View Full Version : Which are the sharpest contrasty LTM Lenses?
Robert Vote
04-01-2006, 02:13
What do you think are the sharpest and most contrasty lenses in LTM?
Which one can pull the best out of efke25 and velvia?
To cut long things short: Which lens makes the film the limiting factor?
Do the cv lenses have a resolution that makes the film the limiting factor? Or do I have to move to zeiss lenses (Which I cant do by now beause of the price :rolleyes: and because most of them have M-Mount) ?
What are your experiences?
Thanks for your attention
Robert
Costwise the jupiter 3 made either before 1951 or after 1980 in good shape is a sharp glass.
John Shriver
04-01-2006, 04:31
Probably the 1999 limited edition Leica LTM lenses: 50/2 Summicron and 50/1.4 Summilux. Also the Cosina/Voigtlander 50/3.5 Heliar.
Without a tripod, it's going to be very hard to tell the difference from cheaper lenses.
John Robertson
04-01-2006, 05:09
The question is academic, its the picture quality that counts, and sharpness and contrast are not always what you want. Unless you want to waste film photographing test charts :rolleyes: .
Ronald M
04-01-2006, 06:05
The best affordable screw mount glass is CV brand. They are equal to the 1980 generation of Leica glass in general except for the 50 1.5, which is better.
Notice I said afordable and you can get it easily and you won`t have to get it repaired or cleaned.
I use a lot old Leica glass, but I put up with a lot to do it. CV is a better value.
I agree that you would have to be using a tripod in order to see a difference in sharpness in LTM lenses (other than the exotic limitied editions mentioned.). The limiting factor in most cases will be camera shake.
Old Leica lenses were pretty mediocre.
Zeiss was the quality leader of the day during the golden era of rangefinders. The old Zeiss lenses are still pretty impressive. The reason why Nikon took off in the 1950s was the fact that they produced LTM lenses which were superior to Leica.
Leica didn't really start making exceptional lenses until the late 50s and early 60s with the 50mm Summicron. Then they switched to the M mount.
Anyhow, to get back to your question, without a doubt the Cosina Voigtlander LTMs are what you want. They are a tremendous bargain and offer exceptional performance. Really unbeatable.
ZorkiKat
04-01-2006, 06:32
How about the Russian Industar 61 L/Z?
Mike Kovacs
04-01-2006, 06:38
Zeiss was the quality leader of the day during the golden era of rangefinders. The old Zeiss lenses are still pretty impressive. The reason why Nikon took off in the 1950s was the fact that they produced LTM lenses which were superior to Leica.
Ha! Nikon copied the Zeiss optical designs, presumably when the USA gave many Japanese companies the German patents.
The Nikkor HC 50/2 I have is an extremely well made copy of the rigid postwar Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50/2 with 6 elements in 3 groups 1-3-2. I quite like the click stops on it too - no grease in the aperture mechanism required hence much less likely to get oily blades.
How about the Russian Industar 61 L/Z?
Yes. An I61 has got to be the lens with the highest sharpness/contrast to cost ratio of any lens.
Bertram2
04-01-2006, 06:48
What do you think are the sharpest and most contrasty lenses in LTM?
Which one can pull the best out of efke25 and velvia?
Thanks for your attention
Robert
Two questions IMHO, resolution and "look" ?
1st: film as a limiting factor. Unless you take TechPan and dev it to "black-or-white" (about 320lpm then ) film will always be the limiting factor, or your own perception will be. Most people can't perceive more than 80 lpmm on a 20X30cm enlargement of a 135 film neg, , some up to 120 best case. So far about resolution. If you want to print 60X90cm better use MF, it can't be beaten.
2nd: a more contrasty lens type for the EFKE 23, that is sometimes (landscape ?) a good idea. Compared to the Leica lenses CV is more on the contrasty side, Zeiss too.
