Comments on Collapsable 50's

Hi all,

 

I am hopelessly addicted to the 50mm focal length, and I am in the

market for another. I have a 50/2 Summicron, a 50/2 Hexanon, a

50/1.5 Summarit, and a 50/2 Summar.

 

I am looking to add a collapsable 50 to the line up, mostly for

traveling light. I wanted to ask for opinions on the various

collapsable lenses.

 

I am thinking of either a used new version 50/2.8 Elmar, or an older

50/2 Summicron. Lens speed is not such an issue for me, although I

think a 50/3.5 might be just a little too slow. Price matters.

 

Can any of you provide me some insights on your real world

experience with these lenses? If you think another lens than what I

have mentioned is worth a look, please feel free to say so.

 

Any photos that you could point me to would also be appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Erik.

I'm a fan of the fifties as well, and I shoot extensivley with a collapsable 50/2 Summicron on a iiif ltm camera. I think this lens is identical to the early M versions. It yields subtle color and contrast with very good sharpness and resolution. A nice lens by any measure. You can see a portfolio of handheld shots from a single day at http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=311283

I suggest a late '50's early '60's 50mm Elmar f2.8. It's a very small, light nifty lens with a creamy look that I love. Pretty darn cheap out there as well. Think about it!

I have a shot taken with my first collapsible 'cron, way back in 1968, posted below here under Robert M Johnson's thread:"no words:street photography from the 60s" It's pretty sharp. Probably f8 or 5.6 because I was reading these PoP Photo mags back then and they always said a lens was sharpest at those apertures. I have one again today, on an M3, mainly because(no thank you Ford Motor Company) I didn't have the $$ on hand for a modern summicron when I was shopping. I think the lens is sharp enough; I especially like colour with it, it has an old fashioned look. Don't like the damned tab; and as it has a filter and a shade permanently mounted, it won't go in a pocket.

Do not forget considering the Summitar 50/2.0. Usually sells cheaper than the Summicron 50/2.0 collapsible and is every bit as good. Attached is a Summitar picture, you be the judge.<div></div>

The Collapsable 50 summicron here was about 225 bucks from e b a y; several years ago; the prices vary alot; due to condition of the lens coatings.....The cheaper ones look like someone was compulsive wiht cleaning; and used Comet and #600 grit once a week; and halve gastly circular cleaning marks.....Be wary of poor photos; that hide lack of lens coatings; or zillion concentric rings and scratches.........

You can't go wrong with a clean 50mm F: 2.8 Elmar late model serial# above 175xxxxxxxxxx. Crisp, great definition.

 

Only drawback is moving diaphram (Sp.?) moves focus -- obviated in new model.

 

Paul Neuthaler, 7/12/03

Erik, I got an old elmar 50/2.8 collaspsable. Just remember to lock it when you shoot. It's great!<div></div>

I can understand when you say you are 'addicted' to the 50mm focal length. I have a

dozen myself, and I wouldn't pass something up that was interesting just to stop at

that number either. With your question there are a lot of areas to explore; speed

(which you say doesn't matter, but has a lot to do with lens 'character'), size - even in

the 'collapsible' style, price, different workmanship quality, old/new, handling

characteristics - maybe you'll also have a few more 50s at some

point.

 

One of my favorite lenses is the 50mm collapsible Summicron. It is a lens with a lot of

'history' being the first design of one of the most 'classic' of all photographic lenses.

Made in a heavy brass and chrome mount it looks good and handles well. I like the

fact that its a 'non-rotating' mount so the aperture setting is always in the same

convent place on top, and so works with a clamp on Leitz polarizing filter, also there

are BOTH a locking tab and machined focus ring, and the general construction is

short for a 50mm. Comes in both bayonet or LTM (that can be used with adapter, I

use it on both M and LTM cameras), and can be bought at a very reasonable price, can

be found at around

the same price as the later 50mm Elmar f2.8, and you gain a stop in a better made

mount that handles better, and is optically a bit better too. Only drawback (which is

the same on all Leitz lenses from the 50s/early 60s) is the front element needs to be

checked for the common 'cleaning marks' in its soft glass. It is a very sharp lens even

wide open although lower contrast than a 'modern' design'. This can still give you a

beautiful image quality especially with black and white film. The first production of

the Summicron has what has become called the 'yellow glass' lenses. Made with glass

that has a low level of radioactivity I find they (I have 2 examples) give a very slight

warmth to color film that is very pleasing.

 

The 50mm Elmar f3.5 is a nice very small lens and that is its one big advantage. The

50mm Elmar f2.8 older design, again a nicely made lens and well corrected classic

style and image lens, can be bought fairly good price these days, but watch for lens

marks and internal fogging. The new 50mm Elmar is a modern design in every way,

as good as the new Summicron in image quality (razor sharp and high contrast), the

mount is a short throw in focus, but you can see the workmanship is not the same as

the 50s/60s Leitz lenses. Will be a bit more then the other Elmars in price and about

the same as a really nice early Summicron.

Wow, go out for a beer and sushi and already some great responses.

 

There is a lot to think about. So far, I am really impressed with the Summitar image of the bike. That is suprisingly crisp for what I expected from a Summitar. I have always thought of that lens as similar to my Summarit from a sharpness/contrast perspective. That is a nice surprise.

 

As for the older Summicrons, I have looked at many and the front element is always the show stopper for me. I have yet to find one that is in the shape I want. User is fine, abused is not.

