Rigid Summicron 50 vs Pentax-M 50

This morning, I took several pairs of hand-held portraits of the

concierge of my apartment block, switching between a newly-CLA'd rigid

Summicron 50mm [on an M2] and a 1970's Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 [on a KM].

Shutter speeds indoors were around 1/60th, outdoors around 1/250th,

and apertures were in the f/4 - f/5.6 region. This afternoon I

developed the two rolls of Ilford HP5+ (rated 200ISO) for 15 mins in

Perceptol in the same tank, and this evening I printed several of the

pairs up to 9.5in. x 12in. I used a 50mm f/2.8 Nikkor EL enlarging

lens, stopped down 2 stops, and glossy Multigrade IV developed in

fresh Ilford Multigrade developer.

 

The similarity amazed me! If I hadn't folded over a few mm of corner

of the Pentax prints during processing, I would have struggled to tell

them apart.

 

The Summicron results initially looked about half a grade softer than

the Pentax-M, but I compensated for this by printing the Leica

photographs half a grade harder. If there are any differences, it

could be that the Pentax shows fractionally more micro-contrast and

the Leica produces slightly 'rounder' looking results, but this may

just be me convincing myself that there is something to separate two

cameras with a 40:1 price-differential (second-hand).

 

Are you as amazed as I was? ... or am I missing something obvious?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean (in Belfast)

Where you been? I thought that everybody know it already.

C'mon Bill!

 

My question was a serious one, following a real-world empirical test. Admittedly it was based on a limited sample (i.e. one of each), but I was surprised. What am I to read into your curt answer? Pentax lenses are excellent? Leica lenses are over-rated? Please elaborate.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean.

I wasn't fooling. Many serious Pentax users have quietly said it for years (ever since the tiny M and A series lenses were introduced). Personally, my best lens is a f:1.4/50mm SMCP, followed closely by a DR Summicron, and a current Summicron. Your description of their characteristics is quite accurate IMO. Mechanically, the Leica lenses are a much higher quality, of course. Expect us to take some heat for expressing this opinion.

>Bill Mitchell , jul 09, 2005; 10:06 p.m.

 

>Expect us to take some heat for expressing this opinion.

 

Oh yeah, you will just get lots of it. You poor, long-suffering Pentax user!

I had Super Takumars, plain and MC,21,28,35,50,85,105,135,200,and 300. Several iterations of each. Oh I forgot the 50 and 100 macros. Every one purchased new.

 

They don`t come close to Leica. I tried for years to match the nice black and white prints in the paper sample books. No go.

 

One day I found a 125mm Hector. I adapted it to the Pentax. I did a roll of slides with the Hector pics mixed in. A blind man could see the difference.

 

The next test was black and white and I got the long awaited tones I tried so hard to get. It took me one try.

 

Pentax was gone and I never looked back.

Another thought. Why do yuo think all the people are putting Leica R glass on Canon digitals?

I've used a screwmount Pentax 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar for many years on various SLRs (via adapter). It's among my favorite lenses. These days you can buy 'em for a song. The 35mm f/2 Super Tak is a very good lens too. The K-mount SMC 50s are if anything even better due to coating improvements. The f/1.2 is an underrated lens.

 

You can put together an entire Pentax system, capable of high quality results, for a very reasonable cost.

 

-Dave-

The M body and optic size are important reasons for my purchase. My 1970s Minolta Rokkor-X glass seem to be equal to M Leica 2nd generation 70s optics. Leica glass does register more natural skin tones. My one Minolta short tele has less flair than my Tele-Elmarit 90mm 1st version. Except for the pentagon shape of the diaphragm, my MC 58mm f/1.2 has better OOF imaging than a late 50mm Cron. Small optics have compromises.

At f4-5.6, you shouldn't expect to see any resolution differences unless you have (a) rock steady hands, and (b) huge enlargements (20x30). These middling apertures are the great leveller.

 

To see if your Summicron is really better, shoot at f2, 1/8-1/15. See if the reduced camera shake from the M and the better lens design really makes a difference. Report back to us when you've done so.

An interesting "test", but it's not really a very reliable one!

 

Especially as I have used a Pentax K2 with the 50mm F/1.4 lens - for many years - along with a Leica M-4 with a DR Summicron - for decades. I recently gave all of my Pentax equipment to my daughter, Heather, and her husband, for their family picture taking and am switching to a Canon A-1, since my better half has a Canon AE-1.

 

1. If you're really going to make a test, you should have enlarged both prints on a Leitz enlarger - preferably the Focomat - and have used the Leitz Focotar enlarging lens. Your "test" is very similar to taking slide film with both cameras using something other than Kodachrome 25 or 64 and then projecting the slides on a Bell & Howell Cube Projector or a Kodak Carousel, both of which will give you a slightly to greatly yellowish white light on the screen with fallout at the edges and not so crisp, detailed images, instead of a nice bright white light from corner to corner with extraordinary details and superb color separation as in a Leitz Pradovit projector.

