Lens for first ltm Leica what I'm looking for

[RLangham]

So I finally found my Leica, a IIIb. It’s coming early next week from a reputable photo store in Texas, and I feel like I got a good deal on it.

I’ll already know how to use it when it comes, since I’ve shot plenty with a Zorki C/S, which is basically the IIF of the Soviet world. And I have three good Soviet normal lenses to start, Industars that I’ve liked in the past, the I26m primarily. But obviously I’ll very quickly want something more fitting.

There’s a lot of Leitz glass on the bay and a lot of Canon glass. And I don’t know a lot about Canon glass, but am leaning roughly towards a Canon 50mm f:2. But I’m open to all other suggestions. Maybe not a Jupiter-8, I like the Soviet glass when it’s good, but I’ve had ones with bubbles in the glass before and I’ve never been really impressed with the mechanical tolerances of the lenses.

Basically my budget is a little over $200, I don’t mind waiting for international shipping/paying tarrifs if/when they bill me, et cetera. Collapsible is a preference of mine, but I’m not married to it, and most of my shooting is daylight so I’m not married to a fast max aperture.

So what do people recommend?

 

[Dali]

Bubbles in glass were not considered as a defect. Even Carl Zeiss Jena lenses had some.

A Leitz Elmar 3.5/50mm could be a good fit but I am not sure $200 is enough...

 

[GregY]

So I finally found my Leica, a IIIb. It’s coming early next week from a reputable photo store in Texas, and I feel like I got a good deal on it.

I’ll already know how to use it when it comes, since I’ve shot plenty with a Zorki C/S, which is basically the IIF of the Soviet world. And I have three good Soviet normal lenses to start, Industars that I’ve liked in the past, the I26m primarily. But obviously I’ll very quickly want something more fitting.

There’s a lot of Leitz glass on the bay and a lot of Canon glass. And I don’t know a lot about Canon glass, but am leaning roughly towards a Canon 50mm f:2. But I’m open to all other suggestions. Maybe not a Jupiter-8, I like the Soviet glass when it’s good, but I’ve had ones with bubbles in the glass before and I’ve never been really impressed with the mechanical tolerances of the lenses.

Basically my budget is a little over $200, I don’t mind waiting for international shipping/paying tarrifs if/when they bill me, et cetera. Collapsible is a preference of mine, but I’m not married to it, and most of my shooting is daylight so I’m not married to a fast max aperture.

So what do people recommend?

RL, I've enjoyed seeing your LF work....especially the Shiprock stuff. (if you're the same R Langham)
I've got both a 28mm 2.8 & 50mm 1.4 Canon LTM lenses. They're fine lenses. (I haven't been inclined to change them for modern Leica glass which i have used in the past) I don't think you can go wrong with any of the Canon 50mm lenses. Lots of them on Ebay.....
I've owned 50mm Summicrons & collapsible Elmars...... The Elmars are going for $300+ these days.
Canons for 1/2 that ....and are not inferior...btw there's more choice among the non-collapsible versions.

(photo Leica / Canon 28mm/Tri-X)

 

[cliveh]

I agree with Dali, a Elmar 3.5 50mm would be a perfect fit and is one of the best lenses ever made.

 

[Paul Howell]

I had both Canon and Leica lenses for my IIIG and Canon 7S, I had the Canon the Elmar 3.5 and 50mm 1.4, in good lighting the Emar was a very good lens, stopped down to F8 or 11 was as sharp as my 1.4 or Litz 50 F2. If you tend to shoot in low light I would go for a F2 or 1.4, not sure if you can get a 1.4 for under 200. Some of the Russian glass is pretty good as well.

 

[RLangham]

Bubbles in glass were not considered as a defect. Even Carl Zeiss Jena lenses had some.

A Leitz Elmar 3.5/50mm could be a good fit but I am not sure $200 is enough...

The one I’m thinking of, mainly, was an early “red P” 26m with some bubbles directly in the axis. At some apertures and distances the lens did have a certain haze in the center of the frame, which I attributed to that. Luckily the FED I was using came with two 26m’s and the other has always been fine.

You’re correct about the Elmar, it’s basically what I want but $300 would be about where they start, at least with no major defects.

RL, I've enjoyed seeing your LF work....especially the Shiprock stuff. (if you're the same R Langham)
I've got both a 28mm 2.8 & 50mm 1.4 Canon LTM lenses. They're fine lenses. I think you can't go wrong with any of the 50mm lenses. Lots of them on Ebay.....
(photo Leica / Canon 28mm/Tri-X)View attachment 422500

Huh, must be a different R Langham! That’s very interesting. AFAIK I never posted any of my LF work, which hasn’t been very good (had some good results with direct positive print paper and coffee toning, but nothing to write home about) and I’ve never been to Shiprock.