CV 3,5/50 coll. Heliar is one of the best lenses ever built, super sharp, contrasty , 3d look is perfect. The CV 4/25 gives a strong contrast , the 35 and 50 Skopars are quite similar, glass clear, sharp and contrasty . And even the faster 1,9/28 , 1,7/35 and 1,5/ 50 are more contrasty than the the 2/50 and 2/35 Leica crons.
and so are Industar 61, Jupiter 8 or a Taylor Hobson, if you are rich enuff to afford one.
The modern Summiluxes are also more on the contrasty side, at least as I could see it on the monitor , haven't seen prints or slides tho.
There is no general recommendation, the lens-film combo should be adaequate for the issue ! You can shoot very nice pics with a low contrast lens and EFKE 25 too, depends all on WHAT you shoot I'd say.
bertram
Of the Ten Jupiter-3 lenses that I have shot with, the best was made in 1956 and the worst was made in 1950. The 1950 lens had decent glass, but was off. I believe that it was a "transition" lens, made from a mix of German and Russian parts. Quality control is a factor on FSU lenses.
I believe too that 1950 is a year when the factory finished the zeiss glass stock. I read that jupiter 3 from 1950 have Zeiss glasses and the difference in sharpness is seenable wide open till f4. I read it on the web due to a french photog who made a test of russian lenses online that is quite interesting because there are two leitz lenses on the bench. Here is the page, on the left side there is a traduction in the tongue of Shakespeare
http://www.collection-appareils.com/avoscrayons/html/50mm.php
Gabriel M.A.
04-01-2006, 07:55
I had read many times on this forum that the CV Color-Skopar 35 f/2.5 is very sharp and contrasty. And it's LTM. I'm sure that's a sharp contender...
The 35mm/2.8 Leica Summaron was made in LTM (and M) mount and is supposed to be very modern in that it is high contrast/low flare lens. They have an MTF chart that looks better than a lot of the 35mm/2 Summicrons. I've never used one. They are very expensive used.
Mike Kovacs
04-01-2006, 08:28
Actually Brian, that is consistent in terms of the Nikkor HC sharing a non-linear aperture spacing with the prewar Zeiss. But the optical formula didn't change. Actually, the postwar CZJ 50/2 would be the closest fit in terms of rigid barrel, chrome on brass construction, aperture spacing, and coated 6/3 design.
The Nikkor is impressively built, certainly equivalent to Zeiss standards.
>>Ha! Nikon copied the Zeiss optical designs, presumably when the USA gave many Japanese companies the German patents.<<
That old chestnut again? Nippon Kogaku was importing German optical engineers as techical advisors in 1922 and by 1937 had a line of 50mm f/3.5; f/2.8; f/2 and f/1.5 lenses for the Canon Hansa and S. The U.S. Navy in a December 1945 technical assessment determined that Nippon Kogaku had some of the best optical coatings in existence (for submarine periscopes). The report found that "In the past five years Japan has made a phenomenal growth in optical glass manufacture" with "a tendency toward large size (aperture) visual optical instruments, particularly in the field of binocular telescopes (80, 120, 150 mm apertures). This tendency may represent a futile attempt to offset deficiencies in their radar development."
As Brian noted, the postwar 5cm f/1.5 lens was commercially available for just a few months ... selling 800 copies ... before being replaced by a much improved lens. In that short time, the lens -- allegedly a copy of a Zeiss -- was found by LIFE magazine and the bulk of the photojournalism community to have surpassed any U.S. or German lens in overall quality and quality control. The Japanese companies had no particular need for the Zeiss patents. Leica designs went to England and were slavishly copied for years. Zeiss designs went to Russia and were slavishly copied for decades. If Zeiss designs went to Japan, an economically devastated country that had also unconditonally surrendered to the allies, they were surpassed and improved upon within a matter of months.
Of the Ten Jupiter-3 lenses that I have shot with, the best was made in 1956 and the worst was made in 1950. The 1950 lens had decent glass, but was off. I believe that it was a "transition" lens, made from a mix of German and Russian parts. Quality control is a factor on FSU lenses. However, once shimmed and cleaned, 9 of the 10 that I wroked with were quite good. I could not say "Avoid such and such years, it just did not seem to correlate.
