What's your opinion on M 50's?

[karl_knize]

I've been shooting with a Hexar AF for about three years now and I'm ready to

incorporate a 50 into my work, perhaps on an M body or perhaps another. A

'Lux would be nice, but only if it has decent sharpness at 1.4. What I AM

interested in is a 50 that's somewhere between the old style look with obvious

glow in the highlights and a clinical, contrasty, etched in look that I associate

with the modern ASPH glass. Is there a sweet spot in the lineup that's

somewhere in the middle?

[david_carson]

I too have a Hexar AF, so if you like that look I think you'd like the look of the pre-asph

50mm summilux. I have one and think it's plenty sharp wide open, and it has a wonderful

creamy bokeh. Their are two versions of the 50 'lux, the improved one is from 1961 on

(serial 1844001 - see cameraquest's site). I'm sure build quality and lens coatings have

changed, but I'd definitely get one with the close focus at .7 meter vs. 1.0 meter.

 

Perhaps the Voigtlander Nokton f/1.5 50mm would fit your bill as well, for a lot less $$

and from what I hear, it has a tad less nice bokeh and tad more sharpness wide open.<div></div>

[skip_williams]

I agree that the Nokton 50/1.5 might be a nice choice. It's ahead of the older 50/1.4 Summilux, but behind the brand-new asph. And it's available cheap. The finish on the Noktons is prone to quick brassing, so many look ugly, pushing down the price.<p>

 

Here is a shot wide open with the 50/1.5.<br>

Overview page: <a href="http://www.skipwilliams.com/gallery/family1/communion-fitting-trio.htm">Communion Trio Fitting Page</a>

<p>

<img src="http://www.skipwilliams.com/images/leica/0018-caroline-communion-fitting-2-600.jpg">

<p>

Skip

[Troll]

I can't imagine owing a Leica without also having a 50mm Summicron.

[dennis_couvillion]

The 50mm Summicron is a sweet lens.

[grant_.]

dont forget the rolex and the blonde wife

[jorge]

My wife is not blonde, should I trade her?...

[jorge]

According to Erwin, the Nokton is better than the older Summilux. I have one and it's very good. Also have a current 'cron and it's better in every aspect. has anyone compared the bokeh of the older Summilux and the Nokton? I'm under the impression, from some images I've seen, that the Nokton is a tad smoother but it's not an objective observation. I've never used a Summilux.

[christopher.]

Konica hexanon 50/2

[michael_kastner]

Get a 2/50 (with a tab, or, if you hate tabs, without a tab), a 2/35, and a 2/40C. I use each about 30% of the time. You are not me, but you might discover that one lens does not exclude the other.

[ben_smukler]

I would like to know what people think (taking Erwin's reviews into account) of the current Noctilux vs. the new Summilux. The Summilux is obviously an updated lens, and will have great sharpness at 1.4. On the other hand, the Noctilux is reputed to have excellent flare reduction and that odd shallow DOF with the abstract background. Any thoughts?

[ben z]

Karl, I have 3 Summicrons (collaps., rigid M2-era, rigid 1970s-era)which I have not used since I got an 80s-era Summilux. IMO its alleged lack of performance at f/1.4 is very overblown. I've got a 50/1.4 in Pentax Super-Multicoated, and I've shot the Lux against a friend's 50/1.4 EOS and the Lux holds its own very well wide open. It might be a notch down from the new Lux ASPH but it also cost me $1900 less. I have also owned, for a very brief time, the older 35 Summilux. The 50 Lux is a furlong ahead of the old 35 Lux wide open. I daresay you will not be disappointed with the 50 Lux. But get one you can return in 2 weeks and try it for yourself. Nobody can see through your eyes but you.

[karl_knize]

I'm sure there's more input coming, but thanks everyone for the input so far. I

have some thinking to do. The only Leica anything I own is a V35 enlarger

with a Heiland Splitgrade, and it's a pure joy. My philosophy is to use what

works for me, keep what I use and sell what I don't. Quite recently, the CV

stuff has climbed into my consciousness and in all honesy, the new Bessa

and the new 40 1.4 looks like a great setup. And the Nokton 1.5 shot posted

by Skip looks really good, with a nice feel to the OOF. As does the pre

aspherical Lux shot by David. Choices, choices! This is going to be a hard

one. Here's a test shot I made recently which is a kind of equivalent to a 50

1.4 I suppose:<div></div>

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

<i><<a href="http://4020.net/">4020.net</a>></i><p>

 

<i>What I AM interested in is a 50 that's somewhere between the old style look and [...]

the modern ASPH glass. Is there a sweet spot in the lineup that's somewhere in the

middle?</i><p>

 

Karl - sounds like the pre-ASPH version of the 50mm M-Summilux may suit your needs.

