More on the vintage Leica Screw Mount (or LTM) lenses

[bmattock]

Seems we've added a bunch more users lately - welcome, by the way! I also note that people are starting to ask some questions about using third-party lenses on vintage Leica screw-mount rangefinders, or else using them on the newer Cosina/Voigtlander Bessa R and R2 cameras. It's a terrific and cheap way to get started with a high-quality system, and I recommend it!

Lots of relatively inexpensive but good lenses to look for. Consider these:

Canon rangefinder 50mm f1.8 chrome
Canon rangefinder 50mm f1.4 black
Canon rangefinder 85mm f1.9 chrome
Canon rangefinder 105mm f3.5 black
Canon rangefinder 135mm f3.5 black or chrome
Leica Hektor 135mm f3.5 black or dull chrome
Leica Elmar 90mm f4 chrome
A. Schacht Travenar 90mm f2.8 black
A. Schacht Travenar 135mm f3.5 black
A. Schacht Travegon 35mm f3.5 black
Kyoei Super-Acall 135mm f3.5 chrome and black

Those are all I can think of at the moment - there may be others that don't cost the farm and are capable of good results (assuming they are functioning correctly, adjusted properly, and clean, of course).

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[back alley]

should that be 100/3.5 not 105? or did you mean the nikon 105?

joe

[bmattock]

Originally posted by backalley photo
should that be 100/3.5 not 105? or did you mean the nikon 105?

joe

Joe,

Good question - I'm prolly cornfused on that one, since I have neither. But I do have one each of the rest, except no Elmar.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[bmattock]

Let me also give this a bump - if ya wanna see how a Hektor 135mm f3.5 looks next to some other lenses, with variables controlled as much as possible, here ya go...

Third-Party Leica Lens Test

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[back alley]

from the 135s, i think i like the canon 3.5 chrome version best.
i wonder if there was any difference in optics from black to chrome model?

[bmattock]

I suspect that there was a difference in optics - because the lenses themselves are very different. The black model is quite light compared to the chrome, which is very heavy. I'll have to take a close look, but I'll bet the number of groups is different.

Whoops! Looks like I'm wrong...here is the lens data from The Canon Museum - they ought to know!

Serenar 135mm f/3.5 I
Marketed December 1952
Original Price 27,000 yen
Lens Construction (group) 3
Lens Construction (element) 4
No. of Diaphragm Blades --
Minimum Aperture 22
Closest Focusing Distance (m)
1.5
Maximum Magnifcation (x) --
Filter Diameter (mm) 48
Maximum Diameter x Length (mm) 56 x 97
Weight (g) 565

CANON 135mm f/3.5 II
Marketed April 1958
Original Price 27,000 yen
Lens Construction (group) 3
Lens Construction (element) 4
No. of Diaphragm Blades --
Minimum Aperture 22
Closest Focusing Distance (m)
1.5
Maximum Magnifcation (x) --
Filter Diameter (mm) 48
Maximum Diameter x Length (mm) 54 x 97
Weight (g) 438

CANON 135mm f/3.5 III
Marketed January 1961
Original Price 23,000 yen
Lens Construction (group) 3
Lens Construction (element) 4
No. of Diaphragm Blades --
Minimum Aperture 22
Closest Focusing Distance (m)
1.5
Maximum Magnifcation (x) --
Filter Diameter (mm) 48
Maximum Diameter x Length (mm) 54 x 97
Weight (g) 424

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/index.html