The 5cm F2 Nikkor in LTM is very sharp.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12266&highlight=collapsible
As is the 5cm F1.4 lens.
N
Brian: Which model J-3 is mine?
I have used, as many of you know, over ten 50mm LTM lenses, and most gave very acceptable results. Personally, I like to use the Rigid Summicron 50/2 for sharpness and excellent contrast, followed by the Nikon 5cm/2 lens. For moody photos, the Collapsible Summicron is hard to beat, if you can find one in clean condition. The pre-war Zeiss in LTM is also very nice for such situations, and after having it shimmed twice and then cleaned during the third visit to DAG, now it is an excellent lens. The old Elmar 50/3.5 should not be ignored since it also has its signature but is slow and low contrast. For the money, I would support that statement that an adjusted J-3 is hard to beat. Brian did an excellent job in adjusting and shimming a not-so-nice-looking J-3 that ended up being sharp. The Canon 50/1.8 is a super lens for its cost. Its built is first-class and so is its optical design.
Soviet-era lenses are hard to beat from a price/performance point of view.
I haven't used Canon LTM lenses, but several of them have such strong reputations that they're very hard to ignore. Canon kept building and developing LTM lenses well into the SLR era of the mid-to-late 1960s, so their later lenses are especially worth looking at.
Rob The Waste
04-01-2006, 18:24
I don't have any experience with the "big name" lenses like Leica or Nikon, but I've been quite happy with the films I've shot with a Fed 5C using an Industar 61LD. Very sharp to me.
John Shriver
04-01-2006, 18:30
Excuse me, but everyone had to worry about Leica's patents until 1945. Then ALL German patents were cancelled as a war reparition. The rangefinder-coupled LTM mount was patent protected, even in Japan. Zeiss only started making LTM lenses during WW-II at the direction of the German government. Canon didn't make any LTM rangefinder cameras or lenses until 1946. (There were some without rangefinders.) The lenses Nikon made for Canon were in the Hansa Canon mount, not LTM.
Not to knock Nippon Kogaku's optical prowness, but they couldn't ship any LTM lenses until the patent were voided.
Same thing with the Contax mount, it was patent protected. The entire Contax I and II design all had to be designed around Leitz's patents. That's why the odd lens mount, and the very complicated shutter.
Old Leica lenses were pretty mediocre.
Kinda makes you wonder how they'd have sold if they'd have been any good, doesn't it? I have a few Leitz lenses that I like. Think I'll keep them. :)
Walker
Raid: I think your lens is from 1962. It was one of the sharper of the bunch, despite the cleaning marks. It has the "eyeball with optical ray" logo, right? Walker (Doubs43) told me that they were produced in smaller numbers with higher quality control, by a subsidiary that made lenses for the military.
That is correct according to Princelle's book. The "ZOMZ" (eyeball-light ray logo) factory was under the KMZ military-industrial complex umbrella and backed up the main plant. Princelle says that the ZOMZ-made chrome LTM J-3 is "uncommon" and the same lens in Kiev mount is "rather rare". Plants that manufactured for the military generally had better quality products from all I've been able to learn.
Walker
Who would think that???
ANYWAY: Not me. But, the original poster is more interested in lenses with higher contrast. That always brings out the Nikon in me. I like the Leitz lenses as they are lower-contrast; give me a real alternative to how I want a picture to come out. For outdoor portrait shots, the Leitz lenses produce a pleasing picture, handle contrasty light without losing shadow detail. especially my pre-war 9cm F4 uncoated Elmar.
I was just yankin' a few chains, trouble maker that I am. :D The debates over which lens maker is best has been going on for decades and will continue long after I'm gone. I have lenses made by all of the major makers and minor players as well. Most will do a very credible job and have nothing to be ashamed of. Choice often comes down to what a person wants or favors.
The uncoated 9cm Elmar is a delightful lens and certainly worth owning. My second one arrived in the mail today. Made in 1938, it looks to have been used very little. Exterior finish is easily better than 90%. There's slight haze between elements that I'll clean tomorrow and it should be as close to new as these lenses can generally be found.