 

I would like to see more pics from the Elmar Travis. Do you have any more? (By the way, I liked you de-focused Elmar experiment).

 

Thanks again,

 

Erik.

Erik, cleaning marks on the front element coating need not be a show stopper, unless there are actual scratches in the

glass beneath. Two years ago I had a heavily marked-up collapsible Summicron recoated -and cleaned and relubricated as

well- by John Van Stelten , aka TheFocal Point (303-665-6640). The work was superb. For $175 I got back what

amounts to a brand new 1955 lens, except that the coating is tougher than the original. it is very sharp and has a lovely

signature. John wouldn't give a firm price until he had actually inspected my lens but he will doubtless ballpark it for

you. he has done this job on hundreds of vintage Leitz lenses. So use those marks to drive down the price........

This is a no-brainer. Get the latest vesion 50 Elmar. I've seen them in nice shape for $300 recently. Head and shoulders better than any of the older ones. The only reason for an older one would be a coated 3.5 Elmar in LTM, because it collapses to almost nothing in thickness. I've got one of those and the collapsible Summicron (with almost no coating problems thanks to a UV filter on it for the last 30 years)and they don't even compare to the current Elmar.

These are from my first few rolls with my IIIg and 5cm f2.8 Elmar.<div></div>

I have a couple of versions of the older 2.8 Elmar, and they give very nice pictures. But in all honesty that is all they do give. They are awkward to use with the infinty focus lock, and with the barrel and aperture ring being in 'one unit' the focus nearly always goes out if you want to change the aperture after focusing. This later characteristic makes zone focusing in changing light a nightmare. So a few months ago I got a bargain secondhand 'mint' new version Elmar M. There are a lot around. I think people sell them thinking they are 'moving up' to a cron or lux. But in truth the performance is so close to the current cron at equivalent apertures that this Elmar really is Leica's best kept secret. The focus and aperture rings are decoupled, and ignoring the hood and a filter it collapses very nearly as small as the older lens.

I posted some pics taken with the red scale Elmar this week. It's sharp and very small, but don't pay silly dealer prices as they're not really very rare.

Erik, I use a collapsible Summicron (1956) for b&w work. It gives an unusual, haunting look to the shots. The three-dimensionality and roundness are there, as is the lovely bokeh. For color, I prefer the etched look of the current 'cron, but I keep the collapsible at hand for color portraiture. Wide open, the older lens gives flattering skin texture. Another great portrait lens for color shots is the 135mm F4 Elmar from the 1960s. Very creamy, rich tones.

It really depends of what imagine style you are looking for, and mount convenience.

Do you want a 'classic' image with a well made mount? Go for the Summicron

collapsible, or for ultimate compactness the 50s or pre-50s uncoated elmar LTM lens.

If you want a 'modern' look with high contrast and razor sharpness get a new elmar.

But I have to say the new elmar isn't that much smaller than a rigid Summicron, and

unless you are in the habit of taking the hood off every time, the 'collapsible' feature

isn't really that useful (I'd rather have a 70s-90s Summicron for that look). There

definitely are nice Summicrons out there to be found, but also don't worry too much if

a lens has a few light 'cleaning' marks, they really don't effect the image and bring the

price down. As mentioned a polish and re-coating can be done at a reasonable price.

When I was in college back in '51, I received a IIIc with a collapsible 50mm Elmar. I had access to the optics lab so I mounted the lens on an optical bench with a nodal slide, target, and aerial microscope. I was amazed at the contrast and resolution of the lens. The astigmatism and curvature of field were characteristic of the triplet design. When stopped down to f/5.6 to f/8 the results were superior to the 50 Summitar and about equal to the collapsible Summicron at equal apertures, though the Summicron had less fall-off.

 

I sold the Elmar and Summitar, but I wish that I had kept the Elmar. Certainly it was better for macros, though not as good as the 50mm Focotar (or 135mm Hektor when needing more working distance).

"But I have to say the new elmar isn't that much smaller than a rigid Summicron, and unless you are in the habit of taking the hood off every time.."

 

Why is the current Elmar M always measured 'with the hood' against the old Elmar 'without a hood', or against a larger 'cron that is also a stop faster? Is it just because the hood comes in the box? It can't be because it desperately needs the hood because it doesn't.

Travis, never mind what lens was used I very much like that shot of yours.

Erik,

I'm a little confused. you say that in your list of 50's as having a

50 f2 Summar. That is a collapsible lens my friend.

I know because I just got one myself (for a ripe price of $68) last

week. And despite the stories I heard of that lens's lack of

sharpness I have overwhelmingly impressed so far (shot about

10 rolls with it). After lookin at some of teh Summar's on Ebay, I

realize that I have a good one (next to no scratches and the like

in the front element). It takes a bit to get used to focusing with

next to focus ring, but its not the bad.

I am very pleased with it, as a 50 and as a collapsible.

I am going to post some photos taken with it later today.

-DKM

Damian,

 

Thanks, I am aware that the Summar is collapsable. However, that lens is far from sharp, flares like a flare, and produces less than stellar color rendition. The hood for a Summar costs more than the lens, and it's not a small hood by any stretch.

 

I too have a VERY nice example of the Summar. It is as clean as any other I have seen, but it is no Summicron (size aside).

 

My request for opinions on a collapsable lens was more to the newer generations of lenses.

 

Thanks, Erik.