The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
One 50mm lens for M9
- Thread starter jeffnesh
- Start date
Agreed...there are other manufacturers that make equally good lenses. I've yet to shoot with a lens that I consider better than the Rollei or Hasselblad 110/2. But I do think that Leica probably has the best current lineup of top notch glass. If the marketplace is an accurate indicator... I'm not the only one who thinks so.
I just put my 50 hex on my (new) M9 - it seems to severely backfocus over 12 ft or so (OOF at f4) It backfocuses just a bit (3/4") at 1M. Raining today, but I'll check out infinity on a clear day.
Is your 50 Hex focusing accurately?
leicashot
New member
I had the same issue with a 35/2 Hex I once bought and immediately returned. Its a fairly known issue that sometimes you can get away with. In this case its a real shame. You can calibrate your M9 to work with the lens, but it may be inaccurate for other lenses.
I used Konica 50/2 on my M8 without any focus problems. But I no longer own that lens. I still have two Konica lenses, 50/2.5 (LTM) and 35/2 (LTM). None of them has focus problems on my M8.
When the Hexar RF was 1st released in the States, I had the initial trio of lenses they offered. They focused perfectly on the Hexar Body (examined chromes on the light table under loupe).... but severly misfocused on the Leica film body I was using at the time. The Leica lenses I owned focused perfectly on the Leica body...but unfortunately misfocused on the Hexar body. This told me at the time that it appeared the registry for these two cameras/lens systems slightly differed. Later on I repeated the same test with a new Hexar RF kit and lenses and another Leica film body...basically the same results. Konica at the time (very early on) mentioned to me that this would be the case and that depth fo field when on wide end (using their 28mm f2.8) would probably mask some ofthe issue.
Dave (D&A)
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
It is true that the Konica Hexar and Leica M lines have slightly different standards for focus calibration (I haven't come across a credible explanation for why Konica made the difference), but my understanding is that Hexar lenses can be calibrated to Leica M standards by someone like DAG. Having said that, I personally have steered clear of Hexar lenses in order to avoid the hassle of getting them to work on M bodies. YMMV.
Mike
seakayaker
Active member
If you are looking for a great lens to use with the M9, I would recommend the Voigtlander Nokton ASPH 50mm f1.5 lens. It is a LTM lens and requires an adaptor. The lens is available new at a price of 699.00 plus 59.00 for the LTM to M adaptor.
Check out Cameraquest or Photovillage for availability. You can also find them used and save a couple of hundred dollars.
Good luck with your search.
Check out Cameraquest or Photovillage for availability. You can also find them used and save a couple of hundred dollars.
Good luck with your search.
With regards to both Mike's and my statements above....I think through the years many hexar M lenses were sent in by their owners to be adjusted to the Leica standard (or had it done locally) and therefore there is a hodgepodge of hexar lenses out there...some which focus perfectly on a Leica M body and some that don't. This I believe in part adds to the confusion and controversy as to whether these Hexar M lenses focus properly on Leica M bodies. I know all the ones I tested, came essentually straight from Konica and were from either from the very earliest "first" released lenses here in the States or subsequently batches as the years rolled on. I saw little if any changes in any of them in regards to focus adjustment.
Yet, I did try a few of unknown original in focal lengths I did previous try and some of them focused perfectly on a Leica M body.
Dave (D&A)
Yet, I did try a few of unknown original in focal lengths I did previous try and some of them focused perfectly on a Leica M body.
Dave (D&A)
jeffnesh
Member
Thanks all for the insight so far! It certainly hasn't cleared anything up in terms of simple choices, but the information is great and the variety is half(most) of the fun anyway, right?
As for the LTM vs. M point...does the adaptor detract anything from the lens, or is it simply mechanical and a non-factor once on the lens?
Thanks again,
Jeff
As for the LTM vs. M point...does the adaptor detract anything from the lens, or is it simply mechanical and a non-factor once on the lens?
Thanks again,
Jeff
Peter Klein
New member
Jeff: Adaptors don't detract from picture quality at all, unless they are badly machined or damaged. They are just 1mm thick rings with an M bayonet mount that the lens screws into.
My suggestion is to think about what kinds of pictures you want to take, and then go for the lens with characteristics that match that most closely. There are very few bad 50mm lenses.
Think about the tradeoffs: Speed (aperture) vs. weight, size and price. Classic vs. modern look. High or medium contrast? Will you primarily shoot people, landscapes, or street scenes at medium distances?
Do you want a fast lens that will take pictures in dimly-lit rooms, bars, cafes? Then you will want a f/1.4 or f/1.5 lens. The 50/1.5 Nokton is the best bargain among them. It's sharper than the classic Leitz Summilux overall, but has a more "clinical" modern look, and some people don't like the out of focus rendition, which can be harsh.
