Fast 50 on a CL

Bailey · 09-06-2006

I'd really like pick up an inexpensive fast 50mm lens for my CL. Here are some of the ones I've been looking at:

Canon 50/1.4
Canon 50/1.2
Nikon 50/1.4
Jupiter-3
Leica Summarit 50/1.5
VC Nokton 50/1.5

I'm not sure if some these are going to be too big for the CL, though. Does anyone have any experience with any of these (or others in the same price range) on a CL?

Thanks,
B

wlewisiii · 09-06-2006

I've used a Jupiter 3, but you will need to get it adjusted before you'll get acceptable focus wide open. Another fast lens that is usually rather inexpensive is the Canon/Serenar 50/1.5 which is a very nice compact lens that will fit into the little zip case for the CL.

The 50/1.4 is better than the 1.2 based on shots I've seen from both, but if you're looking for inexpensive, perhaps the 50/1.8 would suit? It's a very good lens that can be found silly cheap with a little looking. I really am going to have to get another as I miss the one I had and sold recently.

William

KoNickon · 09-06-2006

Size is one thing; others have indicated that a 50 used at wider than f2 might be exceeding the ability of the CL's rangefinder mechanism. So you might want to look into that before buying -- and I assume you want a fast 50 in order to use it wide open.

clarence · 09-06-2006

I'm currently waiting for a roll shot with a Jupiter 8 50/2 on my CL to be processed. I have no confidence in my CL being able to focus a 50 / 1.4 properly at close ranges, but other forum members have reported that they have been able to do so.

If you're looking for a fast lens that the CL can certainly focus accurately, do consider the Cosina-Voigtlaender 40mm / 1.4 Nokton.

Clarence

back alley · 09-06-2006

why not the cv 40/1.4?

clintock · 09-06-2006

I find the CL quite frustrating to focus with any lens more critical than the 40/2 that comes with it. I've tried my 50/1.5 Nokton on there and it's just not right- I get ears or eyeglass frames in focus when I was going for eyes..
The small rangefinder base just produces too little displacement of the rf patch image vs focus ring movement to allow much faith in just where exatly the plane of focus is. Things are even worse through the viewfinder in low light, the rf is that much harder to discern.

The only other lens I really like to use on my CL besides the 40 summicron is the 28 cv 1.9 ultron.

Bailey · 09-06-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by back alley

why not the cv 40/1.4?

I've thought about that. My logic was that I already have a 40mm summicron. So I figured since 50mm is a nice focal length to have, and I would like to have at least one fast lens for night shooting, a fast 50 seemed like the right solution. I have debated selling my summicron and buying the VC though.

Bailey · 09-06-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarence

I'm currently waiting for a roll shot with a Jupiter 8 50/2 on my CL to be processed. I have no confidence in my CL being able to focus a 50 / 1.4 properly at close ranges, but other forum members have reported that they have been able to do so.

If you're looking for a fast lens that the CL can certainly focus accurately, do consider the Cosina-Voigtlaender 40mm / 1.4 Nokton.

Clarence

Maybe I'm a little confused about the focusing issue. But can't you just close the lens to f8 or something, focus, and then open it back up before you shoot?

Or is it because the depth of field is so shallow at 1.4 that the inaccurate short base length makes it difficult?

Sorry if this is a noobie question, but I am, well, a noobie.

clintock · 09-06-2006

With enlargers, view cameras, slrs.. things you actually focus by looking through the taking lens, you can help things by focusing wide open, then stopping down to increase the depth of field, but on a rangefinder camera, the rangefinder images are not affected by the diaphram settings.

The CL rangefinder is potentially accurate (if the camera is calibrated right) enough to focus the fast lens wide open, it's just not precise enough to reveal that accuracy in a way that's easy to use.. for me anyway.. with the depth of field so shallow on fast 50s.

clarence · 09-06-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey

Or is it because the depth of field is so shallow at 1.4 that the inaccurate short base length makes it difficult?

You are right about the short effective baselength being the limiting factor.

Do remember though, that as your subject distance increases, the short effective rangefinder baselength matters less. If you do not plan on focusing close, then you will be able to use a 50 / 1.4 without worrying about focus accuracy. Having said that, the minimum distance is probably something you shall have to determine on your own.

Clarence

back alley · 09-06-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey

I've thought about that. My logic was that I already have a 40mm summicron. So I figured since 50mm is a nice focal length to have, and I would like to have at least one fast lens for night shooting, a fast 50 seemed like the right solution. I have debated selling my summicron and buying the VC though.

doh!
i didn't look at your sig to notice you had a 40 already.

Al Patterson · 09-06-2006

I've used the 50 f/2 Hexanon from the Konica Hexar RF with no problems.

I'd also like to try the CV 40 1.4, as so many on this site have shown is doable.

