Non-Leica lens for IIIf?

[ssmc]

I know the merits of various LTM lenses have been discussed a lot on these forums but I'm interested in opinions on the following specific options for a Leica IIIf:

- Canon Serenar 50/1.8

- Canon 50/1.4 (black & chrome)

- Super Rokkor 50/2 (chrome)

I've seen samples that show the Super Rokkor having very "swirly" bokeh (which is fine by me), and people do seem to rate it highly (though not as much as the 1.8 Super Rokkor, which is also a lot more expensive). Plus, I have a soft spot for Minolta gear as I have a couple of old SLRs and a small lens collection I'm very attached to

I like the look of the early chrome Serenar too as I think it would suit the III's styling (shallow and superficial, I know ) but I wonder if the extra cost/speed of the 1.4 Canon is worth it i.e. is it really usable? The 1.4 also looks a lot fatter and I wonder if it'd block the VF and/or RF window... I wouldn't buy a 50mm for this camera if I had to use an external VF (and if the RF was blocked that would be pretty useless).

Finally, I already have a Nikkor 50/1.4 Millenium and an Amadeo S-LTM adapter. I know this is probably the best of the bunch optically but for various reasons I'd prefer a more "period" lens (or I could use a shimmed Helios-103, but that somehow just doesn't seem right...)

Any info on finder blockage, and any other usability or image quality issues for the Canons or the Super Rokkor/s would be greatly appreciated!

TIA,
Scott

[xayraa33]

Get the Canon/Serenar 50 f1.8; this nice performing chrome lens looks great on a Leica IIIf and so far it is still very affordable.

[Livesteamer]

The early chrome Serenar Canon 50mm f1.8 is heavier than the later black and chrome version. (I've got both.) I suspect the 50mm f1.4 Canon would block the viewfinder a bit. I find if I need f1.4 I reach for my M6 but that's just me.

Give thought to the old 50mm f3.5 Elmar. A fine lens that is very compact. The have gotten expensive of late but a Russian Industar 22 is $59 from Fedka and a fine performer.

Enjoy. Joe

[paulfish4570]

canon 50/1.8 or cv 50/2.5 ...

[pb908]

collapsible lens is the best to match IIIf.
Fed 5cm f3.5 is what i choose, better than elmar if you look for sharpness/contrast.
Canon f1.4 block 1/4 lower area of VF.
Nikkor hc f2 is one option, sonnar design, minimum focus to 1.5feet, hard glass/coating, much cheaper than cron collapsible, but higher than serenar/canon f1.8

[tennis-joe]

I agree with the Nikkor 50f2.0 as one of the best. The 50f1.4 is more expensive but wonderful also.
Joe

[MaxElmar]

The CV 50/2.5 is a joy on a Barnack camera. It's almost as small as a collapsable lens (but ready to shoot), and sharper than most. I know the modern rendering isn't for everyone. The Canon 50/1.8 is a sharp gem - with a classic rendering. The early chrome models look right at home. I used to say this was the best inexpensive option, but folks have caught on. Of course the Summitar can be had for a reasonable price and is a much better lens than most people expect.

Still, if keep your eyes open and don't sweat a few little scratches you can get an excellent deal on any of these. Be patient.

[zauhar]

I have the Canon 50/1.4 - screws on the IIIf like it was made for it (interestingly, my summitar does NOT screw so easily onto a Canon body).

The bokeh of the 50/1.4 is in my opinion beautiful, very uniform and similar to a summicron. More experienced people might make different pronouncements. ;-)

Randy

[Brian Legge]

I too prefer the Canon 1.8 over the 1.4 on this body. A lens between these sizes is the Yashinon 5cm 1.8 - also a great lens. The black Canon is noticeably small and lighter.

[ssmc]

Thanks for all the replies!

Looks like those Canons are pretty popular I did not think of the LTM Nikkors and will look into those...

Regards,
Scott

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by MaxElmar

The CV 50/2.5 is a joy on a Barnack camera. It's almost as small as a collapsable lens (but ready to shoot), and sharper than most. I know the modern rendering isn't for everyone. The Canon 50/1.8 is a sharp gem - with a classic rendering. The early chrome models look right at home. I used to say this was the best inexpensive option, but folks have caught on. Of course the Summitar can be had for a reasonable price and is a much better lens than most people expect.

Still, if keep your eyes open and don't sweat a few little scratches you can get an excellent deal on any of these. Be patient.

... and the CV's chrome is the same colour too ... and yes, I know I have a problem with the pernickety thing

[traveler_101]

Nice composition and I agree--the Voigtlander looks great on the camera.

[steveniphoto]

if you're on a budget i use a jupiter 8 50 f/2. no complaints here.. i picked mine up with a fed4 for around $50.

[ssmc]

I was looking at the Jupiter-8, but reports of uneven QC kind of scared me off, especially since the Barnack bodies don't have a removable back to check focus (unless there's some other way I don't know about). Then again for the price it's hard to go wrong!

That chrome CV does look sweet, BTW!

Scott

[pb908]

my sample, nikkor HC on my frankenstein leica : IIIC-T BD ST



jupiter 8, i have mix feeling about it, optically, they sometimes perform better than it's price, it's sonnar clone, can be as sharp as a real sonnar lens, i believe if you can get one with good condition optic, you will forget the body quality.