which collapsible, for me.

I want a compact 50mm lens/camera combination for street/general photography. A Leica IIIc/IIIf or maybe even an earlier model fitted with a 50mm collapsible. Leica put out a few collapsible, most notably the Elmars (f3.5/f2.8), the Summitar, and ofcourse the Summicron. I believe that there is a Hektor too but that is a collector piece. I understand the basic differences in size, ergonomics, and ofcourse maximum aperture but I am wondering how they perform. Outside of signature.

-Which is most flare-resistant?
-Which is least prone to hazing?
-And what about sharpness at f4? I don't expect to use any of the lenses wide-open, to be honest, because I normally shoot at f5.6-f11 and sometimes f2.8-f4.0 when the light is not the best.

My feeling is that the "best" lens for me is one of the two Elmar's. They are smaller lenses and with simpler designs and so my thinking is that they are more flare-resistant. The are ofcourse the most compact.. The f3.5 is more compact but the f2.8 is more ergonomic. Is the f2.8 version decent at f2.8? Any samples? How do the two compare at f4.0?

The Summitar seems too middle-ground. It is not as ergonomic as the Summicron and not much more compact. The Summicron seems nice, but f2.0 isn't really required for the shooting that I am thinking and it is larger. The hazing situation is tricky as I hear that many LTMs are fogged up by now and so maybe they are all equal in this regard. For sharpness, I am not sure which is best as everyone swears by all of these lenses. I don't care about clinical sharpness, anyways. Price-wise, the gap doesn't seem that large and so it isn't a major factor in my decision.

In short, I prioritize compactness and flare-resistance over maximum aperture and signature/bokeh. I can compromise sharpness and ergonomics.

The Elmar 2.8 is a decent lens even wide open at least in the center you have some resolution and sharpness dropoff in the corners. As for flare get a hood not a Leica one though as they are expensive and little else. I personally prefer the Summitar to the Elmar because of it's look and better off center correction, but in overall performance the 2.8 Elmar is probably the best choice.

I wouldn't go w/ a knob wind camera for street photography. The idea is nice, but in practice, if you need a quick second shot, forget about it. A Bessa R is better and has a great meter. Yes, it's bigger, but it attracts less attention than a chrome and black Barnack. Also, when you need to change film in the Barnack, well, it won't happen fast!

Actually, a good Konica C-35 w/ it's AE is also a fine street shooter, Great lens on those. I've used everything from modern AF cameras to 6x9 folders for street photography, and they all work....to a point. In my mind, AE is your friend. I can do w/o AF though. Used to really enjoy shooting my Bessa R2a w/ AE. It had a Summar w/ a LTM to M adapter on it and was very quick to shoot. Just put it at f8, leave it, and let the camera do the metering. The poor man's Leica M7. A clean Summar is a fantastic choice, and what I used. At f4 and above it was nice and sharp, w/ a visible 3-D effect and classic Leica signature. But it MUST be a clean Summar. John at Focal Point cleaned the haze and fungus from mine, and it was very flare proof w/ a small 34mm hood. Really miss that setup.

With old Leica glass you are paying extra for a particular look. Both the Summar and Summicron will give that. If that classic look isn't important to you, even an inexpensive Industar 22 will deliver the goods. The Elmar 50 3.5 will too, but do you really want to fiddle w/ that aperture control on the front? Makes using filters a drag.

Many years ago I ran simple, but critical, tests on about 35 lenses for Leica and Nikon. The f/2.8 Elmar, 45mm GN-Nikkor, Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, and EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 were the best of all, with most normal Leica and Nikon lenses lagging a little behind. I don't recall if we had a 50mm f/3.5 Elmar to test. Much of my Leica photography was done with a collapsing Summicron.

I've owned several copies of the f/3.5 Elmar and currently have a collapsible Summicron for my daily carry. The 3.5 is a great lens and very compact. With the FISON I had very little flare issues and it is about the same size as the Summicron with hood. It does use the quirky A36 filters though. The Summicron with a 12585 hood is slightly more prone to flare and is much larger in size. I've heard that the "barn door" hood for the Summicron offers the best flare resistance, but it is even bigger. My main reason to keep the Summicron over the Elmar came down to wanting the larger aperture and bokeh preference.

