Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica Screw Mount Copies

Leica Screw Mount Copies Classic Leica Copy forum as listed in the book 300 Leica Copies, including but not limited to Nicca, Leotax, Honor, Canon etc. At one time there was a major part of the camera industry just trying to make a lower cost copy/dirivitive of the original Leica.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Konica 50/2.4 LTM?
Old 02-02-2018   #1
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
Konica 50/2.4 LTM?

At the risk of falling victim to a bunch of enablers, I'm having a mild attack of compulsive need for a Konica 50/2.4. I blame my Hexar AF for this; the more I look at the photos it produces, the more I am impressed with the lens. While this might suggest finding a Konica 35/2 in LTM (the L, not the later UC), it also A) costs more, and B) duplicates the Hexar. Should I decide to sell the Hexar at some point, well, the 35/2 is where the money would go, but that's for another time.

In any case, there's not a lot of info on the 50/2.4. I read a few reports of potential wobbliness in the barrel, and saw a few sample photos here and there, but not a lot. Anyone who owns or has owned one of these, please enlighten me; rendering comparisons with the Hexar AF lens would be especially useful. If you had one but sold it, please tell me why. Depending on the responses, I may need to be talked down later, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2018   #2
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 1,011
search
コニカ 50MM F2.4
or
ヘキサノン 50MM F2.4
if you haven't done it. Probably you will get some extra results.

https://www.mapcamera.com/item/3000009303635
http://camerafan.jp/i.php?i=33318704

http://forum.xitek.com/thread-736865-1-1-1.html (lots of rumbling but some nice pictures as well)

It's said to be a 6 elements in 4 groups design. 0.8m close focus distance.
__________________
tumblr

flickr(abandoned)

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #3
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
Thanks for the links. The last one does have some nice photos, which only makes my obsession stronger.

I'm surprised there aren't more comments from users here - it usually seems like, no matter how obscure the lens, there are a few RFF people who have one.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #4
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is online now
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,130
The 50 3.5 is also a very nice lens. Can't say how it compares to the 2.4 though.

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...d.php?t=162494

The 3.5 does wobble until it is extended and locked into place.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #5
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
The 50/3.5 is actually where I started browsing LTM Konica lenses. That search led me to the 50/2.4. I'm sure the 3.5 is nice, and I wouldn't be surprised if I ended up with one at some point, but right now I have a 50/3.5 Elmar and a 50/3.5 Canon, so I fear it might be lost in the crowd.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #6
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,753
The wobble is overblown. It comes from the helicoid, not the optical unit It's not as bad as Zeiss or even Canon LTM. It is also fixable (DAG adjusted mine); it's just that things get loose after 22 years. If you see how slim the helicoid is, it's not hard to see that there is plenty of leverage to loosen stuff up.

The lens is sharp full stop. I'd say a bit hotter out of the gate than the 50/2 M-Hexanon. It does exhibit a small amount of focus shift but nothing like the ZM Sonnar.

Focusing is smooth with the tab. The aperture action is like a ball detent, not a spring detent (so like the aperture ring on a Leica lens).

It is very nicely finished, and the chrome is a good match for old rangefinder chrome, but against an M240 it has notably more of a warm nickel tone. The engraving is very fine - so if you could analogize normal Leica or Konica M engraving to be with a 0.7mm pen, this is a 0.3. Still the Konica font.

Oh yes. The collapsing action doesn't harm an M240. Shouldn't be an issue for a Leica film M (other than maybe the CL). It doesn't collapse into a Canon P. It doesn't actually collapse that much; I get the sense this was more for aesthetics than necessity.

Plus you can code it as a 50 Summarit.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #7
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,345
Had one. Results were great but I had the same beef with it that I had with the 35mm 1.7 LTM Ultron and the 50mm 1.5 Nokton LTM: It's an LTM lens but the barrel diameter is very becoming of an M Leica, while it 'hangs over' on a Barnack lens mount...

Irritated the h*ll out of me and eventually I sold it.


