Preference for Barnack 50mm lens

[JerseyDoug]

In 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.

Agreed about the Canon 50/1.4 LTM lens partially blocking the Barnack viewfinder
but I use it on my IIIf with an SBOOI external viewfinder so no issue there. It also partially blocks one window of the rangefinder making one of the images dimmer than the other. Unfortunately this can be more of an issue in the same dim light that makes me want to use the lens in the first place. Despite this, it still remains my regular setup for available light indoor work.

 

[Arthurwg]

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.

That's actually recommended in the IIIF instructions. I shoot that way.

 

[Pioneer]

For over 30 years I have used the collapsible Elmar 50/3.5 on my Leica III over 90% of the time and can't remember being disappointed with the results. Make sure it is clean or have it cleaned if it is not.

I love the Japanese Summilux, the Nikkor 50/2 and the VC Heliar 50/3.5. If I know I am going to need something faster than 3.5 I grab the Nikkor 50/2. I know I also have an LTN Cron somewhere around here but I can never seem to find it when I want it. The only time I ever used the Canon 50/1.4 for was high school basketball and football. Now that the kids and grandkids are grown it is rarely ever used.

Now where did I hide that Summicron?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Summicron 50mm F2, but the 7/6 elements rigid, collapsable made from 1953 till 1960 in screw - and bayonet mount, the rigid made from 1956 till 1968 rare to find in screw mount (considered to be the best 7 elements)...

 

[David Reynolds]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned a 50mm Summarit F1.5. Fine Lens

 

[BradS]

You will eventually want both. I'd start with the Elmar.

There is much wisdom here. I too would start with the Elmar. The Summicron is excellent but getting very difficult to find one in decent optical condition.

 

[georg16nik]

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.

If you really can't decide, then take the one that has better glass!

 

[Don_ih]

The Summicron is excellent but getting very difficult to find one in decent optical condition.

I agree. Most look like they've been scoured with a Brillo pad. It's easier to find good condition Elmars. And you could always get a Summitar.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

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.

I had a M-mount 2.8 for many years and did not see any issues. But Don Goldberg cleaned mine and possibly he changed the lubricant or cleaned it. I wish I had kept that lens.

Added: Many of the black body Canon 50mm ƒ/1.8 lenses from the 1960s-1970s also suffer from an internal element being etched or pitted by haze. It is rare to find a clear one now. This is a real shame because a clean example is an excellent lens optically. In my experience, the Canon 50mm ƒ/1.4 lens tend to be cleaner.

 

[Don_ih]

many of the 50mm 2.8 Elmars have a severely pitted front element

I have one such lens and needed to polish down the inside of that front element to make it usable. It's still very "glowy".

 

[Stealth3kpl]

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

 

[georg16nik]

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.
[...]

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.
Look around the European online sellers and why not the Japanese ones:. $600 - 700 levels sounds OK for really clean red-scale Elmar in 2023.

Gone are the days of cheap lenses – the good deals started to dissapear around 2008/2009.

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

Yeah, compare them on film to eliminate the limiting factor of the sensor.
Get film with balls, like Agfa Copex-Rapid, Adox CMS 20 or even Ilford Pan F+.
Then print the results optically on fixed grade paper with enlarger with condenser head and a decent enlarging lens.

 

[cliveh]

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.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

[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 had that problem with a 50/3.5 M mount Elmar.

 

[Don_ih]

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.

 

[cliveh]

I don't know why you would, since the viewfinder on the body is made for the 50mm lens.

Then you do not understand what a VIDOM finder does.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

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.

Congratulations, good choice. Do you mind telling us which model of the 3.5 and where you bought it? Did the seller have more?

 

[Moose22]

Then you do not understand what a VIDOM finder does.

Willing to tell me?

I have an external finder for my 35mm and 15mm, but never thought of one for the 50mm as it is what my iiiF does by itself.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

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 VIOOH (they get mixed up on eBay); but in either case the image isn't as good as the brightline's. Composing with a VIOOH 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.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

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.

Agree about the Brightline finders. Those are quite good for composing and relaxing for the eye, in particular SBLOO (35mm) and SBOOI (50mm). 50mm may seem redundant but is much better than building finder.

 

[Don_ih]

I can understand using a finder that provides a better view (i.e., larger and not as squinty) -- but a VIDOM finder would be more irritating to use for 50 than the camera's finder. I guess if you like composing your images through a viewer that reverses everything, it can be fun...

 

[Arthurwg]

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

 

[Don_ih]

The manual that came with the IIIF recommends using a 50mm finder

Do you mean here?

Right above it, it says:

 

[Arthurwg]

Yes, that's it. "Can be used to good advantage on models 11F and 111F." I use it on my 1c and 111F. Of course it's not necessary on the 111F but it helps.

 

[Oldwino]

The SBOOI. Big, bright view, life-size image. Game changer.