Walker
Brian and Walker: Wow! I am happy indeed to get such a "rare" J-3 from Brian. Thanks.
What do you think are the sharpest and most contrasty lenses in LTM?
Which one can pull the best out of efke25 and velvia?
To cut long things short: Which lens makes the film the limiting factor?
Do the cv lenses have a resolution that makes the film the limiting factor? Or do I have to move to zeiss lenses (Which I cant do by now beause of the price :rolleyes: and because most of them have M-Mount) ?
What are your experiences?
Thanks for your attention
Robert
ZM 25mm, rated at 400lmm according to:
http://www.cameraquest.com/ZM%20lenses.htm
38mm Biogon on 120 should be another candidate (VF). The lens is rated at 200lmm+
This is a camera that my dad wanted in his 30s, and never owned one.
He said one of his friend should a vesa (no idea how, maybe compose like Adams?) and discover all the inperfection that can't be seem.
The original Nikkor lenses retained the same optical formula and 51.6mm focal length as they used for the Hansa Canon bayonet mount when they were produced in LTM and S-Mount after the War.
Brain,
Just a point of interset,
Did the tradition of a 51.6mm A.F.L. carry on to Nikon SLR standard lense?
Like, is the AIS 50mm still have a A.F.L of 51.6mm?
Same go for Contax, did the RTS's 50mm still have an. A.F.L of 52.3mm?
Probably the 1999 limited edition Leica LTM lenses: 50/2 Summicron and 50/1.4 Summilux. Also the Cosina/Voigtlander 50/3.5 Heliar.
Would love to see photos by the f/3.5 Heliar.
Does it retain character from the Large Format Heliars?
I use a lot old Leica glass, but I put up with a lot to do it.
That's enjoying classic camera.
Cheers
Will
Yours was the 1950 lens, Raid.
(just kidding)
;)
>>Not to knock Nippon Kogaku's optical prowness, but they couldn't ship any LTM lenses until the patent were voided. <<
I don't know what patent laws were in the 1930s and 1940s, but today, patent laws grant 17 to 20 years of protection. Those Barnack patents were expiring anyway. Seems to me that if the patents hadn't been voided, then the way would not have been opened for innovation and competition. Leica might not have developed the M in its current form, nor its finer lenses, if it had retained its patents on 1930s technology.
Ronald M
04-02-2006, 04:32
I think it is important to consider all the rework repoted on Russian lenses that people do to get them to work. I still say the value is CV which work right from the box.
Mike Kovacs
04-02-2006, 04:53
The entire intellectual property Germany fell into the hands of the allies. Never before or since has such a large body of knowledge fallen from the hands of one nation to another. Right or wrong, the Germans lost the war and that was one price they paid.
The fact is, the patents were taken by the Americans and given to the Japanese. This put the Japanese on near even footing with the German camera industry, and it didn't take long for them to surpass the Germans in popularity.
PS - I received a couple of PMs. I'm not hacking on the Japanese. Its a credit to their ingenuity and hard work that they came up on top. Who knows what would have happened in the long run, but I think the German patents accelerated the process for sure.
>>I'm not hacking on the Japanese. Its a credit to their ingenuity and hard work that they came up on top<<
I think the German companies were somewhat complacent. Here's an interesting quote from a little time-capsule of a book, a 1950 catalogue of new German cameras, in English and targeted to American buyers:
"Cameras from Germany" (1950, Hanns Bierl, Munich) -- From a report on the first FotoKina of 1950 in Koeln (P. 24) -- "True, none of the world-renowned cameras such as Leica, Contax, Rolliflex, Robot, or Retina, to name only a few, showed any revolutionary change upon superficial examination, but what is there to change on such a stable and proven basic design?"
Meanwhile, over in Japan ...
>>As much as I remember from School, German and Swiss patents were granted for 50 years until a few years ago.<<
That seems right. The Leica-M mount patent expired in 1998, which led to a little revolution in the RF world, thanks in no small part to Cosina-Voigtlaender.
