Just got a Barnack Leica!

2020-01-28-0005-crop2.jpg



Corner of Crescent Avenue and Delware Avenue in Fort Wayne.


50mm Summitar on Tmax 400.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Yes, but Canon-optics usually suffer badly from flare. With lots of flare the bokeh is naturally softer.


Erik.
Click to expand...




The Canon lenses I have do not have an issue with flare. They're clean inside with no haze. Many old Canon lenses, as well as many older Leica lenses, have haze inside that increases flare.
 
Hey Chris,

Love what you're doing with your new Barnack set up. I'm kind of a fan of the old Canon LTM lenses when used with my IIIc (actually don't have any Leica LTM glass, all Nikkor & Canon). The Canon 35mm f1.8 and 28mm f2.8 (a Winogrand favorite on his M2) are both tack sharp wide open in the center of the image, though pretty low contrast. And the 35mm f2 is a story unto itself.

Below, the Canon 28mm f2.8 on my IIIc, wide open.

Canfield.jpg


Best,
-Tim
 
Timmyjoe said:
Hey Chris,

Love what you're doing with your new Barnack set up. I'm kind of a fan of the old Canon LTM lenses when used with my IIIc (actually don't have any Leica LTM glass, all Nikkor & Canon). The Canon 35mm f1.8 and 28mm f2.8 (a Winogrand favorite on his M2) are both tack sharp wide open in the center of the image, though pretty low contrast. And the 35mm f2 is a story unto itself.

Below, the Canon 28mm f2.8 on my IIIc, wide open.

Canfield.jpg


Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...




Tim,


That looks awesome! I haven't tried the 35mm f2, but I've been really impressed with my 35mm f1.8.


I'd love to get a 28, but they seem to rarely come up for sale, and the ones on eBay are all from Japanese sellers and they all seem to have haze or fungus. I'd want to get one in the US so I can return it if it turns out to be bad.
 
Another page, another nice photos!

Orion-15 is kind of slower alternative. It is very easy to clean, if needed, lens.
Orion-15 on Zorki:
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Tim,


That looks awesome! I haven't tried the 35mm f2, but I've been really impressed with my 35mm f1.8.


I'd love to get a 28, but they seem to rarely come up for sale, and the ones on eBay are all from Japanese sellers and they all seem to have haze or fungus. I'd want to get one in the US so I can return it if it turns out to be bad.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris,

I'm using a Canon 28mm f2.8 & Canon 35mm f1.8 with a Tokyo Nikkor 5cm f1.4 & Nikkor 8.5cm f2 on my IIIc. I was really surprised how tack sharp both of those Canon's are wide open, in the center of the image. I've got one of those Canon 35mm f2, but it never sees the IIIc, it lives(with an adapter on it) with my M mount glass.

The Canon 35mm f2 seems to be somewhat higher contrast than the f1.8, and a bit sharper across the frame at wider open apertures, but once you hit about f4, they're both pretty similar.

Best,
-Tim
 
I've always loved how Tessar formula lenses render. I have an ancient Rolleiflex with an uncoated 75mm Tessar that I love, but I have never owned a Tessar for a 35mm camera. Last week, I found a Leica 50mm f2.8 Elmar in LTM on Ebay for $250! It was claimed to have perfect glass, so I took a chance and bought it. The f2.8 LTM Elmar usually sells for more than twice that.


The glass was, as promised, perfect. No haze, no scratches or 'cleaning marks,' and no fungus. The metal parts of the lens looked wonderful too. It does have one issue. It arrived in the extended position, and when I tried to collapse it, I found that it takes A LOT of force to turn the lens barrel to release it to be collapsed. That wasn't disclosed in the listing, but I decided to see if the focus was accurate and image quality good before deciding to return it.


Image quality was magnificent, so I'm going to keep it. I got it cheap, so I can just leave it extended until I can afford to send it to DAG to be looked at. Here are my first images with it:




2020-02-02-0001.jpg


Scout is one of the two fatcats that live at Hyde Brothers Books on Wells Street in Fort Wayne, Indiana. I found it funny that she was sleeping in the Ornithology (books about birds) section!

Shot at f2.8




2020-02-02-0002.jpg


This garage is behind a house on Wells Street in Fort Wayne.