Is this the one? I have no relation to him as far as I know, appears he’s in Texas and my family is from south Alabama.
https://www.thefar.org/pictura-gallery/exhibits/robert-langham-iii

Yes, I’m thinking a Canon or Minolta lens. Collapsible f:2 Serenars look nice, and so do the 1.9’s, although I think I prefer all silver lens housings on a Leica.

 

[Sanug]

Canon glass is very good, but be careful about lenses with fog on internal elements. It is a common problem.

A real bargain is the Leitz Elmar 4/9cm. Not expensive and great optical and mechanical quality.

Canon 7s
Leitz Elmar 4/9cm (1951)
Orwo NP100, Adox XT-3
Plustek Opticfilm 7300, Vuescan

 

[RLangham]

Canon glass is very good, but be careful about lenses with fog on internal elements. It is a common problem.

A real bargain is the Leitz Elmar 4/9cm. Not expensive and great optical and mechanical quality.

View attachment 422507

View attachment 422508
Canon 7s
Leitz Elmar 4/9cm (1951)
Orwo NP100, Adox XT-3
Plustek Opticfilm 7300, Vuescan

Very nice contrast. As of yet I won’t have any use for a 9cm lens but I’ll remember that!

Haze does seem to be an endemic problem with the Canon lenses. On eBay a lot of the Japanese sellers are rating lenses with acknowledged, noticeable haze “exc+”, which makes me think it’s difficult to find any without it.

 

[Nitroplait]

An uncoated Elmar 50/3.5 would be time appropriate for the IIIb. There are only a few glass to air surfaces so the internal reflection is not pronounced yet there is a certain nostalgic beauty to the results.

Get a nice sample and keep it forever.

 

[GregY]

The one I’m thinking of, mainly, was an early “red P” 26m with some bubbles directly in the axis. At some apertures and distances the lens did have a certain haze in the center of the frame, which I attributed to that. Luckily the FED I was using came with two 26m’s and the other has always been fine.

You’re correct about the Elmar, it’s basically what I want but $300 would be about where they start, at least with no major defects.

Huh, must be a different R Langham! That’s very interesting. AFAIK I never posted any of my LF work, which hasn’t been very good (had some good results with direct positive print paper and coffee toning, but nothing to write home about) and I’ve never been to Shiprock.

Is this the one? I have no relation to him as far as I know, appears he’s in Texas and my family is from south Alabama.
https://www.thefar.org/pictura-gallery/exhibits/robert-langham-iii

Yes, I’m thinking a Canon or Minolta lens. Collapsible f:2 Serenars look nice, and so do the 1.9’s, although I think I prefer all silver lens housings on a Leica.

Thank you. Yes Robert Langham is in Tyler Texas. I agree the chrome or nickel housings look cooler on the chrome Leicas.

Robert Langham Photography shiprock - Bing

Check out what I just created on Bing Image Creator

www.bing.com

 

[Don_ih]

Summitar. That's the best-for-money ltm lens. Elmars are great if they're not all scratched to hell. I have a Canon lens - it's nice when stopped down and horrible wide open - and it has no haze at all. It's likely just a bad example.

Frankly, the most sensible way to get an Elmar (or Summitar, for that matter) is to get it attached to a camera. Then sell the camera.

Keep in mind Elmars are sharp. Summitars are sharper. If you want a "character" lens, get a Summar. They are somewhat unusual, even when they're perfect. They don't float my boat, but that doesn't matter.

And the ltm Elmar 90 is a great bargain - but less of one than it was a few years ago (could regularly get one for under $90).

Skip the 135 unless you want to use the camera as a hammer and need a handle.

 

[RLangham]

Of course I could be satisfied with my Industar-22 collapsible for the time being and save just a little and get a Summaron 3.5cm f:3.5. I really love a 35mm, and already have a good Kodak AG parallax-compensating 35mm viewfinder.

Keep in mind Elmars are sharp. Summitars are sharper. If you want a "character" lens, get a Summar. They are somewhat unusual, even when they're perfect. They don't float my boat, but that doesn't matter.

Yeah, I think about that a lot. I have character lenses; I also don't care about being razor sharp, since my film scanners are consumer trash from the 2000's. So Elmar would probably be the goldilocks zone.

