Old v new 50mm Summicron

[david_killick]

Different opinions: Erwin Puts at www.imx.nl/photosite says there is a

big difference between old and new versions of the 50mm Summicron.

Steven Gandy at Cameraquest.com reckons the differences are

infinitesimal for practical users. A professional here in New Zealand

who has published a book of landscapes says he can't tell what camera

a picture was taken with but he can tell what film was used.

I would like to know how my old 1957 5cm Summicron stacks up. Is it

worth getting the new one?

Here are my own (totally unscientific, since I don't shoot test

charts) findings on the old Summicron, bearing in mind the vagaries of

different films etc:

- At first I thought it wasn't as sharp as Japanese lenses, but this

isn't so: it is not as high contrast, which some people mistake for

sharpness.

- It does have extremely high resolution of very fine details.

- Colours glow, subjects stand out from the background. Quite a

different look from bitingly sharp rendition of fine detail throughout

the scene.

- Nice out-of-focus areas.

- Appears to be a warmer rendition of colours than (some) Japanese

lenses.

 

<p>

 

Any comments welcome.

[john_chan2]

David,

 

<p>

 

The optical formulation of the 50 mm Summicron has stayed relatively

unchanged over the decades but the lens coatings have not. Perhaps,

the later 50 mm Crons have a bit better flare suppression with more

modern lens coatings and a bit more even (cooler) transmission of all

wavelengths of light through the glass. If I were in the market for a

50 (not at this moment as my latest 24 mm purchase has "drained" me) I

would be looking for a late model 50 Cron of the previous generation

that had the removable lens shade (more effective) and the focusing tab

(a God-send and sacrilege when Leica deleted it on the current

rendition). But my dream purchase is still the 50 Noctilux...

expensive but saves me a membership to the gym!!!!

 

<p>

 

;-)

[mark_wrathall]

MY 70's Black Summicron is a great lens. My take is that once a lens

has negligible light fall-off and distortion, and is as sharp as all

the Summicrons are, you can no longer really talk about one being

better than the other. More contrast suites some and not other's

styles. That and features like the hoods and focusing tabs make the

difference.

 

<p>

 

If you are shooting handheld (this is Leica M right :) then the lens

is certainly not the sharpness limit. Sharpness is overrated for many

forms of photography, but it is nice to have it if you need it.

[david_kelly8]

david, recently a friend had John Van Stelton clean, polish and

recoat [with a modern hard coating] his late '50s collapsible

Summicron. It is better than new, and the tab was under $200. If

the formula hasn't changed much, this would seem to be the way to

[matt_veld]

Ah, a fellow Kiwi (a nickname for a New Zealander to the uninformed,

named after one of our flightless native birds) and a Leica user as

well.

 

<p>

 

I agree that Leica lenses (whether old or newer versions) certainly

are different to their Japanese counterparts. I really notice this on

B&W more so than colour.

 

<p>

 

I only own the new 50 cron, but have really begun to appreciate this

lens lately. It is an amazingly superb lens. When I first used it

after using Nikon gear for twenty years I thought the stories I'd

heard about it were exagerated, that's because I was using it mostly

at f5.6 or f8. Although razor sharp, it didn't seem that much better

than a Nikkor 50. When I started to use it at f2, f2.8 and f4 it

became apparent why it is held in such high regard. The photos I have

seen taken with the older fifties versions certainly look nice as

well although some are as you say lacking a little in contrast and

apparent sharpness.

 

<p>

 

If you do your own B&W you could always compensate to a degree for

any lack of contrast in the printing stage.

 

<p>

 

If you are mainly a 50 man then I would look at buying a newer

version and selling the older one on ebay, because the exchange rate

would work to your advantage. There is an excellent, fairly new 50

for sale at Photo and Video in Christchurch for about NZ$1200

($US500).

[john_collier]

There have been four optical formulations of the venerable 50/2

Summicron. The first was the collapsable, great for its day but

not so great today. Next was the rigid/dualrange which had a

significantly different optical design from the collapsable, many

people rave about this lens but contrast is lower than modern

lenses probably due to the coatings then available. Next came

the black six element (1969 to 1978) and finally the current

design in 1979. I use a third version six element lens and see no

reason to upgrade. It suffers slightly from veiling flare in side

light situations but then so does the latest version as well. I think

I will add a focusing tab to mine as I really like the ones on my

35s.

