Please advise on a vintage 90-ish (leica mount)

[hankchinaski]

Hello and hat off to the immense collective experience of Photrio users.

I am looking for either an m39 or leica mount with the following characteristics:

- around 90mm (a "portrait" lens)
- maybe uncoated
- "vintage" image look

To be more clear...not the technically perfect Leica lens, totally neutral look, zero distortion etc.

These images have the look I'm after (it's an 80mm Volna on a Kiev 60, I could not find an adapter )

 

[Don_ih]

- around 90mm (a "portrait" lens)
- maybe uncoated
- "vintage" image look

That describes an Elmar 90 f4.

But it won't give you the results you posted in those photos.

 

[Sanug]

The Jupiter-9 2/85 is a nice and affordable lens. Slightly prone to flare due to insufficient black paint in the rear area. The issue may be fixed with matte black chalkboard paint.

 

[hankchinaski]

That describes an Elmar 90 f4.

But it won't give you the results you posted in those photos.

Thanks, what results does it give?

 

[Don_ih]

Thanks, what results does it give?

In order to frame things the way they are framed in your examples,. you'd need to move farther away from the subject (since your samples are medium format and the Elmar is for 35mm). Moving farther away changed the depth of field. You can't get photos that look like your samples on 35mm with that lens.

 

[Axelwik]

As others have said, 90mm (9cm) f4 Elmar screw mount LTM. Inexpensive for a Leica lens.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

A Jupiter 9 would do the job. I'd suggest an earlier one. Usually those are silver. FSU serial numbers all start with a date, so 67**** was from 1967. Also check out Nikon's 85 f/2 LTM as well as Canon's 85mm f/1.8. The Jupiter is a sonnar formula as I believe is the Nikon. The Canon IIRC is a planar type which might be too "modern" for you.

Honestly though, your Volna images don't look vintage to me. They look modern.

 

[hankchinaski]

As others have said, 90mm (9cm) f4 Elmar screw mount LTM. Inexpensive for a Leica lens.

thanks

 

[hankchinaski]

In order to frame things the way they are framed in your examples,. you'd need to move farther away from the subject (since your samples are medium format and the Elmar is for 35mm). Moving farther away changed the depth of field. You can't get photos that look like your samples on 35mm with that lens.

Ah ok, I was talking really about tones rather than composition.

 

[hankchinaski]

A Jupiter 9 would do the job. I'd suggest an earlier one. Usually those are silver. FSU serial numbers all start with a date, so 67**** was from 1967. Also check out Nikon's 85 f/2 LTM as well as Canon's 85mm f/1.8. The Jupiter is a sonnar formula as I believe is the Nikon. The Canon IIRC is a planar type which might be too "modern" for you.

Honestly though, your Volna images don't look vintage to me. They look modern.

Thanks! In my mind, vintage is uncoated. If we consider the pentacon six mount, I can see a distinct look that comes from coating (I suppose), for example the Zeiss lenses:



What did you have in mind for vintage? Things like Hurrell? The more vintage I can do, the happier I am.

https://npg.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/slides_wide/public/page-header/joanclark2.jpg?itok=XBw4dgiM

 

[brbo]

Posted examples don't look like 90mm on a Leica format.

Maybe you are after an uncoated 50mm Sonnar formula lens? Jupiter-8 or Zeiss 2/50 with adapter?

 

[hankchinaski]

Posted examples don't look like 90mm on a Leica format.

Maybe you are after an uncoated 50mm Sonnar formula lens? Jupiter-8 or Zeiss 2/50 with adapter?

Sure, the Volna is 80mm on 6x6 so it's more like a 50mm on 135, which would also do.
My problem with (new) Leica lenses and with (new) Zeiss lenses to some extent is that they are absolutely perfect, but if I were looking for that I would do digital!
So yes please, what do you recommend? Ideally I would like to maintain decent sharpness but have a much less "metallic" and "perfect" look (the family in the woods above is especially what I don't want).

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I think Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-9 lenses for Zorki mount will be at least single-coated, even the 1950s versions.

I have a black J-9; I like it, but I only use it on my mirrorless camera. I had a silver one previously, and the focus on that stiffened up to become unusable; I had it serviced, but it stiffened up again pretty soon.

You might also consider a Meyer Primoplan (f/1.9 in either 50 or 80mm) - might be expensive.

 

[Don_ih]

I would like to maintain decent sharpness but have a much less "metallic" and "perfect" look (the family in the woods above is especially what I don't want)

All your sample images obtain a lot of their character from the film and developing choices - all of which are different. One is even cross processed slide film, which definitely required some scanning magic to obtain that look.

I think what you're asking for, though, you'd get from a 50mm Summar. Most of the "character" people talk about from Leitz lenses comes from being scratched up and internally dirty. The Summar, however, does have a more "vintage" look due to its design.

 

[Saganich]

As others have said, 90mm (9cm) f4 Elmar screw mount LTM. Inexpensive for a Leica lens.

Same, great on LTM and M's. Also, what Don said about format, your expectations based on the samples posted won't be satisfactory in 35mm format.

 

[Axelwik]

Same, great on LTM and M's. Also, what Don said about format, your expectations based on the samples posted won't be satisfactory in 35mm format.

I think he's after the results from an uncoated lens. All of the M mount lenses are coated. Any LTM before 1946 that wasn't coated later in its history is probably what he's looking for. Many of them were. I have a 1938 9cm f4 that the front element was coated after the war.

