Lens for first ltm Leica what I'm looking for

[GregY]

I have experienced the viewfinder encroachment on the Zorki S, should be about the same given the viewfinder placement is almost the same. I BELIEVE (and I’ll be careful not to scratch anything) that unlike the Zorki, the Leica can mount a Voigtländer Kontur 50mm action finder, which I greatly prefer to a small viewfinder. And then the early I-26M I have has the narrow focus ring which makes the encroachment bearable.

When compactness is at issue I think I’d run it with my banged up old I-22 until such a time as I can get a collapsible Canon or the collapsible Elmar.

I'm a big fan of the uncluttered view of the accessory viewfinders. I use mine on my CL, M & IIIg (now that the iiif is gone)

 

[Elmarc]

I have experienced the viewfinder encroachment on the Zorki S, should be about the same given the viewfinder placement is almost the same. I BELIEVE (and I’ll be careful not to scratch anything) that unlike the Zorki, the Leica can mount a Voigtländer Kontur 50mm action finder, which I greatly prefer to a small viewfinder. And then the early I-26M I have has the narrow focus ring which makes the encroachment bearable.

When compactness is at issue I think I’d run it with my banged up old I-22 until such a time as I can get a collapsible Canon or the collapsible Elmar.

I did not realise you already had the Industar 1-22 50. I'm sure that will serve you just as well on the Leica.

 

[RLangham]

I did not realise you already had the Industar 1-22 50. I'm sure that will serve you just as well on the Leica.

I do want to get another collapsible lens eventually for two reasons. First, putting a Soviet lens on a Leica immediately makes it look like a counterfeit. Secondly my I-22 was almost free because it’s missing both the stop pins and the infinity lock, and has really unsmooth focusing action.

That being said I’m looking at the lenses I bond with and I don’t know what the pattern is other than that they’re all pre-1960. Industars which are just Tessars, Nikon Auto Nikkor-S 5cm f:2, Argus Coated Cintar which is also modified Tessar… Cassar-S which I think is just a triplet… Steinheil Auto Quinaron 35mm…

I can’t help but think I might really fall in love with an Elmar, probably the coated version. But god I wish Zeiss Jena lenses weren’t so expensive, I always like those.

 

[GregY]

I do want to get another collapsible lens eventually for two reasons. First, putting a Soviet lens on a Leica immediately makes it look like a counterfeit. Secondly my I-22 was almost free because it’s missing both the stop pins and the infinity lock, and has really unsmooth focusing action.

That being said I’m looking at the lenses I bond with and I don’t know what the pattern is other than that they’re all pre-1960. Industars which are just Tessars, Nikon Auto Nikkor-S 5cm f:2, Argus Coated Cintar which is also modified Tessar… Cassar-S which I think is just a triplet… Steinheil Auto Quinaron 35mm…

I can’t help but think I might really fall in love with an Elmar, probably the coated version. But god I wish Zeiss Jena lenses weren’t so expensive, I always like those.

RL, my experience with the early 3.5cm & 5.0 Elmars tells me the coating isn't that important.... they're terrifc lenses....

 

[RLangham]

RL, my experience with the early 3.5cm & 5.0 Elmars tells me the coating isn't that important.... they're terrifc lenses....

I’m not worried much about flare but don’t you lose contrast with no coating?

 

[GregY]

I’m not worried much about flare but don’t you lose contrast with no coating?

that has not been my experience with lenses of this era.

 

[RLangham]

The camera was delivered today. I see why I got a bargain on it, someone put a replacement leatherette on it with, shall we say, more enthusiasm than finesse: some glue is visible on, for instance, the strap lugs; the seller also thought the long speeds were inaccurate but they seem to be well within a half stop to me. Curtains don't look 80+ years old so I assume they were replaced at some point; clearly has been CLA'd in the last twenty years but probably needs it again soon.

But all that notwithstanding, I really like it, I think a lot of the hype is actually deserved.