 

<p>

 

Should you upgrade? That depends on what you primarily use it

for. If you shoot mostly at f5.6 and lower there is basically no

difference between all the versions. Wide open, newer is

significantly better....stunningly better! If you shoot Velvia or

TechPan on a tripod and enlarge to 20 x24, or larger, then get a

newer lens. If you shoot Tri-X handheld at slow speeds then I

think any version, except perhaps the collapsable, would

produce identical results. Finally if you are happy with your

current lens, why not put the money into another focal length, or

better, film.

 

<p>

 

Cheers

[Robin Smith]

In my experience the 50mm Summicron (dual range) and the 50mm-R from

the sixties are wonderful lenses. Less contrasty than their modern

counterparts - but this is very nice and not really a disadvantage -

it will look poorer on MTF charts, but all the slides I have seen take

with these lenses are very nice and quite different from most modern

designs which tend towards high initial "impact" and high contrast.

They probably are less good performers at the edges at full or 2.8

apertures, so it depends a bit on what you like. Of course, I have not

used a '57 variety Summicron - but certainly the dual range 50mm I

used was made in 1965 (I think) and was a lovely performer but with a

different look to the modern Leica optics. MTF charts alone would no

doubt tell you to get the latest versions though.

[wilhelm]

If you're shooting color, stick with your present lens. For B&W the

latest lens is probably preferable.

[michael_darnton1]

Ha! I was going to say exactly the opposite. I really prefer the look

in B&W of my old collapsible over my newer version, which is tidy

crisp, but not nearly as creamy. I guess if you take the two of us

together, we like the older one better, or maybe not :-) Anyone who

read Dan Savage this week will appreciate this debate, I think.

[andrew_schank]

I have used every version of the 50mm f2.0 Summicron, including the

ones for the R cameras. The collapsable 50 had noticeably less snap

and color saturation than the others, but was a wonderful lens for

portraits. The rigid and dual range chromies are very heavy and only

focus to 1 meter (without the eyes on the DR). All three of these

older lenses are prone to major coating failure. This shows up as a

fog when you shine a light into the lens, but it is often a clouding

of the soft coatings and not just a dirty film that can be cleaned

from the glass. After I had my dual range cleaned up, it just wasn't

the same as before the coatings went bad. Sherry Krauter told me it

was common for this to happen. Before the coating went bad on the

DR, it was a very nice lens and very sharp, but not as able to

resolve detail at the wider stops as the current design. It also

flared badly if shot into a bright area. All of these "faults" can

be used to enhance the images, mind you, and I would not have sold

the DR 50 if the coatings had stayed intact.

 

<p>

 

My 1990's 50mm really is superb wide open, and the flare seems much

better controlled. I shot a night city scape recently at 1/15 f2.0,

and all the lights were perfect tiny circles on the film-even at the

edges there were no football shaped lights. I mentioned in a

previous post that I modified my M3 so it will focus couple to .7

meters. The abilty to move in that extra 10 to 12 inches from the

older 50mm lenses makes a big difference to me. Subjects less than

1/2 of the size fill the frame compared to with the 1 meter minimum

lenses. I also like the compact size and focus tab on the 1980's and

early 90's lenses, which by the way are identical to the current lens

optically. Yes, I know they don't have the same build quality or feel

that the older lenses do. Right now, I am fed up with all the

fogging and coating troubles with the older lenses, however, and will

not be purchasing any others. The only vintage lens I have left is a

35 f2.8 Summaron that is miraculously still clear inside. One last

plug for the inexpensive 40mm Rokkor from my CLE--it is just as good

as the current $1000 50mm Summicron except maybe at f2.0, and also as

good as the last generation 35mm Summicron. Funny Mr. Putts hasn't

made any mention of the 40mm lenses at all, as if they never existed.