 

[hankchinaski]

I think Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-9 lenses for Zorki mount will be at least single-coated, even the 1950s versions.

I have a black J-9; I like it, but I only use it on my mirrorless camera. I had a silver one previously, and the focus on that stiffened up to become unusable; I had it serviced, but it stiffened up again pretty soon.

You might also consider a Meyer Primoplan (f/1.9 in either 50 or 80mm) - might be expensive.

The primoplan! And it’s still made!

Lenses

Our lenses are characterized by highest quality and unique bokehs. Create photographs with an individual look and stand out from the crowd!…

www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.com

 

[hankchinaski]

Can you guys post samples from the lenses you mention?

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Here are a couple of old ones taken with a 58mm f/1.9 Primoplan, on my Exa. The lens isn't coated. The film is old Efke KB100 - thatprobably contributes as much to the look as the lens does. Just a couple of scenes in the park with low winter sun.
Inserting a Flickr URL here adds navigation arrows, but don't bother navigating; I have very few photos up with this lens.





Here's one with the same lens and camera, trying out Harman Phoenix at ISO 125, in the city centre.




You can see the image doesn't darken in the corners, but it isn't very sharp into the corners unless it's stopped down a bit. 58mm is a long standard lens; you might be frustrated by the narrowness of its view.

For the record, I think I paid about 40 pounds for mine. It's the aluminium-bodied version; there's an older model in chrome-plated brass which is more sought-after.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

This one is with a 100mm f/2.8 Trioplan, also on the Exa, and with Phoenix. This lens is a simple triplet, and I don't know why it gives the effects I have here. It's not very sharp anywhere, and quite a lot less so into the corners. I have several folding cameras with a Trioplan of standard length for their format, and they are more normal lenses.



Here's one of those folders; this is a 75mm f/3.5 Trioplan on a Certo vest-pocket Dolly (that's 6x4cm on 127 film, so 75mm is a standard lens). Fuzzy in the corners, but perfectly good in the middle. Rollei R80S (aerial film, I think).

 

[hankchinaski]

Thank you very much. Is it the newly produced Primoplan or the old one?

 

[loccdor]

Here's a search on Flickr of the Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5. It's a Sonnar design.

Flickr Search — “jupiter 50mm f/1.5”

www.flickr.com

The Jupiter-8 is a less expensive slower alternative at f/2 which is also very good.

I've used the Volna-3 lens you mention for a long time and love it. Lately I've been using it on a Mamiya 645 with an adapter that is widely available.

To get similar results on 35mm, you'll want an old very fast 50mm, made in Russia or Germany, most likely, using it with slow or medium speed film. Because the 80mm is a normal focal length lens on 6x6. And because f/2.8 is equivalent to something like f/1.4-1.8 with the change in formats. The Soviet lenses were mostly inspired or copied from pre-war German designs.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Here's a search on Flickr of the Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5. It's a Sonnar design.

I think all of the Soviet Jupiter-3 lenses were coated. Possibly a limited number of the earliest post-war units with original Zeiss glass may have some uncoated elements. Sonnar Brian is the expert on these lenses. Regardless, if you want the flarey uncoated look, the Jupiters won't quite provide that.

The other big issue is finding a reliable Jupiter-3, not a fake that has been hacked together from various lenses. A good one is no longer cheap, as per 10 years ago.

 

[loccdor]

I think all of the Soviet Jupiter-3 lenses were coated. Possibly a limited number of the earliest post-war units with original Zeiss glass may have some uncoated elements. Sonnar Brian is the expert on these lenses. Regardless, if you want the flarey uncoated look, the Jupiters won't quite provide that.

The other big issue is finding a reliable Jupiter-3, not a fake that has been hacked together from various lenses. A good one is no longer cheap, as per 10 years ago.

Well, the Volna the OP originally posted was also likely to have been coated. Mine is marked MC. They were made into the 90s. Even with coatings, these lenses are lower contrast unless stopped down twice. They also have a flaw in how their stop-down lever is designed that can let light into the optics through the side when it's used in the closer half of its focus range.

I haven't ever used a Jupiter-3, or the Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 it was copied from. Only a Jupiter-8 50mm f/2, and Jupiter-9 85mm f/2. It's not exactly the same beast as the Volna-3, but all have a "vintage" look.

It's a bit of a predicament when someone asks how to replicate a medium format lens on 35mm, part of me wants to encourage them to buy one of those medium format cameras, but I've been down that rabbit hole and it's not for everyone.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I haven't ever used a Jupiter-3, or the Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 it was copied from. Only a Jupiter-8 50mm f/2, and Jupiter-9 85mm f/2. It's not exactly the same beast as the Volna-3, but all have a "vintage" look.

I have a Jupiter-8 from 1962, and the elements are fully coated with a blue/purple tone. I agree, it is a nice lens. Sonnar Brian adjusted mine to focus as well as possible on a LTM Leica IIIC. But I am not sure if I would classify it as vintage, but I'll admit, I am not sure exactly what constitutes the "Sonnar look." My Jupter-8 negatives do look a bit different than my Summitar or Summicron Type 4 negatives. You know the obvious advice: buy one and try it!

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2021/07/optical-treasure-1960s-jupiter-8-lens.html

Note that until a few years ago, Lomography sold a brand new, modern coated version of the Jupiter-3. Nice lens!! But I do not see it on their web page today