The 35mm 2.0 Hexanon LTM otoh is a perfect fit on a Barnack
__________________
Gegroet,
Johan Niels

I write vintage gear reviews on www.johanniels.com |

flickr | instagram |

Last edited by johannielscom : 02-03-2018 at 11:17. Reason: Heliar = Nokton 50mm 1.5
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #8
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
Had one. Results were great but I had the same beef with it that I had with the 35mm 1.7 LTM Ultron and the 50mm 1.5 Heliar LTM: It's an LTM lens but the barrel diameter is very becoming of an M Leica, while it 'hangs over' on a Barnack lens mount...

Irritated the h*ll out of me and eventually I sold it.


The 35mm 2.0 Hexanon LTM otoh is a perfect fit on a Barnack
Just so I'm clear, you mean the base of the lens where it contacts the body actually overhangs the baseplate on a Barnack? That would be most irritating, and might be a deal-breaker.

If I want to push up the cost scale to the 35 I'll have to sell off another lens or two, or the Hexar AF...ugh.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #9
Brian Legge
Registered User
 
Brian Legge is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,684
Its a really interesting lens. Add me to the list of 'had but sold'.

I loved the results I got with it and the fast, smooth focus. It had the slight bit of wobble others reported but it didn't seem to cause any image issues. I used it on both an ltm body and on an M.

My interest in the lens was primarily about its compactness, fast focus and ergonomics. In the end, I switched to the Elmar-M as it was a bit smaller collapsed and just as fast to focus. At times I prefer the rendering of the 50/2.4 but the Elmar ticked more boxes for me.



__________________
Shooting whatever I can get my hands on.
Recent Work
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #10
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
Nice images Brian^^^
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #11
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02Pilot View Post
Just so I'm clear, you mean the base of the lens where it contacts the body actually overhangs the baseplate on a Barnack? That would be most irritating, and might be a deal-breaker.

If I want to push up the cost scale to the 35 I'll have to sell off another lens or two, or the Hexar AF...ugh.
Correct. And in my mind, a lens that fits better on an M Leica than it does on a Barnack defeats the necessity of a screw mount completely.


Only image I quickly could find shows it on a Canon camera, but it proves the point:



The base is bigger than the mount of the camera.

Maybe not as much as the Ultron, but still.


Both images off the net, not mine
__________________
Gegroet,
Johan Niels

I write vintage gear reviews on www.johanniels.com |

flickr | instagram |
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #12
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
Correct. And in my mind, a lens that fits better on an M Leica than it does on a Barnack defeats the necessity of a screw mount completely.


Only image I quickly could find shows it on a Canon camera, but it proves the point:



The base is bigger than the mount of the camera.
Yeah, this is a little disproportionate. I was thinking it might be a good match for my IIIg, but this is making me reconsider. If the 35/2 is a better fit that may move up the list, even though I'm more of a natural 50 shooter. Thanks.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #13
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Legge View Post
Its a really interesting lens. Add me to the list of 'had but sold'.

I loved the results I got with it and the fast, smooth focus. It had the slight bit of wobble others reported but it didn't seem to cause any image issues. I used it on both an ltm body and on an M.

My interest in the lens was primarily about its compactness, fast focus and ergonomics. In the end, I switched to the Elmar-M as it was a bit smaller collapsed and just as fast to focus. At times I prefer the rendering of the 50/2.4 but the Elmar ticked more boxes for me.



Nice samples. I love the look, but as noted above, I'm questioning whether the size might be too large for my preferences. Since I'd be using it on a Barnack body of one sort or another most of the time, I'd hate to lose the compactness of the body because of a large lens.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #14
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,103
I have seen this lens once on the image beside another lenses, at rangefinder.ru.
It is disproportionately huge lens for collapsible.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2018   #15
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,259
What I used to have:



Looks like you might be better off with the CV 50/2.5.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2018   #16
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
It does look a lot more appropriate on that M2. I can feel the compulsive need receding. Ah well, probably ends up saving me some money in any case. Now if I can just back away from the 35/2 I'll be fine....

Thanks, folks.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-07-2018   #17
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is online now
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,357
I recently bought such a lens. I find nothing wrong with it. It is beautifully made and it is an extremely sharp 50mm lens. I bought it for my M cameras.





__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  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 18:29.


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.