Bailey · 09-06-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by wlewisiii

I've used a Jupiter 3, but you will need to get it adjusted before you'll get acceptable focus wide open. Another fast lens that is usually rather inexpensive is the Canon/Serenar 50/1.5 which is a very nice compact lens that will fit into the little zip case for the CL.

The 50/1.4 is better than the 1.2 based on shots I've seen from both, but if you're looking for inexpensive, perhaps the 50/1.8 would suit? It's a very good lens that can be found silly cheap with a little looking. I really am going to have to get another as I miss the one I had and sold recently.

William

Yeah, I'm leaning towards the canon right now. The 1.4 seems like the best combination of speed, size, price, and quality. Sadly, I haven't been able to find any for sale yet. Guess I'll just have to keep watching.

BTW- what type of adjustment would I have to get in order to use a jupiter-3?

wlewisiii · 09-06-2006

Brian Sweeney, a former member of RFF, reshims the lens elements so that the lens is at the proper registration distance from the film plane on non-FSU LTM & M mount cameras. A good explaination of the issues involved is here: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

I'll probably eventually get a Serenar 50/1.5 eventually, but it does get challenging to focus the CL wider than f2. A nice old Collapsible Summicron makes a wonderful lens on the CL

for example. And the 50/1.8 does focus well wide open on the CL too. Too many options, heh?

William

Palaeoboy · 09-07-2006

I have found that fast 50's like 1.4 or 1.5 are just beyond the CL's focusing abilities. As others have mention this occurs at close range but after 3 meters your pretty well safe. If you do want to use these lenses close up wide open just bracket a few shots just to be sure.

I did think the Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 too large on a CL.

A CLE can focus a faster 50mm lens having 50% greater baselength than a CL.

Keith · 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey

I'd really like pick up an inexpensive fast 50mm lens for my CL. Here are some of the ones I've been looking at:

Canon 50/1.4
Canon 50/1.2
Nikon 50/1.4
Jupiter-3
Leica Summarit 50/1.5
VC Nokton 50/1.5

I'm not sure if some these are going to be too big for the CL, though. Does anyone have any experience with any of these (or others in the same price range) on a CL?

Thanks,
B

There's a 50 1.4 Canon for sale on photo.net at the moment .... price is fair!

http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?cla...d_ad_id=659491

Bailey · 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith novak

There's a 50 1.4 Canon for sale on photo.net at the moment .... price is fair!

http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?cla...d_ad_id=659491

Thanks!

This is probably the best thing for me. There's a 50/1.2 on ebay right now that I've been thinking about. I'd really like to have that extra half stop, but I don't know if it's worth giving up the sharpness and overall quality I would get with the 1.4. Especially given the focusing issues.

I guess, like most youngsters, I'm a little too obsessed with speed.

lubitel · 09-08-2006

I very often use a Bessa R with J-3 wide open, and I havent had any focusing issues yet.

clarence · 09-08-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubitel

I very often use a Bessa R with J-3 wide open, and I havent had any focusing issues yet.

The effective baselength of the Bessa R is adequate for fast 50mm lenses. Not the CL, unfortunately.

I find that it's safer to just rely on film for speed, unless you're looking for sliver-thin depth of field. Focusing with a 50/1.4 on a CL at close range can be difficult.

Clarence

Bailey · 09-09-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith novak

There's a 50 1.4 Canon for sale on photo.net at the moment .... price is fair!

http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?cla...d_ad_id=659491

Thanks for posting this. I just bought it. Now I just have to sit and wait for it to show up.

wlewisiii · 09-09-2006

Be sure to let us know how it works for you. Up close & wide open probably won't be easy - but you'll be in a good place to tell us

William

Matthew Runkel · 09-11-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey

Maybe I'm a little confused about the focusing issue. But can't you just close the lens to f8 or something, focus, and then open it back up before you shoot?

Or is it because the depth of field is so shallow at 1.4 that the inaccurate short base length makes it difficult?

Sorry if this is a noobie question, but I am, well, a noobie.

The second idea is correct. You can miss the focus point even though, as best you can tell from the rangefinder, the focus is right on. In other words, the rangefinder isn't accurate enough. The first idea cannot be right because there is no linkage between the diaphragm and the rangefinder.

According to Erwin Puts, the CL has an effective base length of 18.9mm, compared to 49.86mm for the .72 Ms, 63.71mm for the M3 and 9.82mm for a Leica SLR with 50mm lens. Puts suggests that you need at least an effective base length of 17.9mm to focus a 50/1.4 accurately wide open, allowing for a .03mm circle of confusion, but he is not taking account of subject distance. His figures suggest you are still better off with a properly-calibrated CL and 50/1.4 than with an SLR and 50/1.4.