 7 elements tends to get scratched and foggy but they are good lense (I have a DR cron) and the 6 elements (type 3 and 4) are way too expensive for me.

But I assume you want to get a new lens, I suggest to visit the rangefinderforum, there are plenty of pics and you can notice the difference between the two lenses.

P.S. Between the two I'll get a Sonnar but it's just my taste.

 

[ColColt]

I'm not dead set on a new lens if I could find a decent used 50 Summicron. Those I've looked at on ebay have various problems, however. I originally had the DR on my first M2 and it was a great lens. I found those as well as the Rigid Cron but as indicated they had various problems. Well, I guess they're just getting old.

The Zeiss lens has more appeal to me than the Nokton but I like the Plannar as I've read the Sonnar is not as sharp.

 

[Xmas]

The ZM planar is a (near) clone of the typeIV Summicron. Very high micro contrast. But can flare and the focus rings can develop play. The type IV cronies will flare to. Both need the kit hoods.

The post '94 Elmar is only missing the /2 stop if you remember to extend it and cheaper it needs the kit hood. Very high micro contrast from the 1.9 refractive index glass.

The Cosina Voightlander /2.5 is a similar multi coated sterile lens, get both kit hoods, well rare but cheap.

If you like signature lenses the late ('60) LTM Canon /1.8 is a low refractive glass antique and if it has not been etched will improve your prints. The digital people use them..., they used to be cheap.

A good condition J8 (soviet) has a similar signature to a LTM nikkor HC which sold lots of Nikon rangefinders in Contax mount but way cheaper... It is a sonnar.

This is only a subset of your choice.

 

[cuthbert]

The ZM planar is a (near) clone of the typeIV Summicron. Very high micro contrast. But can flare and the focus rings can develop play. The type IV cronies will flare to. Both need the kit hoods.
.

Near clone?

Xmas, for your any RF double gauss lens is a Summicron IV clone!

I'm not dead set on a new lens if I could find a decent used 50 Summicron. Those I've looked at on ebay have various problems, however. I originally had the DR on my first M2 and it was a great lens. I found those as well as the Rigid Cron but as indicated they had various problems. Well, I guess they're just getting old.

The Zeiss lens has more appeal to me than the Nokton but I like the Plannar as I've read the Sonnar is not as sharp.

Old Summicrons are nice lenses but the coating of the era wasn't up to today's standards, even with hood and UV filter sometimes my DR flares:

They get scratched and fogged easily.

For the Sonnar the problem is not lack of sharpness, it's that it has some focus shift so it might give the impression the it lack sharpness, just it's not focused properly and at f1.5 at close range any error becomes noticeable.

 

[Xmas]

Near clone?

Xmas, for your any RF double gauss lens is a Summicron IV clone!



Old Summicrons are nice lenses but the coating of the era wasn't up to today's standards, even with hood and UV filter sometimes my DR flares:

They get scratched and fogged easily.

For the Sonnar the problem is not lack of sharpness, it's that it has some focus shift so it might give the impression the it lack sharpness, just it's not focused properly and at f1.5 at close range any error becomes noticeable.

It is not a subjective call
The type IV cron has three plane surfaces
The ZM Planar has two
Before Mandler published his PhD this had not been done for Double Gauss lenses.

So it is 2/3 a type IV cron? ie near enough for me.

If you want picky Zeiss should have kept the two interior surfaces plane.

 

[cuthbert]

It is not a subjective call
The type IV cron has three plane surfaces
The ZM Planar has two
Before Mandler published his PhD this had not been done for Double Gauss lenses.

So it is 2/3 a type IV cron? ie near enough for me.

If you want picky Zeiss should have kept the two interior surfaces plane.

Sure? May I recommend this article on the history of the planar?

http://vintage-camera-lenses.com/carl-zeiss-planar-history-part-1/

check out the cemented surface of the third group in the planar for the 1953 Contarex, it looks pretty flat to me.

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_Planar_50mm_story/00_pag.htm

The Planargon 35 mm also have four flat surfaces, and the 1955 Planar 55mm f1.4 two in the second element.

 

[darkosaric]

The Leitz 50 f2 is out of sight.

Summicron 50mm type 3 you can find easy for ~400€ (that is how much I paid). Cheaper than Zeiss and Nokton, and it is superb lens - you will not look for anything else.

 

[ColColt]

I ran across a fine looking DR Cron but the description read "cleaning scratches". I decided against it. Some people should never touch a lens unless they know what they're doing and how to do it. Many lens have been destroyed optically due to carelessness or ignorance on the proper way to clean spots or smudges off optics.

 

[flavio81]

It is not a subjective call
The type IV cron has three plane surfaces
The ZM Planar has two
Before Mandler published his PhD this had not been done for Double Gauss lenses.