[Robin Smith]

Andrew

 

<p>

 

Erwin Putz perhaps shares the common Leicaphile's dislike of the

M5/CL/CLE and thereby by extension the 40mm Summicron-C and 90mm

Elmar-C. I agree with you about the Rokkor 40mm - excellent it

certainly is. Interesting your problems with coatings. I had no

trouble with the 50mm, 90mm Tele-Elmarit and 35 summaron 2.8 that I

owned in the second half of the 80s. They were just beautiful for

color shots with no coating issues at all. I still have a 135mm

Elmar which takes fine shots too. Perhaps another fifteen years on has

changed things with these lenses.

[mike dixon]

I've got a '60 DR Summicron with a big scuff right in the middle of

the front element. No one (including me) has ever had a complaint

about the optical performance of the lens. It wouldn't surprise me if

a new lens has measurably better performance, though. A significant

benefit (to me) of my old lens is that I have no qualms about

subjecting it to rain, snow, smoke, sweat, spilled drinks, or the

other slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that arise when I'm out

using the lens.

[albert_smith]

I concur with Mike's philosophy. While I own some new stuff from

both Nikon and Leica, I seem to get my most consistent results with

my beaters... old and ugly. I am over any psychological hindrance to

actually using the equipment as a tool, and therefore just get on

with picture taking. New might be better on paper... but a real

workhorse is better on film.

 

<p>

 

David... I upgraded my Summicron from the late 1950's and now use the

current formula, (as well as the 1969-1979 model), and yes there is

higher contrast and the image seems sharper on slide film. BUT... I

have many images taken with the older lens that I can't replicate

with the newer one. It is an intangible quality that makes me curse

the fact that I got rid of the lens. If you upgrade.. hold on to the

older model. There really is something to that lens' "fingerprint"

that can make it the correct lens for a specific task. If I want to

count every brick in a building, the latest lens would be my choice,

but for window light portraits... I miss my old lens.

[andrew_schank]

Al is right, I wish I had kept the compact,low contrast (but

beautiful skin tone producing) collapsable 50mm that came with my

camera. I sold it when I bought the dual range, (that ended up

developing internal problems a few years later). The fact that it

collapsed alone was probably made it worth keeping around. I

sometimes think about hunting for another one. Maybe if I found one

cheap enough I wouldn't worry about cleaning marks on the soft

coatings and a slight internal fog.(like having a built in Zeiss

Softar)

[buzz_andersen]

I have a late model 50mm Summicron of the previous

generation (the one with a removable lens shade) that I picked

up for pretty cheap. While I can't compare it to the newer version

(because I've never owned one) I must say that my lens seems

to be incredibly sharp and contrasty--often noticably more so

than my 35mm Summicron ASPH, for example. For the

difference in price between what I paid and what you would pay

for a brand new one, I would stick with the previous generation--it

is still an incredible piece of glass!

[Rob F.]

The first time I tried comparing my collapsible Summicron with my

Summicron-M (focus tab version), saw the higher contrast of the M

right away, as deeper, darker shadows. Shadows in the shots of

identicall subjects, made at the same time on the same film, with the

collapsible were infused with stray light, and thus appear more

open. I also shot comparison slides with both lenses, of some

downtown buildings. At first I couldn't see any difference, even

with a 12 power magnifier, looking for fine details like roof mounted

antenna elements. Months later, the same two slides found their way

onto my light table again. I realized they were my test shots, and

made a judgement about which was which, before I peeked at my notes

written on the slides. I correctly identified the M by its crisper

edges around windows and such. So I can tell you the differences are

real, but the sharpness difference (edge acutance?) is subtle. In

fact, it is probably mostly an artifact of the higher contrast. I'm

pleased with the M, as I am with my 1969-to-79 cron, which also is

very nice for architecture shots. But I'm not selling the

collapsible because I have some nice old slides shot with it that

exhibit very lovely soft glowing colors. Just a matter of using the

right lens for the right subject.

[david_killick]

Once again some interesting answers. This forum attracts a lively

response! I agree there are noticeable differences between lenses of

different vintages, and reckon I'll exploit the characteristics of

this Summicron rather than upgrading for the sake of it. And yes,

maybe get another focal length instead. I think there is sometimes too

much emphasis on ultimate sharpness when other factors may be more

important. I like the glow of the old lens in colour slides and

prints. I like it for low light portraits; pleasing even at full

aperture. I may get back into B+W too (has anyone tried Agfa Scala B+W

slides, BTW?). Will also check out capability for big enlargements.

Happy shooting!