Cheap lenses on expensive bodies.
Old 02-03-2017   #1
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
Cheap lenses on expensive bodies.

Cheap lenses are junk, right? Leicas needs super expensive glass? Or do they?...

Howzabout a thread embracing cheap lenses on Leicas?

I'll start - Jupiter J8 50mm F2 on an M240.



Shot at F2.

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #2
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 930
Same lens on M6
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #3
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
Very nice, what film?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #4
fad gadget
Registered User
 
fad gadget's Avatar
 
fad gadget is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: vancouver, bc
Posts: 171
I really liked my J3, worked great on my film M's, but wouldn't focus to infinity on my M240 at the time.
I traded it and bought the new J3+, I really like it!
While not cheap, it has a the same look with a bit more polish.

Vey nice photos in both posts!

Last edited by fad gadget : 02-04-2017 at 09:25. Reason: forgot the last sentence...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #5
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,485
Waste of money. Body is just a light tight box so long as the shutter is accurate. Lens makes the image.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #6
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,842
Back in the 1970s one could buy a natty 5cm Summar lens for 20 US dollars or even a used 50mm Topcor or Tanar lens in LTM for a bit more money from those New York photo stores that advertised in the back pages of Modern and Popular Photography magazines.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #7
B-9
Devin Bro
 
B-9's Avatar
 
B-9 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,116


Cheap lens challenge! (M8+50Skopar)
__________________
Made in Michigan

RangefinderGuy @ Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #8
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-9 View Post
Cheap lens challenge! (M8+50Skopar)
Very nice. For a sec I was going to say a 50 Skopar isn't cheap, but then I remembered I paid $180 for mine! It's funny how one's perspective gets skewed from both ends - Leica and Russian lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #9
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
Lomo Minitar on a Leica MDA

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #10
narsuitus
Registered User
 
narsuitus's Avatar
 
narsuitus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Howzabout a thread embracing cheap lenses on Leicas?
I first used this technique in the early 1970s when I had a Leica M1 that I used primarily on a microscope. I searched until I found two adapters, one that allowed a Nikon F lens to mount on an "X" body and another adapter that allowed an "X" lens to mount on a Leica M body. I no longer remember what "X" was; however, I do remember that this setup did not permit focusing on infinity.

Today, I use one modern adapter to mount a "cheap" Nikon 18mm on a Leica M6. I set the focus distance to 1-meter and the f/stop to f/11 so that everything from about 1/2 meter to infinity is in focus.


Nikkor on Leica by Narsuitus, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #11
B-9
Devin Bro
 
B-9's Avatar
 
B-9 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,116


Another one with the 50 Skopar
__________________
Made in Michigan

RangefinderGuy @ Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #12
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,810
What do we mean by cheap?


broadway clouds by unoh7, Jupi 8 nex-5


Whitehouse by unoh7, 1937 CZJ 135/4 M9

I think the cheapest lens I often use is the Elmarit 135, but over 200 bucks, it's hard to call them cheap. These were pretty cheap:


CZJ and progeny by unoh7, on Flickr

But the old zeiss needed help:

DSC00060-1-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

So I sent it to the famous Harry, who fixed that, but then it was not a cheap lens anymore


River Banks by unoh7, CZJ 1937 50/1.5 on A7.mod

He made me promise to never touch the front element, as it has acquired a natural coating....sharper than new, according to Harry.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #13
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,097
Junk in pure technical world is different from snob world. Technically M240 was junk failing behind the rest by the year it was released. Mediocre high ISO performance, long startup time and no AF.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #14
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
Jupiter 8, M240

"Bedlam Lullaby" performing at "Beyond the Lines" in Santa Monica.
If you ever get a chance to check them out, do. An incredible harmonizing trio.

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #15
mark_pw
Registered User
 
mark_pw's Avatar
 
mark_pw is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 134


I used this lens.



Other samples are stored here.
__________________
Leica CL
Summicron-C 1:2/40mm
Elmar-C 1:4/90mm
My photo experiments
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2017   #16
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
Jupiter 8, M100



  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2017   #17
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,696
i like the images in this thread, thank you all. Unfortunately I have no cheap lens for my M7 but that Lomo Minitar with that photo by Huss is tempting...
robert
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2017   #18
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 12,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Very nice. For a sec I was going to say a 50 Skopar isn't cheap, but then I remembered I paid $180 for mine! It's funny how one's perspective gets skewed from both ends - Leica and Russian lenses.
Indeed! About 15 years ago the 50 Skopar had somehow acquired a reputation for lack of sharpness. I think this impacted sales. All the samples seen online appeared sharp, but what can you tell from online jpegs? In 2004 I found one new-in-box for $175 and took a chance. In use mine was plenty sharp, with a nice image quality, and the only quarrel would be its slight pincushion distortion.

