Leica M Dual Range vs. rigid 50/2 Summicron lenses

I'm curious to find out what other differences there are between the 50/2 DR Summicron and the rigid Summicron aside from the closer focusing and "eye" mount on the DR based on your knowledge and experiences. According to Stephen Gandy, some people think it's sharper than the rigid version and was even rated the sharpest lens ever tested by Modern Photography. Is it worth it to pay more for this lens version if you really don't need the closer focusing feature?

<a

href="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/scronhist.h

tml">

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/scronhist.html</

a>

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.lhsa.org/moremus.htm">

http://www.lhsa.org/moremus.htm</a>

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.lhsa.org/finalmus.htm">

http://www.lhsa.org/finalmus.htm</a>

Ron, it is a very good lens and definately better than the

collapsibile 50mm Summicron I had before it. MY DR had some coating

problems inside that required a lot of work to repair, which is

common on 40 year old Leica lenses. The current formula is supposed

to be even better, is more compact, and focuses to .7 meters without

the eyes, and is more flare resistant for sure. (The DR goes only to

1 meter) It doesn't have the same feel to the construction and isn't

finshed as nicely as the older DR However.

Ron,

 

<p>

 

Hope this doesn't sound condescending, but in the interest of

accuracy, especially if you are researching... the DR Summicron is

also RIGID. This was the narrative designation to differentiate the

collapsible Summicron.

 

<p>

 

The Dual Range cosmetically looks like the Summicron of that day with

the addition of the detachable eyes to take it into the close-up

range. Close-up is a comparative term for rangefinders, since SLRs

can easily get closer. Also, back in the day, the M3 rangefinder and

Summicrons of like vintage only went to 40 inches, so it was a good

selling point to "brag" about close focusing capability. My new

Summicron goes to 27 inches on my M6, so progress has rendered the

feature moot.

 

<p>

 

I have seen some good work with the DR Summicron from photographers

that worked in the '60's. The biggest thing that would dissuade me

now is the fact that all of the reports I have read mention the

softness of both the glass and coatings of the time. Any potential

sharpness advantage could be eliminated by some veiling flare, or

contrast reduced by micro-scratches.

 

<p>

 

I have used and tested (un-scientifically) all of the Summicrons

since 1954 and I would use the Black 1969-1979 or the 1980- to

present (cosmetically changed but optically identical) without

reservations. I would seriously test the chrome lenses, but a good

example can deliver great results.

Thanks for the links and the answers everyone. They're actually very

informative. I asked because the local second-hand shop here is

selling a 50/2 DR Summicron w/ eyes attached to an M3. I was

thinking whether this set would be better than a second-hand M6 and a

black 50/2 rigid Summicron (non-DR) in another shop. The M3 and DR

Summicron cost more than the M6 set and both sets are in good

condition. I guess I'd go for the M6 and black 50/2 Summicron.

Ron, I have both the collapsible 50 and the Summicron-M. The latter

is not the current version, it's the one with the focusing tab. I am

hard pressed to see a difference in sharpness between them. Small

architectural details look about the same when comparing at the same

aperture. I limited my test to f2, 2.8, 4, and 5.6, so as to keep

the shutter speeds high with Velvia and Technical Pan. Now, when it

comes to contrast, the M is contrastier. Shadows are darker, not

filled with diffused stray light. So, I guess the question is, if I

can barely tell the oldest from the latest, how much difference can

there be between the oldest and the second-oldest?

 

<p>

 

Just something to ponder . . .

 

<p>

 

Regards,