 

In short, you can take two good/excellent cameras and then "junk" up the resulting image by making prints using Coke glass enlarging lens. Of course, you can also produce "junk" from the beginning with any camera by simply not holding the camera correctly during slow shutter speeds and/or "helping" the shutter move during exposure.

 

Obviously, if you "test" under these conditions, the results will be "stretched" to say the least and the "conclusion(s)" will be tenuous at best.

 

FYI - I have been to two two day Leica Photographic Seminars - one in Peoria, IL and the other at Southern Illinois University - where Leica slides were projected by Leica projectors on to an 8 X 12 FOOT - an 96 times enlargement of a 35mm slide. Now that's a real test of quality, especially when you can still see fine detail, excellent definition, and superb color separation.

 

Speaking of projectors, have you ever tested a Pentax projector? They - or rather Sawyer's - made them for a very short while. Have you ever tested Nikon projectors (or enlargers) or did they ever make them?

 

Did you ever wonder why Leitz has made enlargers and projectors of the same quality as their cameras, but most other camera manufacturers haven't bothered to make them - Nikon, for example - or only made them for a very short period of time - Pentax, for example?

 

2. BTW - When I was at the Honeywell Pentax Photographic Seminar - a week long affair - I noted that all three instructors used Leicas. That should tell you something as well.

 

3. Also when I was there, the instructors did a test to see whether a number of lenses could reproduce straight lines as lines - due to the retro-focus design of SLR lenses.

 

They created a 20 X 24 board and drew a number of straight lines around the edges of the board. They photographed it with a Leica rangefinder using the 50mm Summicron; the Leicaflex SL or SL II (then in current production) and 50mm lenses using Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, and a few other cameras. They developed the B & W negatives and then enlarged the negatives to make a 20 X 24 print using, of course, a Leitz Focomat enlarger with the Focotar lens.

 

Guess what? The only camera and lens combination to reproduce the straight lines as straight lines was the Leica rangefinder with the 50mm Summicron. The Leicaflex SL or SL II was slightly behind and showed just a slight barrel distortion near the center of the blown up image. It went downhill from there. The less well made cameras and lenses exhibited a goodly amount of barrel distortion.

 

Now that's a real test IMHO!

 

So what's the "moral of the story"?

 

Well, you can get good to excellent results from nearly any camera, if you pay attention, which really should be the object of all photographers, i.e. - to get the best from their equipment. Conversely, you can also get "junk" photographs from the beginning with any camera by not paying careful attention.

 

And that's basically what you tested - attempting to get the best results from your equipment, but then again, you really didn't "test" much of anything, i.e. it was limited in scope!

 

I don't mean to be insulting when I make that statement.

 

Again, not to be rude or insulting, but the Leica rangefinder will - for example - run rings around the Pentax KM with the 50mm F/1.4 lens and/or leave it in the dust under available light conditions where you need both rapid and accurate focus and using the lens wide open or one to two stops down. Unposed theatre photography would be one good example!!!

 

For example, ny 90mm Summicron when used wide open - F/2.0 and focused at the closest distance has exactly 3/4 of an inch in depth of field. That's greater than the distance from the tip of the nose to the eyes.

 

If our eyes don't see so well under available light conditions and a SLR only adds to the arena of confusion, then why make the (false) claim that the Pentax 50mm F/1.4 lens will come close or equal the 50mm Summicron, since you really didn't test either camera/lens combination under a variety of adverse conditions and you didn't make use of enlarging equipment of the same quality as the camera and lens you tested.

 

It is much wiser, I believe, to use the right tool for the job at hand and then working to obtain the best results possible.

 

If you remember, focusing accuracy is dependent upon two basic factors - image size of the viewfinder and the length of the rangefinder base. I am sure that you can work out the mathematics using the viewfinder image size of the Pentax, which is around .92 or .93 and multiplying it by the " rangefinder base" which would be 50MM divided by F/1.4 or slightly more than 25mm. You can use either the viewfinder image of the M3 which is .95 or any other Leica viewfinder, i.e. .72 or .85 and multiply it by the rangefinder base, which is, I believe 49.5mm or something close to that and you'll find that the rangefinder has both consistent and greater focusing accuracy compared to a SLR using a 100mm or 135mm and below (normal & wide angle) lenses.

 

Of course, we then have to (or should) again come to the conclusion that cameras and lenses are merely "tools" in the photographers pallet and that we should - as always - endeavor to obtain the best from whatever equipment is available to us.

