Cheap Leica lenses

[Mark Antony]

I would look at the Voigtlanders if you need a modern lens, my personal favourite is the Canon LTM 35mm F2 it is very comaparable to the CV Skopar (I think the CV is a derivative) and actually pretty good even compared to the Leica 35 F2 Summicron.
Here below is a 1960's rigid 50mm Leica Summicron


And below is the Canon 50mm F1,8


Here is the Canon 35mm F2


Obviously the 35mm has been blown up more, all pictures were taken on the same body with the same Fuji neg film within a 5 min period, so the lighting was similar (sun went in on the 35mm shot).
Hope this helps
Mark

[bowzart]

The lens that I've been using nearly exclusively is the CV Nokton f/1.4 40mm single coated. It was made for the Japanese market, but it's available in the US and most likely other places, too. The export model is multicoated.

I've had a DR 50 mm, which was a stupendous lens, and I think the Nokton is very close to matching the quality. I know it may not be QUITE, but I think it is rare that the difference would ever be noticed in practice. I say this because I can't always tell which negatives were made with the DR, but there was one (in ten years) that absolutely sent me into orbit. Orbit is not a place I spend a lot of time. It still stands out as so great, it almost seems freakish. If that's what the lens would always do, freakish would be fine, but, as I say, I don't have other examples that are such clear evidence.

[macrorie]

Before leaping for any of the vintage lenses, research how easy it is to find filters or lens hoods for them. E.G. Summitars are great lenses, but getting a decent hood for them can be problematic and/or expensive (I had one of the appropriate box hoods, and eventually sold it because it was just too odd looking in use). One thing to consider about Soviet lenses is that they were apparently set for a slightly different focusing calibration and therefore can mis-focus at close distances. I have a Summitar, a black Jupiter 8, a Jupiter 12, and an Elmar 90mm 4, and they all perform quite well on a IIIf. But I avoid close compositions with the Soviet lenses. When my budget will allow it I will probably get a Canon 50mm, because their online image examples (like the above) usually seem quite good.

[ntenny]

One thing to consider about Soviet lenses is that they were apparently set for a slightly different focusing calibration and therefore can mis-focus at close distances.

Reputable information on this point seems conflicted---IIRC, Dante Stella and Karen Nakamura have both done experiments with Soviet lenses on Leica bodies and gotten different results. It might be sample variation rather than a systematic difference, I guess, though I don't quite see how sample variation would affect the alignment of the focusing helical.

For what it's worth, I've found that my Industar-26M seems to focus all right, even wide open and close up, on a Bessa-R. If there's an alignment problem, it's obscured by my own technical failings (which admittedly can hide a lot of crud sometimes).

-NT

[fschifano]

Reputable information on this point seems conflicted---IIRC, Dante Stella and Karen Nakamura have both done experiments with Soviet lenses on Leica bodies and gotten different results. It might be sample variation rather than a systematic difference, I guess, though I don't quite see how sample variation would affect the alignment of the focusing helical.

And there you have it. Seems to me that the "sample variation" on FSU lenses is pretty high, and tilts the odds of getting a good one less in the user's favor. Sure there are good ones out there. The odds that you may get a good one may be better than 50/50 in your favor; but I don't think so. At least with the CV lenses, anything you're likely to find is relatively new and easy to accessorize, likely not to be beat up all to hell, and manufactured on a production line that practices high standards of modern quality control procedures.

[mcgrattan]

I think the 50/50 claim re: 'good' Soviet lenses is overblown. My own experience is more like 9 out of 10 have been good to very good, at least.

I did some test shots with two Jupiter-8s and one I-61 on a Leica body, shot wide-open, at closest focus distance. I shot the curved label on a bottle of water, and all focused where I expected, and were sharp in that plane of focus. This is with a J8:



although you can get some quite wild bokeh with the J8 wide-open:

[Karl K]

1)There's a rumor going around(for years) that Leitz picked the best optics for the DR since they consider that lens their hallmark.

The version of that rumor which I heard is as follows: Leitz selected 50mm lenses for the DR that were as close as possible to exactly 50mm in focal length to match up to the exact field of view at close ranges outlined when using the DR attachment.
Each Leica 50mm Summicron head has the exact focal length scratched on the side of the lens block. My DR Summicron is marked 49,9. That means that the actual focal length on my lens is 49.9mm. I have another 50 'cron (non-DR) that is marked 49,5.

[photoncatcher]

Another vote for the FSU lenses. For that matter, a vote for the FSU cameras. I shoot both a Fed 2, and two Zorkis (a 4, and a 4K). I love the cameras, and I love the glass. I have a couple og Jupiter, and a couple of Industars. Both quite sharp, and contrasty. I was also lucky enough to find the Orion 15 28mm for a pretty decent price. It is a bit slow at f 6, but Ihave gotten some stellar results with this very rare lens. I recently found 2 of them on "the bay", and I wish I had the extra $$ to invest in them.