Lens Guides
1. Leica Screw Mount, made by others:
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/lsm.htm
2. Leica made, LSM lenses
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/c.htm
3. Canon made, LSM lenses
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/can.htm
Dan
The 50/1.4 introduced a little later is very close to the 51.6mm standard. I've seen Pop Photo tests do the "measured" focal length, and comes out something like "51.4mm". That will vary lens to lens. Does give the chance for Nikon RF fans to take a lens module from a later SLR lens and hack it into an internal S-Mount lmount collar, like one from a Helios-103. The built-in helical of the Nikon RF camera would provide proper focus, and the back-focus of the SLR lens gives enough working room. Not that I've ever thought about it...
Brain,
People had done it! This japanese firm built it's own helicord, I guess you would foucs with the helicord.
http://mitte.nir.jp/~mitte0576/index.htm
My Switar Adapter use the moving lense group to push the RF cam of the adapter. So, it is 1:1 etc, and foucs with the helicord from the lens.
How much are dead Helios-103 (that's the russian Elmar copy rite?) going nowadays?
Just think if you can use that Bessamatic Standard lens on your M...
Cheers
Will
Many people forget - or never knew - that pre-war Japanese optics and precision machined goods were world-class. Too many associated Japanese goods with the post-war toys and tin crickets that seemed to be the only items imported in any quantity until companies such as Honeywell and others began bringing in cameras and lenses. I think everyone knows how David Douglas Duncan used Nikkor lenses in Korea and opened the eyes of the world to quality Japanese optics.
Who can doubt that the Germans (Leitz in particular) were motivated by Japanese competition to improve and inovate? We've all gained in the improved products.
Walker
How much are dead Helios-103 (that's the russian Elmar copy rite?) going nowadays? Cheers Will
The Helios-103, as I understand it, is an improved Jupiter-8 with a maximum apertture of f/1.8. That would make it a Sonnar based design I suppose.
Walker
How much are dead Helios-103 (that's the russian Elmar copy rite?) going nowadays?
There is a guy with 100% feedback on ebay selling them for $20, which includes worldwide shipping.
Mike Kovacs
04-02-2006, 10:43
the helios-103 is a double gauss design is it not?
Yours was the 1950 lens, Raid.
(just kidding)
;)
Frank: It would have killed me if this was true. (just kidding!)
I double-checked the lens, and just as Brian said, it had that logo he refers to.
The Helios-103, as I understand it, is an improved Jupiter-8 with a maximum apertture of f/1.8. That would make it a Sonnar based design I suppose.
Walker
Walker: This lens is found in Kiev/Contax mount online. I have not seen it in LTM.
Walker: This lens is found in Kiev/Contax mount online. I have not seen it in LTM.
Raid, you are, I believe, correct. I don't recall ever seeing a Helios-103 in LTM. I have one or more (I'll have to count) and all are in the Kiev mount.
Walker
outfitter
04-05-2006, 06:56
I believe too that 1950 is a year when the factory finished the zeiss glass stock. I read that jupiter 3 from 1950 have Zeiss glasses and the difference in sharpness is seenable wide open till f4. I read it on the web due to a french photog who made a test of russian lenses online that is quite interesting because there are two leitz lenses on the bench. Here is the page, on the left side there is a traduction in the tongue of Shakespeare
http://www.collection-appareils.com/avoscrayons/html/50mm.php
Most experts (e.g. Minoru Sasaki in his monograph "Contax to Kiev" agree that early Soviet lenses with numbers inscribed inside the mounts - similar to marks used at the Zeiss factory - indicate that they are real Zeiss lens barrels which were removed from Jena as finished or semi finished components. Most agree however that no one can tell whether the glass elements are Zeiss or Russian. Any notion that there are Russian branded original Zeiss lenses may be wishful thinking. Another fact to ponder is that many (if not most) Contax lenses in LTM were made up from parts after the war and are not Zeiss fctory made.
Michael
Michael
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.