Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M9 / ME

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Lomo LCA 32/2.8 art lens for Leica M's
Old 04-30-2015   #1
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Lomo LCA 32/2.8 art lens for Leica M's

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/3...tar-1-art-lens

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #2
santino
eXpect me
 
santino's Avatar
 
santino is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Autriche
Posts: 1,034
just pierce your m body cap for a similar effect
__________________
Vivent les télémétriques ! -
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #3
LChanyungco
Registered User
 
LChanyungco's Avatar
 
LChanyungco is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Berlin
Posts: 627
i want one.
__________________
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #4
nightfly
Registered User
 
nightfly is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,897
I really liked the lens on my Lomo and would definitely consider one of these.

The problem with Lomos was the build quality of the cameras themselves, the lenses were really nice. I was considering having the lens from my Yashica T4 converted to Leica M but this actually gives a similar look and tiny size for about half the cost.

You can bash the lomography thing as much as you like but those lenses produce some very nice saturated colors with a really pleasing look although not technically great (vignetting, etc).
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #5
silent1
Registered User
 
silent1's Avatar
 
silent1 is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Leiden, Netherland
Posts: 501
I really can't stand the distortion of my Lomo LC-A+ lens, I'm trying to sell it for that very reason. I had an original LC-A before and I don't recall the distortion to be so obvious and distracting. Other than that, the camera itself is cute and the photos you get with it do have some kind of distinctive look.
__________________
stefanomattia.it
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #6
Sid836
Registered User
 
Sid836 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,132
A magnificent leica with a lens that produces photos like a holga or worse! What for? I would buy one if it was at about 10euros, else I have plenty of toy cameras that do exactly the same.
Fellas at lomography hide this behind a "As the Lomo LC-A Minitar-1 Art Lens is produced in small batches, pre-orders will be delivered on a first come, first served basis starting in July 2015" that can be translated as "We will see how many will bite first and then if many we will make some more".
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #7
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,259
The lens is of adequate quality. It's a f/2.8 5/4 lens which is much more sophisticated, at least in terms of production cost involved, than the very cheap, sometimes even fixed aperture and focus 3/3 lenses found on many Japanese point & shoots. Those seem to be well-received here on RFF, so what difference does the LOMO name make?

At $349 it's definitely not as good as a CV 35/2.5 or 28/3.5 price to performance wise, but lord it's SMALL. People lined up to pay more for a Miyazaki pancake, so why not this one as well? It's even made from "aluminum and brass", as stated in the product information.

It's quite curious that they advertise "zone focus with a tab" (LC-A style?) on the page while claiming it's rangefinder coupled. I wonder if it means a normal rangefinder lens with click stops during the focus throw.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #8
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlich View Post
At $349 it's definitely not as good as a CV lens price to performance wise, but lord it's SMALL. People lined up to pay more for a Miyazaki pancake, so why not this one as well? It's even made from "aluminum and brass", as stated in the product information.
Exactly.... and it's always nice to have a new small and cheap lens around for the M cameras. Is this now the cheapest new lens for M mount?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #9
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Gosh! I've got several better ways of getting worse quality, including a Summitar with the front element cracked in half, or if I can face using a DSLR, a Lensbaby and a Subjeckiv -- www.subjektiv.com

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #10
nongfuspring
Registered User
 
nongfuspring is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 705
If this was about half the price and was in LTM mount I might think about it. Nice and tiny but the distortion is way too distracting when there are horizontals.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #11
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,103
I like SOOC vignetting and oversaturated colors. I do zone focusing on the street and it is nice to have it also RF coupled. The lens is nice and true pancake, plus brass and aluminium. It seems to be made to be on pair with film M cameras quality.
I have Summaron 35 3.5 for classic B/W. This new lens might be good lens for summer fun on the streets on bright day with color film and M4-2. Black lens/camera kit!
And if I ever get small mirrorless cropper this might be really good lens for it, because vignetting corners will be cropped...

