Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,222   Posts: 1,532,376   Online: 1115
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Peak District, Derbyshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    263
    If you are going to spend $150 on a lens you could probably get a Leica III ('c' probably) with a lens for $250-$300. But the Canon P may be a better idea anyway. And irrespective of it being a Canon lens the f/1.8 50mm would be my choice as well.

    Steve
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/

    book
    wood, water, rock,
    landscape photographs in and around the Peak District National Park, UK.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    978
    I did a little shootout some time ago w/ an Industar 22, a J-8, and an Industar 61LD. To be honest, all were excellent! The J-8 was better wide open w/ creamy bokeh, but there was pincushion distortion on several shots that featured a horizon line or railing near the bottom of my shots. The 61LD was easiest to shoot because it had click stops and made very sharp photos (but not as good wide open w/ it's 2.8 aperture). The I-22 I liked the best. Really nice lens, and in a small package. With your budget, there's plenty of money to buy an I-22 AND a J-8. The I-22 for out-and-about shooting at larger f stops, the J-8 for lower light and close ups.

    Having said that, if I were to go back to rangefinders I'd look for a Leica Summar. Occasionally you can find them in your price range, or at the $200 mark. If the front element is not too bad and there's no haze between cemented elements, they're easy to CLA yourself (there's the usual black paint pieces floating around in there that flake off). A good Summar will give a Summicron a run at f4 and above, and I prefer its old time Leica lens signature. As stated, a good hood is mandatory on any of these.
    Last edited by momus; 10-07-2013 at 03:30 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken.Cartouche View Post
    I hadn't actually considered the Nikkor lenses, but if the 50mm f2f.0 is in my price range, I would definitely consider it. I have that lens on my Nikkormat FT2, and I've really liked it.

    And I appreciate the suggestions to look into the Canon lenses, too. Should I look at the Canon named lenses only, or are the Serenars okay to consider?
    The 50/2 Nikkor H for the Nikon SLRs is a 6 element double Gauss type, and is excellent. The 50/2 Nikkor H-C for rangefinders is not the same lens, it is a Sonnar clone.

    Edit - As for the Industars, the I-50 is an improved version of the I-22, both are f:3.5 Tessars. The I-61LD is an f:2.8 Tessar using a lanthanum glass element for better correction.
    Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 10-07-2013 at 10:27 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    522
    Images
    1
    Keep in mind that some collapsible lenses hit the internal light baffling of the Canon P. I tried a Summar with one which knocked the rangefinder out of alignment. I'm not sure what lenses do and don't work with it. There are forum posts all over the place about specific combinations so it may be worth searching Google to check others experiences with that combo.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    299
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Edit - As for the Industars, the I-50 is an improved version of the I-22, both are f:3.5 Tessars. The I-61LD is an f:2.8 Tessar using a lanthanum glass element for better correction.
    I am pretty sure there is more variation between one lens and another in the same serie than from an I-50 and an I-22... If you can't collapse the lens in your camera for whatever reason, I would choose the I-61 (whatever flavor) or even the dispartaged I-26. Too both I-61 and I-26 are easier to use with a filter (try to change the I-50 aperture with a filter in place... ).
    "The problem with photography is that it only deals with appearances." Duane Michals

    "A photograph is a secret of a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." Diane Arbus

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,246
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Dali View Post
    Too both I-61 and I-26 are easier to use with a filter (try to change the I-50 aperture with a filter in place... ).
    The Jupiter-12 has the same clever design. I haven't used mine in a while, but if I remember correctly, it's possible on that lens to apply a little lateral pressure to the filter and get the aperture to move---but still pretty tricky to see *what* aperture you're selecting! Did the original Biogon have the same feature, or was it a Soviet innovation?

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    North Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    The 50/2 Nikkor H for the Nikon SLRs is a 6 element double Gauss type, and is excellent. The 50/2 Nikkor H-C for rangefinders is not the same lens, it is a Sonnar clone.

    Edit - As for the Industars, the I-50 is an improved version of the I-22, both are f:3.5 Tessars. The I-61LD is an f:2.8 Tessar using a lanthanum glass element for better correction.
    You know, it's funny that you mention the difference between those two Nikkor lenses. I had gone to my copy of The Nikon Manual earlier in the day to reference the specs page on the F-mount Nikkor-H 50/f2, and I noticed that it was a double Gauss design, and not a Sonnar like I had understood the rangefinder version to be. That double Gauss design is a Planar, is that right?