From where I stand I think eventually I'll want a Summitar or something of that nature, but in the mean-time instead of shelling out for another normal when I have an I-22 and I-26m that I already like on character, I'll go for a Canon 35mm. Now, unfortunately my 35mm/80mm parallax corrected finder collides with the shutter speed dial, so I'll have to pick up a finder, but honestly the Leitz universal finders aren't that expensive.

Now can anyone tell me why the collar around the shutter release spins with the shutter?

 

[Don_ih]

Now can anyone tell me why the collar around the shutter release spins with the shutter?

Your shutter button should turn when you advance the film, since it's physically tied to the shutter actuation. When you press it down, it releases that to allow the springs to operate the shutter. The collar shouldn't move when the shutter releases, even though it will rotate when you advance the film.

 

[RLangham]

Your shutter button should turn when you advance the film, since it's physically tied to the shutter actuation. When you press it down, it releases that to allow the springs to operate the shutter. The collar shouldn't move when the shutter releases, even though it will rotate when you advance the film.

Yes, sorry, I phrased that poorly, it spins when winding, not releasing, as you say.

Still, seems odd to me that the threads that hold the collar (and so the collar, where present) spin with the button. Seems like an inconvenience when using the Leitz-style cable releases, since the entire cable would twist as you wind on. Briefly I entertained the notion that this is how you would recock for a double exposure, except that it also (tries to) wind the film if you twist it, and as the IIIf manual says: double exposures are not possible.

I suppose having the collar and threads rotate in lockstep with the button is a protective measure so that the thin shutter release rod isn't worn down by rotating inside the collar; instead the mechanical wear is distributed over a larger bearing surface. I dunno, still weird. I'm just glad mine has the original-style collar and not that big conical thing (made for winter gloves?)

I need to scour the Leica information thread pinned in this forum to see if anyone has a good link to the IIIb manual. Butkus seems to have no manual for the early III series.

 

[Don_ih]

The likelihood is they never considered the cable. If they did, they expected the cable would be short (most were). The threads turn because that entire thing is the drive sprocket for the film. The camera wasn't made for double exposures. (I've heard some people suggest turning the shutter speed dial after the shutter has been released, without pulling it up, as a way to recock the shutter - the mechanism was not made for that, though, so I'd call that a bad idea.) It's amazing you have a shutter-button collar at all - and it may not be original.

There, apparently, was no manual for the IIIb - just an outline of how it was different from the IIIa.

There's interesting stuff at the Pacific Rim Reference Library - but no IIIb info.

 

[RLangham]

The likelihood is they never considered the cable. If they did, they expected the cable would be short (most were). The threads turn because that entire thing is the drive sprocket for the film. The camera wasn't made for double exposures. (I've heard some people suggest turning the shutter speed dial after the shutter has been released, without pulling it up, as a way to recock the shutter - the mechanism was not made for that, though, so I'd call that a bad idea.) It's amazing you have a shutter-button collar at all - and it may not be original.

Yes, I think it's aluminum which would certainly not be original.

That method for recocking the shutter doesn't work on any Leica-relative I've ever used. You can't get it to catch the shutter release. People may be confused because it worked on old Prakticas with the rotating dial.

There, apparently, was no manual for the IIIb - just an outline of how it was different from the IIIa.

There's interesting stuff at the Pacific Rim Reference Library - but no IIIb info.

Ah, that tracks. I suppose there wasn't much to say; but later manuals do give a whole spiel about the double eyepiece and how you can supposedly flick your eye back and forth between them (doesn't work for me, although I could do that trick on the old Kodak Medalists), so I halfway expected there to be a manual for the camera that introduced the double eyepiece.

 

[RLangham]

First roll of Fomapan 400 came out pretty good with the I-26M and I-22, although my good I-26M has an extremely stiff focusing ring. A 35mm lens is definitely my priority since the I-22 is very serviceable.