Shot at f8





2020-02-02-0003.jpg



This little store is Fort Wayne Guitar Exchange. It is also on Wells Street.


Shot at f4
 
I've been somewhat following this thread. Two things I think about a Barnack body and Elmars lenses: I think the Barnack is superior for holding the film much flatter than barn door cameras. I feel this adds something to the overall quality of the image. And second the Tessar lenses may have some problems but they are also excellent; at least my 50mm Elmar is.

Two photos from my Barnack(s) :

With a F 2.0 Summar 1963:

1963 by John Carter, on Flickr

and with an Elmar f3.5 50mm 2012 (ala Henry Wessel):

TriX HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr

If anyone has information about the Barnack film flatness let me know.
 
charjohncarter said:
I've been somewhat following this thread. Two things I think about a Barnack body and Elmars lenses: I think the Barnack is superior for holding the film much flatter than barn door cameras. I feel this adds something to the overall quality of the image. And second the Tessar lenses may have some problems but they are also excellent; at least my 50mm Elmar is.

Two photos from my Barnack(s) :

With a F 2.0 Summar 1963:

1963 by John Carter, on Flickr

and with an Elmar f3.5 50mm 2012 (ala Henry Wessel):

TriX HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr

If anyone has information about the Barnack film flatness let me know.
Click to expand...




I don't know if the Barnacks hold film flatter or not. Probably do, given how they're made. I've never had issues with film flatness in any 35mm camera, though.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
The glass was, as promised, perfect. No haze, no scratches or 'cleaning marks,' and no fungus. The metal parts of the lens looked wonderful too. It does have one issue. It arrived in the extended position, and when I tried to collapse it, I found that it takes A LOT of force to turn the lens barrel to release it to be collapsed. That wasn't disclosed in the listing, but I decided to see if the focus was accurate and image quality good before deciding to return it.
Click to expand...


Chris, I've noticed that behaviour with collapsible lenses that have been cleaned. I think they've done the final screwing together of the lens by using the collapsible lens mechanism stops as a holder against the torque of the reassembly. So I think it's a lens repairer's workaround. The results from your lens show that it has been cleaned well, and once you've cleared the collapsing mechanism it should be fine from then on in, unless they have really gone too far screwing it together.
John Mc
 
mcfingon said:
Chris, I've noticed that behaviour with collapsible lenses that have been cleaned. I think they've done the final screwing together of the lens by using the collapsible lens mechanism stops as a holder against the torque of the reassembly. So I think it's a lens repairer's workaround. The results from your lens show that it has been cleaned well, and once you've cleared the collapsing mechanism it should be fine from then on in, unless they have really gone too far screwing it together.
John Mc
Click to expand...


John,


It collapses easily once the thing is twisted far enough to disengage the bayonet mount, but I am afraid to do this too much for fear of damaging it. Is there a way to fix this easily? Or should I just send it off and get it done professionally?
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I don't know if the Barnacks hold film flatter or not. Probably do, given how they're made. I've never had issues with film flatness in any 35mm camera, though.
Click to expand...

I really haven't either, but I'm thinking on a micro level. My IIIf photos seem slightly sharper than my Bessa R when I use the same lenses. Besides I read about 60 years ago that Leica did have difficulty with achieving equal film placement with their prototype M series camera. I may be wrong about that as it was 60 years ago.
 
charjohncarter said:
I really haven't either, but I'm thinking on a micro level. My IIIf photos seem slightly sharper than my Bessa R when I use the same lenses. Besides I read about 60 years ago that Leica did have difficulty with achieving equal film placement with there prototype M series camera. I may be wrong about that as it was 60 years ago.
Click to expand...




I wonder if your Bessa's rangefinder is out of adjustment? That could bring a slight loss of sharpness if it is just slightly off.
 
Last week, I found a good deal on another Canon 35mm lens, this time a 35mm f2. This is the one everyone calls the "Japanese Summicron."




hotc-ftwayne.jpg





2-13-20-besancon-2.jpg





2-13-20-besancon-1.jpg



The last photo of the schoolhouse shows how awesome this lens is. Notice the little triangular sign on the left edge of the photo: Below is a 100% crop from the full-resolution scan (from my Nikon LS-8000ED using glass negative carrier).




2020-02-16-0001-detail.jpg



You can read the text on that tiny sign! "No Passing Zone."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top