 

[GregY]

Of course I could be satisfied with my Industar-22 collapsible for the time being and save just a little and get a Summaron 3.5cm f:3.5. I really love a 35mm, and already have a good Kodak AG parallax-compensating 35mm viewfinder.


Yeah, I think about that a lot. I have character lenses; I also don't care about being razor sharp, since my film scanners are consumer trash from the 2000's. So Elmar would probably be the goldilocks zone.

Even smaller than the Summaron 3.5 is the Elmar 35. Sadly they've gone up in price & you'll want an accessory viewfinder which will cost more than the lens...

 

[RLangham]

Even smaller than the Summaron 3.5 is the Elmar. Sadly they've gone up in price & you'll want an accessory viewfinder which will cost more than the lens...

Very interesting to me what's appreciating and what's depreciating these days. I just acquired a IIIb body for less than those Elmar 35mm's seem to be going for. But I must say, comically, I must have always mistaken that Elmar for a collapsed 50mm Elmar.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The Japanese Summilux (Canon 50/1.4) is almost a no brainer for the money. I have one and it surprised me. You should be able to find one for around your budget. I don't think the 1.4 suffers from fog like some of the other Canon 50s. Mine is crystal clear. Like others have said, the Elmar is a good match to the camera. If you already have an I-22 though there isn't much point in getting an Elmar. I have an I-50 which is the same as the I-22 as far as I know and it is a good lens.

 

[GregY]

The Japanese Summilux (Canon 50/1.4) is almost a no brainer for the money. I have one and it surprised me. You should be able to find one for around your budget. I don't think the 1.4 suffers from fog like some of the other Canon 50s. Mine is crystal clear. Like others have said, the Elmar is a good match to the camera. If you already have an I-22 though there isn't much point in getting an Elmar. I have an I-50 which is the same as the I-22 as far as I know and it is a good lens.

Patrick, the Canon 50mm 1.4 is a big hunk of glass for a small body like the lllb....
The OP did mention he would be working in daylight & wasn't tied to a large aperture lens...
For scale here it is on my M4

Even a 2.8 Summaron is pretty big on the smaller LTM cameras....

 

[250swb]

I think as a first lens it shouldn't be anything to unusual and should just be a very good lens that is relatively common so you can compare notes with people. As such I'd narrow it down to either a f/3.5 50mm Elmar or a late model Canon 50mm Serenar f/1.8. The Elmar is sharp and collapsible but can be more than your budget for a good clean one. The Serenar is also sharp, faster, and is a rigid lens if that is what you prefer. It is also going to be well within your budget. The 'haze' complained about with Canon lenses is real and can cause a complete white-out in extreme cases, however the Serenar is pretty easy to take apart and clean at the first sign of haze.

 

[RLangham]

I think as a first lens it shouldn't be anything to unusual and should just be a very good lens that is relatively common so you can compare notes with people. As such I'd narrow it down to either a f/3.5 50mm Elmar or a late model Canon 50mm Serenar f/1.8. The Elmar is sharp and collapsible but can be more than your budget for a good clean one. The Serenar is also sharp, faster, and is a rigid lens if that is what you prefer. It is also going to be well within your budget. The 'haze' complained about with Canon lenses is real and can cause a complete white-out in extreme cases, however the Serenar is pretty easy to take apart and clean at the first sign of haze.

Perhaps I misspoke. Not a first lens as a photographer, a first “good” LTM lens to go with my first good LTM camera.

The Serenars I’ve seen are well past the first sign of haze. Is it something that can still be reversed, or is it degenerative like fungus and balsam separation?

 

[Don_ih]

The Serenars I’ve seen are well past the first sign of haze. Is it something that can still be reversed, or is it degenerative like fungus and balsam separation?

Haze, if cleaned up soon enough, shouldn't be a problem. The longer it sits, the worse it gets, the more damage it does. I assume the haze originates from off-gassing lubricants. I know the haze that results from that in a Leitz Elmar M 50mm is highly destructive.

 

[RLangham]

Haze, if cleaned up soon enough, shouldn't be a problem. The longer it sits, the worse it gets, the more damage it does. I assume the haze originates from off-gassing lubricants. I know the haze that results from that in a Leitz Elmar M 50mm is highly destructive.

Yeah that makes sense. I remember reading off-hand somewhere that the Gemini space program had some problems with their cameras outgassing under low pressure in the cabin, or under vacuum outside the craft. I recall it was mostly leatherette that they identified a problem with. It's weird, I know film outgasses like a mother, since the smell of film lingers so long. But lubricants outgassing makes a lot of sense, and it makes sense that that would damage coatings, potentially even etch elements surfaces if the lubricants were exotic enough.