Diff Versions of 50mm Summicron R

[howard_slavitt2]

I'm looking to buy a 50mm Summicron R to use on a Canon 5D. It looks like the 3 most recent versions

have built in hoods. Are there differences in optical performance among the 3? Within each of the 3

versions are some of them Leica Canada vs. Leica Germany, or does that just tell you which version it

is? Are there advantages to Leica Germany vs. Canada (i.e., better quality control reputation?) or is just

status? Thanks,

[andrewlamb]

"Are there advantages to Leica Germany vs. Canada (i.e., better quality control reputation?)

or is just status?"

 

I don't where these fairy tales start. Honestly, German lenses are every bit as good as their

legendary Canadian counterparts.

 

On a less flippant note, I'm not sure whether you would see any sort of significant

difference by using a Summicron over the Canon equivalent. Thinking about it, for the

same amount of money you could buy the EOS 50mm f1.4.

 

I tested out the 60mm macro Elmarit on the 5D and couldn't really see anything to justify

the extra complication of using a lens that doesn't automatically close down.

 

Maybe, just maybe, this sort of thing might be worthwhile when using some of Leica's

wide lenses. It's in this area that Canon offerings are reputed to be not quite as strong but

this could be yet another fairy tale.

[derek_stanton2]

Howard,

My comparison of the Summicron-R versus Canon 50/1.4EF (on a 5D) showed that the Canon was equal to or sharper than the Leica from f2. The canon is really very good, except at 1.4, where it gives sort of a diffused/soft focus/glowy effect when examining scans/digital files at 100% on a monitor. The other, more significant issue issue is that at f2, the canon AF gave me a much higher rate of in-focus shots.

 

The Canon also has amazing bokeh, and it seemed more 'consistently good' than the Summicron. And, oddly, even at the same (marked) apertures, the Canon backgrounds were slightly more blurred....

 

Try it if you like - i don't think you'll find any difference between Canada and Germany, but as noted above, the inconvenience doesn't translate to better results. I would have put up with the stop-down metering, etc. if the Summicron showed some advantage, but it didn't.... I'm just hoping now that the rumors of a new Canon 50mm L lens are true. I would really love a Canon that is usable at 1.4 (or wider).

[ronald_moravec1]

The computer is a great leveler. My week old 5MP Canon Power shot I bought to e mail pics puts up as decent an image as a well scanned Leica neg up to 8x10.

 

Buy the compatable Cannon glass and save yourself a lot of frustration.

 

i have seen so samples of Cannon wides that are not too good in the corners, so get a Leica 19 or 15 for that. There will be issues with exposure and diaphragm operation if you go that route.

[howard_slavitt2]

Thanks for the good advice about sticking with a Canon 50mm. Advice taken. What about the Summicron 35mm? Is that worth trying? I'm currently using the Canon 35mm f2.0, and loving it. I probably wouldn't want the Canon 35mm f1.4, both because of the price and weight, but thought the Leica Summicron 35mm f2.0 might be worth trying. My canon 35mm f2.0 is excellent from f2.8 or maybe even f2.5, but I thought it would be interesting to compare it to the Summicron 35mm f2.0 especially for wide open images. I am having good success with manual focus accuracy since I installed the EE-S screen, so I'm not worried about that. Thanks, Howard

[derek_stanton2]

Howard -

same comparison... On a 5D, the 35/2 Canon was 'even' with the 35-R Summicron. One was a hair better in the center (the Canon), the other was a hair better in the corners (Leica). I compared only f2, 2.8, and 4. Kept the Canon, as it's also far easier to focus a wide angle (without relying on DOF) with AF than manually. I imagine the 35L would be better still. The Leica 35/1.4 is supposed to be a fantastic lens, but not necessarily for 'sharpness.'

 

In my situation, i'm finding that even if the Leica lenses are equal or a teensy bit superior, i will still get better results with the Canons, as the AF gives me significantly more shots in 'critical focus.' I like to shoot wide-open, and 24x36, if you miss by the smallest amount, the shot is lost. Medium format seems a bit more forgiving, for some reason.

[howard_slavitt2]

Wow, that's helpful, Derek. I saw your website, impressive work. Thanks for sharing -- maybe your concise posts will cure my Lecia-lust. I don't know why I'm becoming afflicted with it. I should spend my money travelling, eatings, and enjoying. I have enough good lenses. . . . Although I would like to convert a Canon 35mm Tilt Shift lens to an EOS mount, but that's another story. :)

[derek_stanton2]

Leica lust is easy to understand. I still have it, which is why i have an M7. Sometimes i love it, sometimes not so much. I think i 'put up with' the rangefinder way of viewing because of the beauty and simplicity of the cameras.

 

Maybe you should try the Leica R glass. I bought mint used equipment, and kept it in the same condition, so that when i sold it 2-3 years later, i really didn't lose much. I had the 'experience,' and now i'm able to move on without feeling like i may be missing something. Of course, the 'lust' doesn't go away completely - i'm now thinking about the R-Summilux 50 ROM lens, which should be better than the summicron. But, of course, i'd still have to deal with focus issues.