But, it is almost twice more expensive comparing to current Canon EF(S) pancake...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #12
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
But, it is almost twice more expensive comparing to current Canon EF(S) pancake...
I'm not sure you can compare the two...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #13
B-9
Devin Bro
 
B-9's Avatar
 
B-9 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,117
I have to agree, LTM would have been a better choice.

Why narrow yourself just to M mount users.

I think this would be a lot of fun at half the price.
__________________
Made in Michigan

RangefinderGuy @ Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #14
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by nongfuspring View Post
If this was about half the price and was in LTM mount I might think about it. Nice and tiny but the distortion is way too distracting when there are horizontals.
Hold on. Half of $349 is $175 or about £115 or 150€. Is this entirely credible? Probably yes if it's not RF coupled (the Subjectiv is 198€), but probably no if it is. Then again the Subjectiv has four different drop-in modules: pin-hole, zone plate, plastic, glass, but no engraved distance markings...

It seems to me to be neither one thing nor the other: neither a good lens nor a deliberately awful one. Also, as noted elsewhere, it would have made more sense in the (much cheaper to make) screw mount: another odd choice. Maybe $99 and scale focusing -- and a part-plastic mount if need be -- would make more sense. As it is, it seems to be yet another Lomo way of charging rather more than things are worth.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #15
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,736
It is still the cheapest new M lens you can buy... and some people like this lens on their Lomos. I won't judge. It doesn't seem horribly overpriced if you want a tiny lens for your M and you like the look.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #16
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
It is still the cheapest new M lens you can buy... and some people like this lens on their Lomos. I won't judge. It doesn't seem horribly overpriced if you want a tiny lens for your M and you like the look.
Sure. No question. It just seems odd to me. As I say, neither one thing nor the other. And I must confess to an inbuilt suspicion of any Lomo pricing.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #17
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,557
That actually looks really nice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #18
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
 
Griffin's Avatar
 
Griffin is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 495
I'd like one for the GXR, but maybe second hand in a couple of years.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #19
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I'm not sure you can compare the two...
It just for me, based on what I have now in terms of cameras.
But it is very different in final image, for sure...

I have M-mount lens which I don't use anymore and it is similar in the price to this one...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #20
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
 
Colin Corneau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Winnipeg MB Canada
Posts: 959
http://tokyocamerastyle.com/post/117...mount-lens-the

If you want a funky, well performing pancake lens...

That said, you can't deny Lomo has done a lot to help with the revival/re-definition of film and for that we can be grateful. They're doing something different and unique, and that's commendable.
__________________
www.reservedatalltimes.com

"Viva Film Renaissance"
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #21
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,103
Have you checked original site, with availability status and prices?
I did... Slow pancakes with insane prices. I wouldn't call them funky either. Just primitive.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #22
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,201
That on my CLE would be such a small package.

I dunno, I think it would be fun.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #23
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,201
Hmm, multi coated optics, range finder coupled, brings up 35mm frames, much more useful and half the price of a Petzval...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #24
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,344
At times like this I'm glad I still have my USSR made Lomo Cosmic Symbol...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #25
Fuchs
Registered User
 
Fuchs is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 51
Posts: 425
Nice and fun lens, I'm using a Lomo LCA wide and would like to see its 17mm in M mount also.
__________________
Ed Albesi
Buenos Aires, Argentina
[Sony A7R2, RX1R2, Nikon FA, Leica M6]
My flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #26
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
And I must confess to an inbuilt suspicion of any Lomo pricing.
That's fair...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #27
nongfuspring
Registered User
 
nongfuspring is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Hold on. Half of $349 is $175 or about £115 or 150€. Is this entirely credible?
I was more speaking from the perspective of my motivation to buy it, it's hard to say without seeing just how well made it is. The actual lens probably costs next to nothing to make, the cost of production would mainly be in the machining of the lens body.
  Reply With Quote

Leica M Mount Lomo 32mm f2.8 Pancake
Old 04-30-2015   #28
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
 
filmtwit's Avatar
 
filmtwit is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: West Coast
Posts: 2,983
Leica M Mount Lomo 32mm f2.8 Pancake

