60mm Macro Question

<p>I've been a rangefinder user for almost two decades, but am now putting together an SLR system for some upcoming nature trips. My question is this: As a standard lens, does the 60mm Macro bring anything to the table different or better then the 50mm Summicron? Is there a reason to prefer the 60mm Macro over the 50mm Summicron as a standard? Thanks in advance. </p>

<p>I guess my question is whether the macro qualities of the lens bring out something that the 50mm Summicron doesn't -- whether it be enhanced detail or more evenness corner to corner, ect. Is there a reason to prefer the macro lens over a 50mm Summicron strictly for standard use?</p>

<p>They're both great lenses. The 50 gives you f2.0, while the 60 f2.8, but offers macro capabilities. Those two factors will determine which one you use. From the samples I've seen the 60 may be a tiny bit sharper, but again, these are two very good lenses that will both take excellent photos.</p>

<p>I guess my question is whether the macro qualities of the lens bring out something that the 50mm Summicron doesn't<br>

Macro!</p>

<p>Mike -- Although I've never been criticized for being too articulate, it's pretty clear from my question that I'm talking about both lenses being used as a standard lens. I'm aware that the 60mm Elmarit can be used as a macro lens. My question is why do some people favor the 60mm Elmarit over the 50mm Summicron for standard use? That South American photojournalist comes to mind. Sorry, his name escapes me at this moment.</p>

<p>I have not used either lens, but was contemplating the same idea at one time. <br>

There are probably many more 50 'cron-Rs than 60 Macro-Rs out there. If there is not much price difference, I'd opt for the 60 because it simply does more. If I had a camera shop, I'd easily take a clean 60 Macro in trade for a 50 'cron.</p>

<p>For years I had a 55mm 2.8 Nikon macro (micro-Nikkor) on my Nikon SLR instead of a 50mm f1.4/1.8/2.0. For hikes, camping, scenics, nature, etc. the macro lens was much more handy. For people candids and street pictures the faster lenses are more useful in low light, for faster shutter speeds, and less depth of field when you want it. I favor macro lenses (have three) but one may need a 1.4 lens for some situations. Your answer lies in which type of photography you plan to do.</p>

<p>The 60mm Macro is a much better performer than the 50mm Summicron. I have used both in the ROM versions and like its big brother the Apo Macro Elmarit 100mm f/2.8, the 60 Macro is quite stunning. The Summicron, while very, very good indeed, isn't upto the raw performance of either Macro.</p>

<p>The Macro has slower speed and a slightly longer focal length - I don't mind the loss of speed too much, and I welcome the 60mm focal length over the 50; I prefer slightly wider - like 35mm, and slightly longer - like 60mm. 50mm doesn't sit well with my style, so perhaps I'm sorta biased towards the 60. Just mentioning it so you keep that in mind when considering my opinion.</p>

<p>I used to own both, but sold the 50mm Summicron. The 60mm is substantially bigger and heavier, but is not a cumbersome lens. It also has a longer focus throw, so is slower to use.<br>

Having said that, I think the 60mm is better optically, the 50mm is also great, but the 60mm has a character which I prefer. There's something intangible about it that I really like.<br>

The other reason I sold the 50mm is that I usually use a 35mm lens, the the extra reach of the 60mm fits better as a kit.</p>

<p>I bought the 60 for its macro capability but also because it pairs better with a 35. It is an excellent lens. I wanted macro because that is something you can't really do on M. (My 35 is the PA lens, again something to complement an M system). I found an interesting point about the 60 with older R bodies, the combination of lens and finder magnification makes the combined almost exactly 100%. Ie, with the 60 on my R-E, I can look through the camera and keep both eyes open and the viewfinder image matches exactly with the lanscape I see past the camera with the other eye. </p>

<p>I use Macro Elmarit R 60 as my standard lens, as I like its macro capability for close up flower or insect shots.</p>

<p>Lens design gets geometrically harder as you have wider and wider maximum apertures. "Normal" focal-length macro lenses can be wonderfully sharp and contrasty, since they don't have to be fast lenses. While I haven't done this comparison with Leica's SLR lenses, I've done it with Topcon's Topcor lenses, and good as their 58/1.4 and 58/1.8 lenses are, the 58/3.5 macro has contrast and snap to burn.<br>

Now, if any of these macro lenses were truly a "macro" lens, corrected for optimum sharpness at 1:1 and larger magnifications, they might not be optimally corrected at infinity. But in general, 50 to 60mm macro lenses are normally optimized for close-up work (say 1:0.2), not true macro, and the penalty for distance working is minor. (If you're doing true macro with any of these lenses, they should be reverse-mounted.)</p>

 

<p>From what I remember Mr. Puts did not discern a great difference between the two lenses in his testing; in fact, given the glowing reviews of the 60mm, the lens seemed, well, not particularly special. However, it might have an intangible quality about it that adds to it. Some of this might simply be the longer than standard 60mm view. I agree the macro would be a nicer pairing with a 35mm, although I use the 80mm. Equally though, if you plan to get a 90mm then the gap between it and a 60mm is less useful. The Summicron is a world-class lens with magnificent imaging and it has the f2, and it is smaller. I have never used the 60mm.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the thoughtful responses.</p>

<p>Even though I have a 50mm Summicron for my SLR -- and always loved that M counterpart -- I went ahead and purchased one of these 60mm lenses. If nothing else it may open up the area of macro. And as Leica prices go, a 2 cam R lens isn't that big of an investment. (Not like some of the M lenses I've purchased over the years.)</p>

<p>Like much in Leica World, it sounded like I just had to get it and see for myself. I can always turn around and sell it if it is of little use and redundant.</p>

<p>By the way, Sebastiao Salgado, is the name I couldn't remember. I doubt he still shoots film, but at one time he used the 60mm Elmarit extensively as a standard. </p>

<p>The 60 is, IMHO, one of the finest R lenses. Use it without a shade unless you use filters.</p>

<p>The 60 is, IMHO, one of the finest R lenses. Use it without a shade unless you use filters.</p>

<p>Go over to the Leica camera web site,click on photography,then R cameras,then lenses,then 60mm,then click on know how. It takes you to the section about the 60mm by Erwin Puts,which will tell you everything you want to know. I love my 60,and with the macro adapter R,it goes to 1:1,life size onfilm</p>

<p>Revisiting a thread I started many years ago. Since that time I've used both versions of the 50mm Summicron, and a later 60mm Elmarit extensively (100's of rolls). They are all good lenses.</p>

<p><br /> On a Leicaflex SL the 60mm is magical; things just pop into focus in a dramatic way. However, during my latest downsizing both the type 1 50mm Summicron (great bokeh btw) and the Elmarit made it onto that auction site. The 60mm lens mated onto a Leicaflex SL was just so heavy; and I liked the optics of the 50mm Summicron best, at least in B&W.</p>

<p> </p>