If you don't need f/1.4, any Leica Summicron (50/2) would do fine, with the possible exception of the collapsible, which might seem a bit too soft wide open (though some people love that). As mentioned, the Zeiss Planar is as good optically, maybe better in some respects, and less pricey.
Another possibility is either the Summarit (50/2.5)or the current Elmar (50/2.8). These lenses will be fine for most outdoor picture-taking, but you'll need flash indoors and at night.
If money was no object and you could have only one lens, I'd say get the 50 Summilux ASPH.
The lenses to truly avoid as a beginner are the Konica Hexars (you won't know if they focus properly until you try). Ditto the Russian Jupiters, which have an old look, very spotty quality control, and usually need to be adjusted to focus properly on a Leica.
Anyway, think about the pictures first, and the lens will follow from that. We can help. If I were in your situation today, I'd probably get a Summicron or a Planar if my major interest was pictures in good light, or the Nokton if I knew I wanted to shoot mostly available light in dark places.
--Peter
My suggestion is to think about what kinds of pictures you want to take, and then go for the lens with characteristics that match that most closely. There are very few bad 50mm lenses.
Think about the tradeoffs: Speed (aperture) vs. weight, size and price. Classic vs. modern look. High or medium contrast? Will you primarily shoot people, landscapes, or street scenes at medium distances?
Do you want a fast lens that will take pictures in dimly-lit rooms, bars, cafes? Then you will want a f/1.4 or f/1.5 lens. The 50/1.5 Nokton is the best bargain among them. It's sharper than the classic Leitz Summilux overall, but has a more "clinical" modern look, and some people don't like the out of focus rendition, which can be harsh.
If you don't need f/1.4, any Leica Summicron (50/2) would do fine, with the possible exception of the collapsible, which might seem a bit too soft wide open (though some people love that). As mentioned, the Zeiss Planar is as good optically, maybe better in some respects, and less pricey.
Another possibility is either the Summarit (50/2.5)or the current Elmar (50/2.8). These lenses will be fine for most outdoor picture-taking, but you'll need flash indoors and at night.
If money was no object and you could have only one lens, I'd say get the 50 Summilux ASPH.
The lenses to truly avoid as a beginner are the Konica Hexars (you won't know if they focus properly until you try). Ditto the Russian Jupiters, which have an old look, very spotty quality control, and usually need to be adjusted to focus properly on a Leica.
Anyway, think about the pictures first, and the lens will follow from that. We can help. If I were in your situation today, I'd probably get a Summicron or a Planar if my major interest was pictures in good light, or the Nokton if I knew I wanted to shoot mostly available light in dark places.
--Peter
When I shot film, I do remember never getting a 70/ summilux to work on my Hexar RF, but it worked fine on my M6 and (eventually) M7. I settled with wides on the hexar, and 50/1 75/1.4 90/2.8 reserved for the M. Got the .85 M7 for that reason. Hexar is around .58, just about a full 24mm frame in the viewfinder.
I now remember discussing with a technician that the flange distance was not identical. I also remember shooting 7 rolls of film one day for focus testing, then developing and scanning it all . . . ugh.
My Nocti is at DAG due to rear focusing on the M9, and I am waiting for a new (old) 50 Collapsible Summaron to arrive -- coated, exc, $400, hard to resist.
seakayaker
Active member
. . . . . the LTM adaptor does not detract from the lens. I use the Voigtlander LTM to M adaptors with the 50/1.5 and 28/1.9 lens with the M9. If you subscribe to Sean Reid reviews you will see that he speaks highly of the 28/1/9, 35/1.7 and 50/1.5 Voigtlander lens.
Sample pictures, the last 130 of the set, taken with the VC Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH with a M8.2 and M9 can be found here:
Once again, good luck with your decison.
Jeff, if you are getting into a Leica system for the first time I wouldn't look at other manufacturers lenses because you want to discover the real Leica look, and that isn't produced by the body but the lens. Maybe go for Zeiss etc when you have a datum point in mind.
I wouldn't recommend anything exotic or quirky, you don't want to feel as if you went too far (a Summilux), or to individual (an Elmar). You want to be comfortable with it and know you have a true standard lens by which to judge others in future. So that leaves a good Summicron as the best most sensible option, preferably the latest version. Coding isn't important at 50mm, but it is nice to have the info on your Exif file.
Steve
I wouldn't recommend anything exotic or quirky, you don't want to feel as if you went too far (a Summilux), or to individual (an Elmar). You want to be comfortable with it and know you have a true standard lens by which to judge others in future. So that leaves a good Summicron as the best most sensible option, preferably the latest version. Coding isn't important at 50mm, but it is nice to have the info on your Exif file.