 

That's what you really tested isn't? Getting what you believe to be - from your knowledge and/or experience - the best possible results.

 

Are there "better" photographic tools than others? Yes, indeed, but that "better" is dependent upon a whole range of various factors. For example, a rangefinder camera may be far "better" than an SLR for available light photographer for a great number of reasons, but a SLR camera may be "better" than a rangefinder camera under totally different conditions because it may allow us to "see" far "better".

 

Photographers would be far better off thinking of themselves as artists having a wide assortment of tools available to them. IMHO

 

Or you can look at this topic by asking yourself the following question:

 

How many architects spend hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades "debating" the various qualities of pencils, drafting tables and/or paper; erasers; etc. in making their architectural designs?

 

Only photographers have this deporably bad habit.

 

Was the imaginative design of "Fallingwater" by Frank Lloyd Wright the result of using a certain pencil or paper in making up his drawings of this most interesting residence? Or did he keep everything in his head - thinking about its design and siting in various ways - BEFORE - he began to lay out the basic plans. See Ken Burn's film on Frank Lloyd Wright for an answer.

 

By the way, if you're really interested in learning about "tests", I highly recommend the reading of "Cargo Cult Science" which can easily be found by doing a search on Google.com. It's an easy and enjoyable read and it's actually a commencement address given by Richard P. Feynmann. PhD (physics) at Cal Tech many years ago. Buried within this most interesting article is a discussion of what constitutes a good scientific test and also what constitutes scientific honesty and integrity.

 

BTW - Feynmann won a Nobel Prize in Quantum Electrodynamics; worked on the A-bomb as a young PhD graduate, figured out why the Challenger blew up, played bongo drums at parties, and did some of his physics at a nude bar in Pasadena, CA. An interesting character to say the least.

 

For what's it worth - I am not out to PO anyone and/or to put you down or start a "battle", i.e. heated discussion, but I do think that "tests" - of whatever kind - should be far more comprehensive and thorough going than yours and more importantly, I firmly believe that that photographers should be spending more time and effort on obtaining the best from the equipment they have on hand and then sharing that knowledge and experience by assisting others to achieve the best that they can as well.

 

My apologies for being somewhat redundant, but it is late in the evening.

 

My best wishes in your photographic endeavors!!!

 

Bill

Of all the 50mm lens I have ever used (Contax 50mm Planar f/1.4 & f/1.7, Leica Summicron 50mm f/2, Nikon f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm AF-D, Minolta 50mm f/1.4 MD Rokkor) it is probably just possible to get a cigarette paper between them all on sharpness and overall performance. (Even wide open)

 

The Planars get my vote closely followed by the Minolta MD. The Summicron's biggest benefit was it's resale value. If bought in good used condition (and kept that way) it will have cost you nothing when you come to sell it. The Nikon f/1.4 is OK but not as good as the f/1.8 model I 'upgraded' from!

 

This is why I am back with a Contax/Zeiss Planar on a 167mt as my only 'proper' film camera. I prefer the contrast and sharpness and way the focussing feels. (And that I can put it on a Canon digital SLR if I upgrade down that route later.)

 

Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus were not fools when it came to 50mm lens design and they are difficult to get really wrong. By the time of the 1970s all of them had got it (50mm) so right that I doubt any significant (optical) improvement will ever be seen again. (Unless you are willing to pay thousands to buy a new 50mm ASPH Summilux or a 55mm f/1.2 Planar)

 

OT the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AIS is probably the best of its type ever made.

The 50mm f/2.8 Nikkor EL is an excellent enlarging lens.<p>

 

My first serious photography was done using a Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7. The lens is very sharp and has great flare resistance, probably better than any other 50mm I have used in the letter respect. The Summicrons are very nice, but not just from a 'sharpness' perspective. Of course, old lenses will vary as much from their age and life as from manufacturing variation<p>

 

These days I don't worry too much about <i>quantitative</i> differences between lenses. Any reasonable lens fitted to a 120 camera will beat any 50mm lens in 35mm, and you don't need to make sectional enlargements to see the difference.

Er, some of those old Pentax lenses are super sharp; something Nikon can only dream about.

I certainly don't find my Nikon lenses to be soft. The Bokeh of the 50mm 1.4 is somewhat distictive though...

Pentax Super Takumars of "certain focal lengths" are better at flare reistance and are as sharp and contrasty as Leica. The Leicas have more roundness and depth quality. The RF assures better focus at wide apertures! ThePentax slr's are very dark compared to Canon and Nikon.

The "person" who compared a Spanish lens(the El-Nikkor) to a coke bottle must indeed be suffering from drinking its contents!The extra large size with dirty ice may impair thought! Do not drink if using fine photographic machinery.

The Nikon enlarging lenses are simply the finest and best.

The 50mm f1.2 Pentax lens is one of the finest in the world.

One use of that lens will have many of you trading or selling that dumb,soft Canon50mmf1.2 in RF/LF mount!

Surely if Leica was absolutely superior, it would be the first choice of all working photographers. It isa great camera but very dated and Q.C is like many European products, quite lacking!

The Canon A series is probably way (higher standard) quality better.

The Leica though will long outlive all of us!

Thanks for reminding. (I have a bunch of Pentax).

 

About the final question like why and worth?: I had difficultys focusing my Pentax stuff wide open. I'm looking if I 'll do better with the M3; at least I believe it's nice to have and fun to use it. Spending it's price on ice cream would have ruined my figure totally, so I don't regret buying a Leica.

I used Pentax kit with a range of good SMC M lenses extensively for years and at the same time I had a Leica CL with a 40mm Summicron which I used only occassionally. Every time I did I was blown away with how much sharper the results were. While I loved the Pentax gear I moved on to Leica as soon as I could afford it (yeah, like about 2 decades later ) and almost never pick up the Pentax now. Having said that I think Pentax lenses were at least as good as any of the same vintage Nikon, Canon, Olympus glass.

...and I should add that none of the Leica lenses I bought were any newer than the Pentax's

I'm still looking for the ultimate manual-focus 50mm lens for an SLR. It doesn't matter which maker, I'm willing to buy a camera to use the lens with (I never change lenses in the field anyway). Like most of you, I've used all sorts of normal lenses, but am not particularly happy with any of them (unlike 35mm, for which I've found the lens for life). It must have such colour transmission that it makes Kodak EPN actually look saturated, such resolution that my Konica Auto S2 is finally beaten, such flare-proofness as a Pentax SMC or Zeiss T*, and the bokeh of a 4th version 35 'cron.

 

If you know of a manually-focussing 50mm lens for an SLR regardless of make that comes close, do mention it. I'm presently leaning towards the Nikon 45/2.8 P.

As William Harrison pointed out, testing is required to make scientific judgements concerning lens performance. Every step in the image chain is critical.

 

Practical photography often involves equipment use without camera support, utilizing medium to fast films, and shutter speeds at or below 1/60. Technique, aperture, and print size becomes the equalizer between equipment.

 

Sean's comments are practical observation in his use of a 1956 -1968 cron vs 1970s Pentax 50mm f/1.8. I had a similar experience looking at 4x6 color (Portra 160) prints between a 1980s Minolta 50mm vs a current 50mm cron at f/2.8 and f/4.0. If shot with slide film my bet is the current summicron would standout. However, I shoot B&W film and value a smooth 3d look and therefore can avoid expensive highly corrected lenses.

 

At the end of the day the M camera body becomes significant as a choice of equipment.

 

OT; for enlargments above 6 or 7x, medium format should be considered for it's improved tonality.

I'd used Pentax screw mount bodies and Super Multicoated Takumar lenses (28mm through 135mm)from the early-70s up until about four years ago when I started being unable to clearly see the focusing screen and fitting a diopter was not practical. That's when I went heavy into Leica M, followed by Leica R on a lark. I've got decades of slides, much of it on Kodachrome ASA 25, shot with the Takumars. When I first started contemplating getting into Leica I did some comparisons and for the things that are important to me (sharpness in center and corners, contrast, flare resistance, lack of color casts, and to a lesser extent but not entirely unimportant, that the OOF areas are relatively smooth), I couldn't detect any drop in those criterias from Pentax to Leica, which is why I went ahead and bought into Leica. Couldn't detect any improvement though. Since selling my Leica R8 outfit I've been using my Takumars on my wife's Rebel Ti with adaptors (the Ti has a dioptric eyepiece), and will do so when I get a 20D soon also. The Takumars have a stopdown tab, which makes dealing with the lack of aperture coupling less of a pain. As far as build quality, my SMC Takumars have been used more or less continually for around 35 years and show no signs of loosening up, let alone falling apart.

Although I own both M and R Leica gear, I have always enjoyed the Pentax Spotmatic camera system. I consider the Spotmatic to be M2 of SLR's, really basic, with nice balance and feel, with all the controls you need, and none you don't.

 

I recently picked up a well worn black paint Spotmatic with a SMC 50 1.4, for next to nothing. I take it everywhere and don't show the appropriate concern for any mishandling it may receive for being constantly at the "ready" - something I have trouble doing with my Leica M gear.

 

The lens is excellent by any standard, and although I have no plans to A/B it to Leica 50's, my sense is that the OOF image is at least as good as the Leica's.

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/rangefinder.html

 

Go to this link, cursor down to the text to read Herb Kepplers comments of Leica vs Pentax with M42 optics.

I'm not interested in comparisons at F8.