It isn't as harsh as the 'cron and yet at f8-11 is plenty sharp enough. The new ASPH

version is (apparently) very nice, but super-expensive. The older chrome versions of the

'lux have soft lens coatings and can be quite heavy. So the 1980-2000 version of the Lux

should do the trick.<p>

 

For my kind of shooting I actually have two 50s: the 'lux for bright sun (it handles flare

v.well) and a modern Elmar-M (mainly for its compactness) for mucking around.

[stephen_w.]

I'm with Ben 100%. The 'old' chrome one I have is actually 15 g (285) lighter than my 35 asph 'lux.

[ronald_moravec1]

JORGE- It would be cheaper to dye her hair !

[stephen_w.]

Black ver. 2 is 360g and the latest black pre-asph w/built-in hood is 275 and 380 in the titanium mount. So goes the persistent myth that the 'old' chrome on is 'heavy'.

[stuart_richardson]

The 50mm summicron collapsible definitely has the old style look, but it is still very sharp

and an excellent lens. <P><img src="http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~srichardson/

neighbors-cat-collapsible1.jpg"><P>The other option, if you can find it, is the Konica

50mm f/1.2. It is quite sharp, yet it also has beautiful bokeh wide open. Please forgive me

that these are both cat photos. I am not really a cat photographer, but they just happened

to sit still for me. <P><img src="http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~srichardson/jodie

-800.jpg">

[cameron_sawyer]

Karl, the 50 'cron is a classic loved by everyone. If you need the speed -- or just like the look of fast 50's used wide open, like I do -- consider the Nokton, too. It's a lovely lens in all respects, especially price, and really the only drawback is that it is relatively bulky. The bulk can be reduced by tossing the shade and using a an empty 52mm filter ring instead or nothing at all (the lens is highly flare resistant). To me it does not look at all "clinical", and in fact the contrast and tones of its images are very similar to those of the 'cron.

 

The "obvious glow" you are talking about may be just flare from badly coated older lenses (Cosina sells, in Japan, a single coated version of its 40 Nokton for people who go in for that kind of thing). If 'cron and Nokton look "clinical" to you, then you might want to consider an older 'lux, or something old-fashioned from Canon or Nikon, but to me soft is just soft, and "glow" is just flare. A modern lens gets more information on to the film which you can always manipulate in the darkroom or in photoshop to reduce contrast.

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

<i>Black ver. 2 is 360g and the latest black pre-asph w/built-in hood is 275 and 380 in

the titanium mount. So goes the persistent myth that the 'old' chrome on is 'heavy'.</i>

<p>

 

Indeed - looks like I made a mistake here. Looking up Sartorius "Identifying Leica Lenses"

on p.87, the 1st version chrome 50-lux is 285gm, while on the following page the 2nd

version 'lux (the one I recommended) is listed at 360gm. Similarly Eastland "The Leica M

Compendium" on p.58 lists the 2nd version 'lux at 320gm.<p>

 

Hmm. It strikes me as weird that an aluminium barrelled lens is much heavier than the

earlier brass version. Generally speaking chrome versions are much heavier than the black

anodised equivalents. But, there you go. Add another item to the 'lux mystique :?)

[stephen_w.]

That's the source I used as well, Andrew. He could be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time. Check out the published weights of the Summicrons in Sartorius. I guess the weights are affected more by the glass than the mounts, just a guess.

[john_shriver]

If you want a range of options in one lens, consider a really good sample of a coated Summitar. Soft, low contrast and flarey wide open, but sharpness and contrast step up quickly as you stop down. OOF nice in B&W, a little "circular" in color.

 

Another middle zone lens would be the Canon 50/1.8. Claimed by many to be as sharp as the collapsible Summicron, but it's a pure Gauss design (6 elements in 4 groups), so it has more macro contrast and less tendency towards flare than the collapsible Summicron. Also, much less likely to need an immediate optical cleaning than the Summicron. Also easier to find in good condition than the collapsible Summicron, since it has a hard coating on hard glass.

[dan flanders]

I'm a sucker for 50s and seem to accumulate them -- I'm not a collector, per se. However, if push comes to shove and I should have to divest myself of my surplus the collapsible Summicron would be the one I would retain to use with the M6 and the 3.5/50 RS Elmar for the IIf. I suppose there is a measure of sentiment involved because I actually use the Summicron C much more than any other lens, but there is something about the older lenses that I can't put my finger on -- and possibly doesn't exist except in my mind -- that keeps them in the forefront. I break out other 50s once in a while but seem to always go back to those I cut my photographic teeth on. As long a silver base film is made the lenses of that era are capable of bringing out any properties inherent in that medium.

[john_shriver]

Oops, the 50/1.8 Canon is a Planar, not a Gauss, of course.

 

I also just tested the Industar 61-L/D (53/2.8) that came as a "body cap" on my newer Canon RF camera, and it is quite a fine lens. Came up with contrasty results on a very grey day. In a casual brick wall test, the corners sharpen up by f/5.6 to f/8. It certainly is an old design, won't give clinical results, but the Lanthanum glass let them make a quite fine lens. On the other hand, the ergonomics are so-so. Under $20 at your favorite eBay sellers...