From
http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/30/85...lens-announced

All I can think of I hate to say is what do or would I want a 32mm f2.8 pancake?
__________________
Instgram
https://www.instagram.com/filmtwit/

The Flickr Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/filmtwit/

The Blog (Boring Sidney, Boring)
http://jeffthomasallen.blogspot.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #29
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,201
Placed an order for a silver one.
This looks like it's gonna be a whole lot of fun on one of my CLEs or the MDa w/ 35mm finder. Or on my M240!
And honestly, the price is not wacky. Look at how much new lenses cost today, let alone one made for the M mount with this unique feature set.
Plus I already have plenty of 'perfect' lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #30
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Good job man, congratulations! It looks like a lot of fun, and slides into a pocket. Also, the focus settings are helpfully color coded!

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #31
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,961
Certainly inexpensive. I wonder how it will image to a digital sensor. Very shallow triplets often have issues with color smearing and corner shading, even if that is part of the aesthetic bundle you're buying into.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #32
Monochrom
Registered User
 
Monochrom's Avatar
 
Monochrom is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,039
Wow!

Is it coupled????
__________________
M9 Vc 28/3.5 Ltm 5/3.5
Leica IIIF Black Paint
Fuji Gf670
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #33
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by nongfuspring View Post
I was more speaking from the perspective of my motivation to buy it, it's hard to say without seeing just how well made it is. The actual lens probably costs next to nothing to make, the cost of production would mainly be in the machining of the lens body.
Indeed, and I agree. It was just that your perceptive comment prompted me to think a little deeper than I had before.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #34
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monochrom View Post
Wow!

Is it coupled????
Yep.

I also checked out the Lomography website, and love em or hate em, they really support film photography.
They have created a community unlike that from any of the other mfgs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #35
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
Certainly inexpensive. I wonder how it will image to a digital sensor. Very shallow triplets often have issues with color smearing and corner shading, even if that is part of the aesthetic bundle you're buying into.

G
I hope so! None of my other lenses do that, so why not play with something different?
I do think it will most prob be attached to a film camera most of the time.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #36
teleparallel
Registered User
 
teleparallel's Avatar
 
teleparallel is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Age: 34
Posts: 133
https://www.flickr.com/photos/leicar...7652283645375/

There are normal samples here. Look good, considering the desing. Ususally there is a price to pay for small packages.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #37
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,686
Wait a minute.
Last year we were all poking fun at Instagrams and toy camera filters on our cell phones and the "toy mode" on our cameras.
Weren't we ?

Now someone kicks the price of a fun lens up by a few hundred dollars because it has an M-mount, and suddenly we get all buzzy buzzy for it.

"Boys just wanna have fun" (sorry Ms. Lauper).
__________________
Dave

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #38
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleo View Post
Wait a minute.
Last year we were all poking fun at Instagrams and toy camera filters on our cell phones and the "toy mode" on our cameras.
Weren't we ?

Now someone kicks the price of a fun lens up by a few hundred dollars because it has an M-mount, and suddenly we get all buzzy buzzy for it.

"Boys just wanna have fun" (sorry Ms. Lauper).
Dear Dave,

Ah... You weren't supposed to notice that...

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #39
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,201
I never had a toy mode on my MDa before...

How much do you think a new rangefinder coupled M mount lens should cost? (made out of jen-you-whine brass and molten sand!)
And aren't you glad that it is NOT like all the CVs, ZMs, Summicroluxes already out there?

(shaking imaginary stick while sitting on my rocker on the porch)
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2015   #40
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,103
Here is my minor report to allwhee gang. I explored lomography with Holga 135pan, checked toy cameras with Agat 18K. Did my first cross process at home with expired slide. Using Smena 8m and Lubitel 2. Posting here and on Flickr, not IGM. I use filters and PP to post iPhone pictures on FB.
I see nothing wrong about this lens to be on M-mount cameras
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:19.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.