Agreed about the Canon 50/1.4 LTM lens partially blocking the Barnack viewfinderIn terms of balance and ergonomics, the Canon 50/1.4 LTM is probably not well suited for a smaller body like Patrick noted. It's a wonderful lens, but mounted on a Barnack it is very front heavy and partially obscures the viewfinder.
The Nikkor-H.C 5cm f/2 recommended a few times above is a much better balance. While heavier and less compact compared to a collapsible Elmar, the aperture is less fiddly and its smaller size does not obstruct the viewfinder (40.5mm filter thread compared to the Canon's 48mm). If aesthetics matters to you, the chrome finish is a good match for a Barnack.
Another nifty item is the Leitz 50mm bright-line finder that would sit in accessory shoe of screw mount cameras. Makes camera much easier to use.
You will eventually want both. I'd start with the Elmar.
If you were buying a 50mm lens for a Barnack Leica, which would you choose? I can't decide between a 3.5 Elmar or a F2 Summicron.
The Summicron is excellent but getting very difficult to find one in decent optical condition.
many of the 50mm 2.8 Elmars have a severely pitted front element
Well, the Elmar 3,5/50 supply is not infinite and I suspect that there weren't that many classic Elmars in the US to begin with.Brad and Don may be right, but I have been looking for a 3.5 Elmar, and am not finding many that are not hazy, scratched, or dirty. The Japanese vendors list some really clean red scale examples at the $600 or $700 levels. I've checked KEH and other US retail stores, but the pickings are poor. Where did all these Elmars go?
Yuoxin Ye (Leica repair in Massachusetts) and I had a long conversation about collapsible lenses. He warned that many of the 50mm 2.8 Elmars have a severely pitted front element because the aperture was too close to the back of the glass. Some chemical outgassed from the blades and etched the glass. I did some reading and saw a number of warnings about the problem. The later version of the 50mm 3.5 Elmar was mounted in a modern collapsible mount like the 2.8 (which accepted 39mm filters). But I do not know if its front element also suffers from the pitting.
[...]
Yeah, compare them on film to eliminate the limiting factor of the sensor.I received a 50mm/3.5 with a camera body. I wasn't interested in the lens, but tried it on my m240. It's incredible. Don't dismiss the Elmar. It makes your camera pocketable, and it performs wonderfully. I've heard it could do with a hood.
These are close to 1:1 crops
[50mm Elmar] Some chemical outgassed from the blades and etched the glass. I did some reading and saw a number of warnings about the problem.
I intend to use it on my Barnack IIIF, with perhaps a VIDOM finder
I don't know why you would, since the viewfinder on the body is made for the 50mm lens.
In the end I bought a Elmar 50mm f3.5, not perfect, but in excellent condition. I intend to use it on my Barnack IIIF, with perhaps a VIDOM finder. But thanks for all the advice on this thread.
Then you do not understand what a VIDOM finder does.
While I agree that a 5cm finder isn't strictly necessary with a II or IIIf, it can be more relaxing composing with the larger image given by an SBOOI (and they take up very little space).
I'm not clear whether the OP means a VIDOM or a VIDOH (they get mixed up on eBay); but in either case the image isn't as good as the brightline's. Composing with a VIDOH and a 13.5cm lens is a pain.
Well, I am 80 with fairly good eyesight for my age; but I don't think that's all that significant in this context.
I don't know why you would, since the viewfinder on the body is made for the 50mm lens.
The manual that came with the IIIF recommends using a 50mm finder
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?