Steve
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Great examples of the planar above and they reinforce the observations on character . Its not a sharpness issue in picking a 50 unless the subject really benefits from uber sharp rendering.
Look at how the images render the skin tones ..do you see the subtle separation of tones ? How about the color depth (how would the Hasselblad render the skin ) ? The Zeiss Planar has exceptional resolution and macro(edge) sharpness . I think in the higher contrast light (image one outside) thats a fault . In the softer diffused light the match of a high contrast high resolution lens picks up the overall contrast and results in a powerful rendering .
Clearly if you are controlling the light ..you can adjust the contrast and balance the lens but if ,as most M users , you are primarily shooting in available light ..then the 50 planar can be too harsh . The 50 summicron would render the first image with less macro contrast and more micro contrast (see in the skin tones) and to my eye a more pleasing result.
Not suggesting that one lens or the other is better..just that they have different signatures (ways of rendering) and that resolution isn t the most important factor when they all are quite excellent.
I would also highlight that the zeiss rendering tends to bring a slight blueish cast to the image (really great around the ocean at dusk ) (see the whites of the eyes in the examples). The summicron would be warmer and the Noctilux would be cleaner (color clarity ..lack of any cast ) . No question that post processing can overcome a good part of these differences but color purity results in the best final product.
Look at how the images render the skin tones ..do you see the subtle separation of tones ? How about the color depth (how would the Hasselblad render the skin ) ? The Zeiss Planar has exceptional resolution and macro(edge) sharpness . I think in the higher contrast light (image one outside) thats a fault . In the softer diffused light the match of a high contrast high resolution lens picks up the overall contrast and results in a powerful rendering .
Clearly if you are controlling the light ..you can adjust the contrast and balance the lens but if ,as most M users , you are primarily shooting in available light ..then the 50 planar can be too harsh . The 50 summicron would render the first image with less macro contrast and more micro contrast (see in the skin tones) and to my eye a more pleasing result.
Not suggesting that one lens or the other is better..just that they have different signatures (ways of rendering) and that resolution isn t the most important factor when they all are quite excellent.
I would also highlight that the zeiss rendering tends to bring a slight blueish cast to the image (really great around the ocean at dusk ) (see the whites of the eyes in the examples). The summicron would be warmer and the Noctilux would be cleaner (color clarity ..lack of any cast ) . No question that post processing can overcome a good part of these differences but color purity results in the best final product.
Godfrey
Well-known member
Buying an M9 body anytime soon, for me, will be a huge stretch so I know that when I do it I'll be limited to either old lenses or alternative manufacturer lenses for a while. I'll have the lovely little Voigtländer Skopar 50mm f/2.5 and most likely either a Skopar 25/4, Skopar 28/3.5, or Ultron 28/2 or 1.9 as well. Any pair of those can be had for about $1000, and all of them have sufficient quality and rendering foo to be worth working with until the bank account is re-filled.
If I don't/didn't have those, I'd buy a Leica Summicron-C 40mm f/2 to start with as I prefer a slightly wider field of view and always loved that lens' imaging qualities. These can be had for prices in the $500-700 range (about $1000-1200 including the Leica CL body, which I like very much as well).
If I really really had to have a 50mm, the Zeiss 50mm sounds wonderful and the photos look very good, but I'd probably just go for any reasonably modern, used Summicron-M 50mm f/2. That's the classic Leica 50mm lens and was always my favorite, I liked it more than the Summilux and Noctilux for general purpose shooting. You can find them for about $1000 plus or minus if you look hard enough. Any of them (in good condition) is worth having, every series has its particular nuances in rendering qualities, and at this level of lens foo saying just one of them is the "best and only one to have" has little meaning.
If I don't/didn't have those, I'd buy a Leica Summicron-C 40mm f/2 to start with as I prefer a slightly wider field of view and always loved that lens' imaging qualities. These can be had for prices in the $500-700 range (about $1000-1200 including the Leica CL body, which I like very much as well).
If I really really had to have a 50mm, the Zeiss 50mm sounds wonderful and the photos look very good, but I'd probably just go for any reasonably modern, used Summicron-M 50mm f/2. That's the classic Leica 50mm lens and was always my favorite, I liked it more than the Summilux and Noctilux for general purpose shooting. You can find them for about $1000 plus or minus if you look hard enough. Any of them (in good condition) is worth having, every series has its particular nuances in rendering qualities, and at this level of lens foo saying just one of them is the "best and only one to have" has little meaning.