From collapsible I have elmar 50mm f3.5 in M mount and summar f2. Elmar is pretty big in comparing to the same lens in screw mount. Plus is that you can use normal m39 filters. Summar is very small for f2 lens. Flare: elmar good, summar bad. Elmar is sharp at every stop, summar at f5.6 and f8 is sharp enough.

I question just how "fast" cameras have to be for street photography -- how many times to people need to fire off 4 shots in as many seconds, really? But if indeed speed of handling is a key criterion, I suggest the Hexar RF -- AE, very fast autowind, autoload, and autorewind; black finish. Pair it with a Summitar or Elmar, with adaptor if necessary.

The "barn door" lens shade for the Summitar works well but looks absurd on the camera and takes away from the Leica's svelte appearance.

The f3.5 Elmar is not only one of the best simple optical designs ever made, but also has Zen status. But then I would say that.

The /3.5 Elmar went through several redesigns the last is the best corrected.

The /2.8 is disappointing by comparison.

You can get a lever base plate for faster wind on.

But you need to be diciplined to stay away from the rotating shutter dial when street shooting.

A M2 or CanonP or VI makes an easier to use street shooter.

It is hard using 5 cm for street 3.5 cm or 2.8 cm is easier.

I have the following to offer based on some history. They are all equal to the task. You will not exploit the limits of resolution or other optical performance aspects out in the street - go for what is best value. Flare may rear its soft and interesting head when pointing at a strong light source but you might get that with a modern lens, I would not worry about that for street stuff. In my experience the limits of photographic performance are found in the camera shake/movement, scanning, processing and printing areas far more than the camera lens. Go for it, leave your worries behind, once you are out on the street you won't be thinking lines/mm.

Knjy said:

I have the following to offer based on some history. They are all equal to the task. You will not exploit the limits of resolution or other optical performance aspects out in the street - go for what is best value. Flare may rear its soft and interesting head when pointing at a strong light source but you might get that with a modern lens, I would not worry about that for street stuff. In my experience the limits of photographic performance are found in the camera shake/movement, scanning, processing and printing areas far more than the camera lens. Go for it, leave your worries behind, once you are out on the street you won't be thinking lines/mm.

Click to expand...

In the street (and in real life use in general) I never noticed difference in sharpnesses between my 50mm summicron and elmar 3.5.

Thanks for the input.

I should elaborate on my settup/life-style.

I am not a "photographer" per se but I do like to carry a camera daily. At the present, I have two main 35mm cameras, a rollei 35 and a Leica M3 + 50mm lens (Contax-adapted 50 1.5 Sonnar). I typically carry the Rollei 35 during the weekdays, the days that I work, and the M3 on the weekends, the days that I do not work.

I prefer to carry the Rollei 35 but I favor the images that I get out of the M3. The reason why is because the focal length. I don't feel particularly limited by the Rollei 35 camera ergonomics or the Tessar lens -- only the focal length. The M3 seems like such a burden to carry, in comparison.

My thought was that a Barnack + collapsible seemed to be a logical compromise between the two cameras. I don't like Kodak Retina's and folders. I'm not worried about bottom-loading or the divorced rangefinder/viewfinder. I didn't consider the knob-advance limitation, but I'm not sure if that is a real limitation.

Buy one now, try it out see if you like it and a) You will fall in love b) you will not and you can sell it for your investment
You have some real photo firepower already so you will be able to asses pretty accurately what will work for you. Personally I would get a collapsible Elmar for the M3 and get going.

Yes, buy and try, is my plan. I might buy a few different pieces off keh.com and return the one(s) that I do not like. I think that a collapsible on an M or on an LTM are my best choices.

Two little differences between the two Elmars.
The 2.8 has easier access to the aperture ring and uses 39mm filters. The 3.5 aperture ring is on the front of the lens and small.

John Koehrer said:

Two little differences between the two Elmars.
The 2.8 has easier access to the aperture ring and uses 39mm filters. The 3.5 aperture ring is on the front of the lens and small.

Click to expand...

3.5 M mount version has same access to the aperture as 2.8, and uses 39mm filters (I have this lens). LTM version has small aperture ring on the front and uses old version filters.