older LTM lens or Voigtlander

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I recently had my grandfather's IIIf w/summitar 50mm CLA'd and immediately took the first shots. WOW! The pictures had a look that I never experienced before. I don't know if it's the contrast or what my friend dubbed "the antique look", but it was amazing. Now that I'm hooked, I really want to add a 35mm lens to my collection. The question is this: would you rather have an older LTM lens or new Voigtlander? From what I've read thus far, the newer lenses supposedly have more contrast. Is it really that much more noticeable?

-- Rex Kim (rextkim@mindspring.com), January 10, 2002

Answers

The smaller Voigtlander f2.5 lens is a good match for your camera sizewise and is a well corrected, multicoated modern lens. Its probably your best bet for the money.

I might be tempted to try and find a Summaron with good glass to keep the vintage look and feel to the system.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 10, 2002.


New Voigtlaender lenses will give you the same result as completely modern cameras, so if you want to have clear and crisp images, you might go that way. These new lenses definitely have another look than older ones.
If you want to preserve the 'old look', you might look out for an old lens. If you want to, I have a 3,5/3,5 Elmar (35 mm, german (old) aperture scale, but recoated later) I'd like to part with, contact me if interested.

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), January 11, 2002.

If you could find one I would consider a Canon 35/1.8 or better yet a 35/2. The f2 was made in 1962 and is what I consider the perfect lens (for me) with a look somewhere inbetween the old classic look and the newer lenses which in my opinion have a little too much contrast and saturation. I was considering the Ultron and almost purchased one but after looking at old threads on the LUG I came upon a lot of discussions where some people who's opinions I respect compared the 35/2 equally to the 2nd or 3rd version of the 35 Summicron. Everyone who owned these lenses seemed to like them very much. I found a f2 version on ebay for $300 and after two rolls of B&W and one of color am very happy and impressed with this lens. I have never shot with the Summicron 35 but would compare it to a Rigid Summicron 50 I had for 30 years in it's overall performance.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), January 11, 2002.

Thanks to all of your for your response. They are all very interesting. I have read numerous favorable reviews of the Voigtlander lenses and also the Canon f:2. I guess the dilemma I keep coming back to, and this is primarily because of my lack of experience, is whether the leica lenses simply exhibit a certain look that the other lenses do not. Is my enthusiasm about the contrasty images or some other aspect that I haven't yet considered (bokeh?). I must admit that my most favorite photographs are from HCB and Salgado; and they are both Leica users.

-- Rex Kim (rextkim@mindspring.com), January 11, 2002.

Rex, here's a curve. Maybe you could look into the Russian Jupiter 35/2.8 it is an excellent lens especially for the money around $85 including a finder which is necessary for a III anyway. I have one have used it a lot and only purchased the Canon f2 because of the extra stop. I have no hesitation to go out with it over the Canon if it happens to be on one of my LTM cameras. Here is a link to shots taken with the Jupiter lens. All of the B&W photos were taken with the Jupiter except the "two soldiers at the airport" which was taken with the Canon 35/2 for your comparison.If you look around at my photo's in the other catagories there are other shots w/both the Jupiter and Canon 35's among other lenses and cameras. Not that you can tell from a flatbed scan from a 4X6 on the internet,maybe these can help. Let us know what you finally decide.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), January 11, 2002.


Well, I walked around for three hours after work to look at lenses. I found f3.5 summaron, f2 canon, and f2.8 canon. they were all about the same price, $300 (the f2.8 canon being a bit more expensive than the other two.) The shop where I found the f2 canon suggested that I give it a try for a few months, and if I don't like it, I can return it. That is what I will probably do.

On a separate note, and I know many of you are going to laugh or be appalled or whatever else... but... I dropped off my second roll of black and white at a local walgreens.. Got the pictures back, and were sorely disappointed. The pictures were printed on kodak professional paper, glossy. The first roll(which i really liked) were printed on kodak royal, matte finish by a local processor. The contrast was gone. What am I missing? Call me a newbie or a novice, but I need some answers. Thanks.

-- Rex Kim (rextkim@mindspring.com), January 11, 2002.


Rex

If you liked the way the summitar pictures looked go for a 35/3,5 Summaron and start developing your own films, especiallly if you shoot B&W. These lenses are made for it remember? If you are hard core look at the serialnumber of the lens and approximately match it to the age of your camera (look it up in e.g. Hove's Leica Book). Then add an OKARO (small orange contrast filter) to the rangefinder window, a FOOKH lenshood, the VIOOH finder to get 35mm frames, and the correct brown leather case. You will now have a kit which will be historically correct, look amazing, create envy and attention of other Leica users, and most important of all, take great B&W pictures. Believe me sooner or later you will fall into the Leica- craze, and things like the above will become important...so you might as well start now!

Have fun!!

Thomas Krantz

-- Thomas Krantz (tkrantz@kpmg.com), February 22, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