One behind the auto body shop with 2.5/50 Skopar @ f/4, Leica M(240)


I should show this old one again, the "Juice Bar Lady", 2.5/50 Skopar, Leica M2, Fuji 800Z... BTW this Leica body was not expensive either, just $150 used in a downtown retail shop in 1967.
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2017   #19
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
Leica MDA with Lomo Minitar.

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2017   #20
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 38
Posts: 623
Unless the 'cheap' body can't focus or has light leaks/etc (makes me wonder, what exactly makes you love the expensive body?)
. I would say whatever body works with the lens, cheap or otherwise as long as you love what you get out of it.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2017   #21
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,342
Hi,

As cheap means less to pay then a CZ f/2 50mm Planar must be in the cheap range and a digital M dear...

That's going to upset a lot of people.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2017   #22
greyelm
Malcolm
 
greyelm's Avatar
 
greyelm is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,361
Super Cosina 75-300 Olympus mount adapted to Fuji X-E1

Save
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2017   #23
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
One Pentax lens taken with another one that I adapted.



Between 50 and 80 bucks for the lens, < 80 for the adapter, and a couple of hours work.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2017   #24
grouchos_tash
Registered User
 
grouchos_tash's Avatar
 
grouchos_tash is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NE England
Posts: 523
M6 - Jupiter 8 (£30) - Ilford Pan 400 - HC110



M6 - Canon 35mm f2.8 (£120) - Ilford Pan 400 - HC110

__________________
Gary

flickr

www.garyharding.website
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2017   #25
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
Very nice. The one thing I am having a bit of a time getting used to on the J8 is the aperture ring that is clickless. I have to keep checking to make sure it has not moved.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2017   #26
oftheherd
Registered User
 
oftheherd's Avatar
 
oftheherd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,897
In the early days of RFF, it was all the other way 'round. Members talked of cheap FSU bodies that took Leica or Zeiss lenses. Then some started touting FSU lenses and ruined it all.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2017   #27
Mister_Jelly
Registered User
 
Mister_Jelly is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald M View Post
Waste of money. Body is just a light tight box so long as the shutter is accurate. Lens makes the image.


This is true, the lens is the most important. To me, the viewfinder is second. It is what eyes look through, and eyes are also very important photographic tools 🤓. Expensive cameras often have nice finders.

The J8 seems to be popular. I see many nice pictures here. The internet doesn't lie though, bad copies exist and I was unfortunate to own one...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2017   #28
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Very nice, what film?
Who knows... It was a while ago. Most likely either TriX-400 or Ilford HP5.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2017   #29
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,842
I paid $250 for my Leica and I think about $75 for my Jupiter 8. Would I get better pictures with a $1000 Leica and a $1000 lens? I doubt it.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2017   #30
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
My M100 w/ Lomo 32mm 2.8 lens.



  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2017   #31
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
Leica MDA w/ Lomo lens



  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2017   #32
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald M View Post
Waste of money. Body is just a light tight box so long as the shutter is accurate. Lens makes the image.
I have always disagreed with that. I make the image, not the lens. If I enjoy a camera, I take better images.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-2017   #33
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
J8, M240

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-2017   #34
fad gadget
Registered User
 
fad gadget's Avatar
 
fad gadget is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: vancouver, bc
Posts: 171
That's a lovely photo, Huss!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-2017   #35
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 38
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
I have always disagreed with that. I make the image, not the lens. If I enjoy a camera, I take better images.
I agree, within reason. If it's too expensive, it would make me uncomfortable, and an uncomfortable camera can't be used as easily. So I'm somewhere in the middle.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-2017   #36
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by fad gadget View Post
That's a lovely photo, Huss!
Thank you Ken!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-2017   #37
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 12,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald M View Post
Waste of money. Body is just a light tight box so long as the shutter is accurate. Lens makes the image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
I have always disagreed with that. I make the image, not the lens. If I enjoy a camera, I take better images.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb244 View Post
I agree, within reason. If it's too expensive, it would make me uncomfortable, and an uncomfortable camera can't be used as easily. So I'm somewhere in the middle.
I'll agree... I enjoy using good gear that makes it a pleasure. I'm not really into "cheap" with all that term implies. One tries to keep costs within reason of course, while keeping enjoyment a priority. If thought of the high cost is uncomfortable, clearly that is a counter-effect on the pleasure of use. Several RFF members have expressed that discomfort, but fortunately I don’t suffer from that... I often pack around a Leica with no worries. I’m careful, but don’t let concern ruin the experience.

At my wedding 40 years ago my mother took my bride aside and advised her that I was a spend-thrift needing oversight. My wife smiled to herself and discreetly refrained from revealing she is a spend-thrift too!
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-2017   #38
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,636
Instamatic lens off of a 104, mounted on a LTM camera.


TriX HC-110h Rodinal by John Carter, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-19-2017   #39
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
Instamatic lens off of a 104, mounted on a LTM camera.
Cool! How did you do that?
  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 14:44.


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.