Now, I am seeing what I believe to be some tapering at middle speeds (I think the shots in question were taken at 1/100s.) Obviously a CLA is in order, want to send it to YYE later this year. But assuming that it’s been well-maintained up to this point, and it clearly has, am I good to keep shooting it until then?

 

[chuckroast]

RL, my experience with the early 3.5cm & 5.0 Elmars tells me the coating isn't that important.... they're terrifc lenses....

Agreed. I have an 1945 50mm f/3.5 uncoated Elmar that is tack sharp with plenty of contrast.

You do have to watch for flare in the presence of specular highlights or backlit subjects. This can be conquered in some degree with a lens shade (hard to find those, I got lucky).

However, that can also be used as a creative tool to exploit the resulting "glow" when you point the lens at such a subject.

If one wants a more modern, coated look, a clean Color-Skopar is a fine alternative.

 

[loccdor]

I love the Jupiter-8 50mm f/2. It's cheap, small, sharp, and fast.

 

[Don_ih]

Now, I am seeing what I believe to be some tapering at middle speeds (I think the shots in question were taken at 1/100s.) Obviously a CLA is in order, want to send it to YYE later this year. But assuming that it’s been well-maintained up to this point, and it clearly has, am I good to keep shooting it until then?

It's likely fine to keep using. The shutters in the pre-IIIc Leicas are not as good as those after. There is a good chance your camera will never completely not taper at every shutter speed. YYE will get is as good as it can be. The tension should not be adjusted unless everything has been cleaned out and relubricated.

 

[RLangham]

It's likely fine to keep using. The shutters in the pre-IIIc Leicas are not as good as those after. There is a good chance your camera will never completely not taper at every shutter speed. YYE will get is as good as it can be. The tension should not be adjusted unless everything has been cleaned out and relubricated.

Believe me, I’ve adjusted the second curtain tension on a Fed 2 and it was about as stressful as could be and (predictably) didn’t solve the problem, which came from a part of the curtain that sat too long against the roller and got all smooth and indented. I’ve no desire to do it on a real camera that I paid real money for.

At any rate, if it’s tapering at higher speeds, it sure doesn’t do it enough to show it on the negative. I’m waiting until I have the whole roll scanned to where I can compare and make sure I’m not just seeing the lighting conditions, before I even say it’s tapering or not.

Do you know what specifically changed with the die cast body cameras that made the shutter better? I could see postwar production being better than production under war conditions, but IIIc’s were around during the war, right?

 

[Bruce Butterfield]

It's likely fine to keep using. The shutters in the pre-IIIc Leicas are not as good as those after. There is a good chance your camera will never completely not taper at every shutter speed. YYE will get is as good as it can be. The tension should not be adjusted unless everything has been cleaned out and relubricated.

I own Leica Model C, Model D, Model F, IIIc, and IIIf and I've never noticed any difference in shutter behavior between the pre- and post-war shutters other than the earlier (and IMHO much more beautiful) black/nickel Barnacks have quieter shutters. I don't doubt you're right about this since Leica certainly kept improving their cameras but I've never seen it documented before. References?

 

[Don_ih]

The IIIc introduced the ball-bearing shutter. The f and g both had them.

The IIIc is a redesign, anyway.

 

[RLangham]

Weirdly, while I said I didn’t want more Soviet lenses, I think I’m back to Soviets for a 35mm. Jupiter-12 seems like one of the best value 35mm lenses for LTM.

There are some Nikon and Canon lenses that are doubtless better, if you can find them without haze which seems like a big if. The best deal I saw on a Nikkor 35mm LTM on the bay had haze in the front group, and while I like the sample photographs there’s definitely some effect of the haze when shooting against the light. And the Canons? Forget about it. Haze in almost every listing.

Then there’s Mir-1 but that seems extravagant. Twice the size, 2-2.5 times the price… I’m sure it’s more convenient and modern, being a retrofocal lens without the delicate protruding elements… but at that price I could afford a Nikkor without haze or an Elmar 3.5cm. And unlike the J-12, it doesn’t have a built-in hood.