I can say that many, many 50mm lenses have many plane surfaces, this was done in the 60s and 70s (and afterwards) to simplify production costs. Those lenses (for example the Canon FL 50/1.8 II, and FD 50/1.8) can't really be regarded "clones"of some other lenses. Even if the design looks the same (6/4 or 6/5 double gauss), the glass choices, diameters and overall computation and optimization can differ greatly.

 

[Nodda Duma]

flavio is correct. Do you work with optics?

Today it's not as common to maximize plane surfaces because blocking many lenses and test plate matching for spherical surfaces is now just as cost effective.

Btw lens designers very rarely share the details of their optimization methods (ie their merit functions) with anyone outside the company they work for.

 

[BradS]

I'd go for the Nokton.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I ran across a fine looking DR Cron but the description read "cleaning scratches". I decided against it. Some people should never touch a lens unless they know what they're doing and how to do it. Many lens have been destroyed optically due to carelessness or ignorance on the proper way to clean spots or smudges off optics.

Many old Leitz lenses, in my experience. I cleaned some other old and older lenses and they don's seems to be so over soft as Leitz made ones.

 

[cuthbert]

Summicron 50mm type 3 you can find easy for ~400€ (that is how much I paid). Cheaper than Zeiss and Nokton, and it is superb lens - you will not look for anything else.

Where? I want one!

Btw lens designers very rarely share the details of their optimization methods (ie their merit functions) with anyone outside the company they work for.

Yes like gear manufacturers...I don't know why Xmas is convinced that any double gauss lens with flat surfaces is a Summicron IV clone...it's evidently easier to keep a tight tolerance on a flat surface than on a 3D curved one, I posted the example of the Planar but there are others.

 

[flavio81]

flavio is correct. Do you work with optics?

No, i'm just an amateur who likes to read some articles, for example the excellent website of Marco Cavina.

 

[flavio81]

Many old Leitz lenses, in my experience. I cleaned some other old and older lenses and they don's seems to be so over soft as Leitz made ones.

Apparently at those times (late 50s?) they did not use the "hard" coatings that were ubiquitous on other companies. I've also seen an old collapsible LTM 50mm f2.0 "summarit" or "summaron" or "summawhatever" hopelessly scratched.

 

[cuthbert]

Apparently at those times (late 50s?) they did not use the "hard" coatings that were ubiquitous on other companies. I've also seen an old collapsible LTM 50mm f2.0 "summarit" or "summaron" or "summawhatever" hopelessly scratched.

If you are talking about a collapsible 50 mm f2 chances are it's a Summitar, most of them are uncoated and they were ALSO made of soft glass, same thing for the first generation of Summicrons (the collapsible ones), the 35mm f2.8 Summaron and of course the 50 mm f1.5 Summarit. they are all very soft, like others (old Soviet glass, Old Zenits), and prone to fogging as well.

 

[gzinsel]

this may be off topic / excuse me if it is. . . . . but LTM canons are IMO pretty great considering price. BTW, pretty much all LTM's by canon, Nikon, leitz, zeiss are way cool lenses! don't loose fact of this AND that its FILM!!

 

[flavio81]

If you are talking about a collapsible 50 mm f2 chances are it's a Summitar, most of them are uncoated

This was coated, and what was surprising is that coatings were of more colors than typical for the era. This one also had cyan coatings; most coatings of the era are either amber, yellow, blue, or purple.

How can one understand all those funny names? Elmar, Elmarit, Summar, Sumarit, Summaron, Sumittar, Summicron... i'd guess there will be in the future Elmaron, Elmacron, Noctimar, Summalux, etc... And then the "Leica"-branded lenses have funny names like "Vario-Elmar"... Come on, an Elmar design can never be a Zoom... Anyways...

and they were ALSO made of soft glass, same thing for the first generation of Summicrons (the collapsible ones), the 35mm f2.8 Summaron and of course the 50 mm f1.5 Summarit. they are all very soft, like others (old Soviet glass, Old Zenits), and prone to fogging as well.

LOL. So much for the myth of 1950s Leitz lenses being the best. And then in the 60s the japanese took over. I think now the LTM leitz glass is mostly bought by collectors; i'd suppose users prefer to go for 1960s Canon or
Nikon lenses.

The big fall of the German camera industry. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Like Flavio Briatore said: "Let's see the japanese now yutaw taw."

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Regarding the Voigtländer Nokton, I have no direct experience, but "have read on the web" that the lens obscures more of the area seen in the viewfinder. Might be true or not - but worth checking.

 

[Nodda Duma]

No, i'm just an amateur who likes to read some articles, for example the excellent website of Marco Cavina.

Yes.

Dig around the Internet and try to find Jose Sasian's course notes for his lens design class at University of Arizona.

And of course anything by Kingslake.

 

[flavio81]

Yes.

Dig around the Internet and try to find Jose Sasian's course notes for his lens design class at University of Arizona.

And of course anything by Kingslake.

Thanks!! Yes, i've one book on optics by Kingslake but i'd have loved to read more about concrete, production camera lenses and their design tradeoffs, etc.