| Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum. |
 |
vc 50/2.5 skopar |
 |
12-05-2004
|
#1
|
|
Old photog-New camera
stevew is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lompoc, Ca.
Age: 63
Posts: 189
|
vc 50/2.5 skopar
Curious about this vc lens. It looks nice and compact but I've heard rumors about its' optical quality. How does it compare with 10-20 year old summicrons? I used to have a 20-30 year old summicron and it was very! sharp but slightly low on the contrast end. I have a bunch of nikkor slr glass and thought about one of those new focusing adapters, really would only need it at 50 mm.
The problem is I would like a compact system I could carry all the time. The slr lens with adapter would be less than compact.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2004
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
FrankS is online now
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 56
Posts: 17,204
|
Steve, I was in your situation previous to just last week. My solution was to buy a used Canon 50mm f1.8 LTM lens from Brian on this forum. It's pretty small and reputedly very sharp with good contrast. Best of all, it was less than a new CV 50 f2.5, and faster. I've always wanted one of those collapsible Summicrons you once had so I kept an eye out and got one of those as well. It's 50 years old! (1954) It's still en route to me. Once I get it, I'll be comparing the 4 50mm lenses I have, which also include a Russian Jupiter 8 (f2) a Sonnar copy, and a Russian Industar 61 (f2.8) a tessar copy. If you want compactness over all other considerations, then a 50mm f3.5 or f2.8 Elmar would fit the bill. I passed on an f3.5 Elmar for $165 and an F2.8 in better condition for $300, because of the Summicron purchase. Let me know if you are interested in either of these 2 and I'll give you the contact info.
__________________
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – quote
I myself am made entirely of faults, stitched together with good intentions. -quote
|
|
|
|
 |
|
50/2.8 elmar |
|
|
12-05-2004
|
#3
|
|
Old photog-New camera
stevew is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lompoc, Ca.
Age: 63
Posts: 189
|
50/2.8 elmar
Frank,
Is that a new version elmar? Peter_N says it's a very good lens and I've thought about it. I just wonder about the long term stability of a collapsable lens. Of course 30 years on a Summicron is farily long term!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2004
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
FrankS is online now
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 56
Posts: 17,204
|
Steve, no it was the old version.
__________________
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – quote
I myself am made entirely of faults, stitched together with good intentions. -quote
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2004
|
#5
|
|
Registered User
FrankS is online now
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 56
Posts: 17,204
|
__________________
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – quote
I myself am made entirely of faults, stitched together with good intentions. -quote
Last edited by FrankS : 12-05-2004 at 15:13.
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2004
|
#6
|
|
Rangefinder newbster
g0tr00t is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South Pasadena, Florida
Age: 43
Posts: 287
|
See I am in the same boat, sort of....I have the 50 2.5. This weekend of shooting and the 2.5 was killing me. I need to go bigger! I just am unsure of how much bigger the lens is and how much less portable my R2 becomes.
I guess if its 52mm, I will look at my Canon 50mm 1.8 and see how it looks...
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=721'>My Gallery</a>
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2004
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
FrankS is online now
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 56
Posts: 17,204
|
David, I can't understand your post.
How is your 50 f2.5 killing you?
What do you mean by "I need to go bigger"?
__________________
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – quote
I myself am made entirely of faults, stitched together with good intentions. -quote
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2004
|
#8
|
|
Rangefinder newbster
g0tr00t is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South Pasadena, Florida
Age: 43
Posts: 287
|
I am looking at the 50mm 1.5. 
I am so used to shooting my EOS with the 1.8. I was using FP5 - 2.5@ 1/30 and the meter was showing underexposure. 
Now I know I have latitude with B&W and I can always push. BUT....I am such a low light junkie, I wonder if I should spring the extra $50 and get the 1.5...I can only do an exchange, no refund....
Its so hard deciding when you can't buy the lenses in person... 
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=721'>My Gallery</a>
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2004
|
#9
|
|
Moderator
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 9,188
|
I'm going to guess David needs a faster 50mm lens and is concerned about bulk and weight.
The 2.5/50mm Skopar is certainly a svelte lens, about the same size as the 3.5/28 and 2.5/35 Classic. I got mine used online for under $200. I've only shot one roll with it so far, mounted on my M2... see photos and full-scale crops in my Gallery here, for samples.
My only minor disappointment is the slight pincushion distortion noticeable when there are straight lines running parallel and near one side of the frame. But I knew about that when I bought it. Otherwise the lens has a pleasant "gentle" character.
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2004
|
#10
|
|
Registered User
JohnM is offline
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 585
|
The Nokton is substantially bigger, although it's not really that much heavier. It's probably an inch longer and takes a 52mm filter as opposed to the 2.5's 39mm. The Nokton does intrude into the viewfinder, although it's not terrible.
The 2.5 is a nice lens - very compact and a better performer than it seems to get credit for. The 1.5 is a better lens, in my opinion, but it comes in a substantially larger package and $50 is $50.
I guess it depends what your priorities are!
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2004
|
#11
|
|
Rangefinder newbster
g0tr00t is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South Pasadena, Florida
Age: 43
Posts: 287
|
Thanks John M. That were some of my concerns. I guess it looks like I say "Hello to ISO 800!"
Not that's a bad thing... Thanks all!
Its actually more than $50 if you factor in those darn shipping costs too....Arghh, why can't I win the lotto....
Leicas for everyone!
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=721'>My Gallery</a>
|
|
|
|
|
12-05-2004
|
#12
|
|
Moderator
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 9,188
|
Actually, my gallery samples with the 50mm Skopar are with an ISO 800 film! Amazing, the advances in film over the decades...
|
|
|
|
|
12-06-2004
|
#13
|
|
Rangefinder newbster
g0tr00t is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South Pasadena, Florida
Age: 43
Posts: 287
|
Cool, thanks Doug. I knew you all could talk sense into me...
I am thinking I may look into 35/1.7 Ultron if I need to go lowlight indoors...
Heck I can always crop 
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=721'>My Gallery</a>
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 14:32. |
|
|