I know some people here really like the J-12. I’m curious, is the aperture setting really as inconvenient as it looks, recessed in the front of the lens body? And if you’ve used it on a well-calibrated Leica, was the lens calibration acceptable?

And anyways if I’m biting the bullet and accepting Soviet lenses I should probably swing for a Jupiter-8… not yet though. When I get paid today I’m ordering a VIOOH so when I get other lenses I can use them.

 

[Don_ih]

Jupiter-12 seems like one of the best value 35mm lenses for LTM.

I have a nice copy. But it's an awful lens. The distortion in the corners is ugly. The Elmar 35mm is miles better.

 

[RLangham]

I have a nice copy. But it's an awful lens. The distortion in the corners is ugly. The Elmar 35mm is miles better.

Hmmm... I'll have to look again at the pictures in the Jupiter-12 thread that's a few months old at this point. I recall liking its color rendition at least, although those pictures weren't as sharp as I'd want them to be. Didn't look close enough at the corners perhaps... I'll look again.

Re. the Elmar being better... I mean apples and oranges, right? Have you shot any Canon 35mm's? That may be a better comparison for the Jupiter. I've heard better things about the Nikkor-W's.

Thought better of the VIOOH, by the way. I was wondering why some are $40 and some are $120... one word. Haze.

 

[Don_ih]

I've never shot any Canon 35mm but I would imagine there's little to no distortion in the corners. Canon lenses are generally pretty good.

It may be difficult to judge the corner distortion from other people's photos. I judged it from my memory of what I wanted my own photos to be. I may be exaggerating exactly how bad the corner distortion is (because I didn't want there to be any - and I couldn't see why there would be any. It's not a 15mm lens - it's a 35). I also had an issue where it didn't quite match the 35mm view in a universal finder - the lens cropped what I could see. That's a big irritation, since I like to place things close to the edges of the frame.

The lens is sharp, though.

VIOOH

I have a few of those. One fell on the floor and the prism inside separated. I fixed it - youd be amazed how many bits of glass they have glued together in there. Very easy to develop haze in any of those joined surfaces (joined with balsam, I believe). But it's more likely haze is actually in the front or rear lens and quite likely it would clean off easily.

 

[RLangham]

It may be difficult to judge the corner distortion from other people's photos. I judged it from my memory of what I wanted my own photos to be. I may be exaggerating exactly how bad the corner distortion is (because I didn't want there to be any - and I couldn't see why there would be any. It's not a 15mm lens - it's a 35). I also had an issue where it didn't quite match the 35mm view in a universal finder - the lens cropped what I could see. That's a big irritation, since I like to place things close to the edges of the frame.

Yeah I have a feeling that focal lengths were all loosey goosey in the Soviet industry. Am I wrong in saying that there's a version of the H-44 that's marked 55mm despite being 58mm?

I'll seek out more sample photos before I make a decision. You're probably right objectively speaking. You get what you pay for, after all. Then again I'm one of those guys who likes swirly bokeh in an SLR lens, so maybe I was too quick to say something dismissive about "character" lenses earlier.

 

[Craig]

Have you looked at the modern Cosina made Voigtlander lenses? They are excellent optically, although I'm not sure if they are in your price range.

 

[RLangham]

Have you looked at the modern Cosina made Voigtlander lenses? They are excellent optically, although I'm not sure if they are in your price range.

They seem pricey, yeah. I'm not so much a cheap-skate, it's more that if I do spend a lot of money (say, more than $300USD) on a lens, it had better be A) a lifer and B) fit this camera like a glove. So I'm not gonna balk when I find that Elmar or Summitar 50mm that's the right deal, if that happens to be something like $400. But I don't necessarily want to spend that much on a 35mm or a 90mm.

I haven't been sure what to think of the Cosina stuff. The Bessas seem... not for me. But did Cosina make Chinon SLR's or did I imagine that? Those things are solid, or they were for a while.