    I had known that the I-22 was a Tessar f3.5 clone, and I had known that the I-50 was an improved I-22 (though I'm still not clear on how it was improved), but I did not know that the I-61 was a Tessar f2.8. I've read that f2.8 is about the limit of the Tessar design, and that it's really better suited as a f3.5; does the lanthanum glass make an improvement on that?

    And, did Zeiss ever make a Tessar in LTM?

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken.Cartouche View Post
    You know, it's funny that you mention the difference between those two Nikkor lenses. I had gone to my copy of The Nikon Manual earlier in the day to reference the specs page on the F-mount Nikkor-H 50/f2, and I noticed that it was a double Gauss design, and not a Sonnar like I had understood the rangefinder version to be. That double Gauss design is a Planar, is that right?

    I had known that the I-22 was a Tessar f3.5 clone, and I had known that the I-50 was an improved I-22 (though I'm still not clear on how it was improved), but I did not know that the I-61 was a Tessar f2.8. I've read that f2.8 is about the limit of the Tessar design, and that it's really better suited as a f3.5; does the lanthanum glass make an improvement on that?

    And, did Zeiss ever make a Tessar in LTM?
    Actually the Planar (a trade name) is a dG. The dG can be traced back to a telescope objective designed by K.F. Gauss. The lanthanum glass Tessars can be very very good - another example is the f:3.5 version on the Rollei Ts, I had one that was really superb. But f:2.8 is asking a good deal of the Tessar design, regardless of the glass used. I prefer the F;6.3 Tessars for large format (such as the Commercial Ektars).
    The only Zeiss lenses (AFAIK) made in LTM were made during the war, they made the 50mm Sonnar(s) in a very small series.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    North Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by momus View Post
    ...if I were to go back to rangefinders I'd look for a Leica Summar. Occasionally you can find them in your price range, or at the $200 mark. If the front element is not too bad and there's no haze between cemented elements, they're easy to CLA yourself (there's the usual black paint pieces floating around in there that flake off). A good Summar will give a Summicron a run at f4 and above, and I prefer its old time Leica lens signature. As stated, a good hood is mandatory on any of these.
    You know, I think you're the first person I've ever heard recommending the Summar! All I've ever read (outside of Leica literature) has little good to say about the lens. Granted, no one has ever said, "This is a God-awful lens and I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole," but what they do talk about is low contrast, poor edge sharpness, and how there are other, better lenses out there. For that reason I've never really considered one. I may have to look at the Summar more closely, then, if it's in my price range.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken.Cartouche View Post
    You know, I think you're the first person I've ever heard recommending the Summar! All I've ever read (outside of Leica literature) has little good to say about the lens. Granted, no one has ever said, "This is a God-awful lens and I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole," but what they do talk about is low contrast, poor edge sharpness, and how there are other, better lenses out there. For that reason I've never really considered one. I may have to look at the Summar more closely, then, if it's in my price range.
    Whenever you hear opinions on old lenses, take them 'cum mare salis'. Those lenses are not likely to be as they were when new. They may have haze (has no effect), fungus (also has no effect), cleaning marks (no effect), decentration (no effect, even though the front of the barrel is folded flat), or all of the preceding. And it's interesting how many fail to see these problems. I use old lenses from before the war - before the War to End All Wars, not the one after. A few light cleaning marks will have no discernible effect, but a fine network will spoil the definition beyond the ability of a hood to prevent. Haze is common, and can be surprisingly hard to see. Fungus affects the lens like a combination of haze and scratches, if it is ignored long enough it can actually remove the coating and etch the glass. Decentering is the result of dropping the lens, or taking it apart without knowing what you are doing. I will not buy a lens which shows signs of impact damage or careless/unskilled dis - and re - assembly.
    Also, don't expect old lenses to perform like modern lenses, they aren't and they won't. I used to have a prewar Contax with an uncoated f:2 Sonnar. Comparing that lens to my beloved f:2 Nikkor Hs, it wasn't that great. But looking at 8x10 prints of negatives I made under existing light in a machine shop, using Tri-X at 800, the old Sonnar was lovely and I wish I'd kept it.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin