Which version of the 50 Summicron?

I am in the market for a 50 Summicron. MTF tests are far superior on

the latest version vs those from the '50s & '60s. Yet, I've read

that some people prefer the first rigid version to all others, that

it offers the best rendition of that "Leica look." Fact or fiction?

Opinions?

Some of each as the owner of all. If you are looking for out and out performance, the later the better. That Leica glow is actually a defect in the lens design. Leica lens design has always tried to emphasize a balanced picture that makes 3 demensional subjects look good rather than test charts. They used to give up some test chart performance to achieve those goals and perhaps still do.

The early rigid has great resolution, but lower contrast than more recent lenses. It's a bit more prone to flare, but it's also flattering to people wide open. If you want the best resolution and contrast, though, any black Summicron 50 will do. Tab or no tab, or the length of the focusing throw is a personal call.

 

Also, check the archives.

This might be helpful:

<BR>

<BR>

<a href="http://www.kbcamera.com/summicron50m.htm">KB Camera on 50mm Summicron</a>

<BR>

<BR>

<a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm">CameraQuest on M Lenses</a>

<BR>

<BR>

<a href="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/leicaM.html">Erwin Puts - Leica M Pages</a>

As far as I myself can see, the current 2/50 and its predecessor have the same optics. Maybe some very slight "advancement" in the latest version as regards this but I see no difference in the optics that resulted from the two which I did own. Also, all books I have say that there is NO diff in optics here. If at all any diff, it is "only" in the mechanics as re e.g. cam, focus and aperture ring adjustment.

 

But wait! The BIG diff is that the predecessor had a tab and a non-built-in hood. That's the reason I prefer the predecessor... But to each his own....