Is the 50 Summilux-M the poor cousin?

[ray_moth]

Dear All,

 

<p>

 

Recently, I was unexpectdly offered the chance to buy a used 50mm/1.4 Summilux-M (Wetzlar version with slotted shade, vintage ~1973). It was in ex+ condition and the asking price was only $650, so I "struck while the iron was hot", not wanting to miss a bargain.

 

<p>

 

Now, I hadn't really considered the 50 Summilux before I bought it, having been forced to make a hurried decision, so I was curious to see what information and comments there might be about it on the web, such as archived posts. I was rather surprised to see that relatively little has been said in favour of this lens. It seems to be overshadowed by other M lenses (e.g. Noctilux, 50 'cron, 75 'lux and 35 'lux ASPH). Leica seems to have neglected it, having made no significant improvements in the last 18 years or so, apart from reducing the minimum focusing distance.

 

<p>

 

To me, the 50 Summilux provides the ideal compromise of speed, size,

weight and cost. My only other lenses are a 3E and a 90 Elmarit-M, so I thought that the 'lux would be a useful addition for use in low

available light. I've found this to be true and have been very pleased

with the results. So why is it that the 50 Summilux seems to be the

poor cousin of other lenses in the M stable?

 

<p>

 

Regards,

 

<p>

 

Ray

 

<p>

 

"The trouble with resisting temptation is

you never know when you'll get another chance!"

[raymond_tai]

"So why is it that the 50 Summilux seems to be the poor cousin of

other lenses in the M stable?"

 

<p>

 

Because the 50mm Summicron is good and cheap new. The Noctilux has

the advantage of hype and a logical fast option if you already have

the Summicron. The 35mm Summilux ASPH (while comparing oranges)is

the greatest thing since sliced bread. The 75mm Summilux was the

king of short teles at least before 90AA. The Summilux is my

standard 50mm and it is no slouch.

[mike dixon]

I didn't realize that it wasn't in favor. I love mine. It shares the

title of "most-used lens" with my DR-Summicron.

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/marlacol.jpg">

[jacques_balthazar1]

Ray,

I do not own that one, but wish I did: you are right for speed, size

and weight appeal. Not so right for price, alas, at least when new.

 

<p>

 

Leica pricing of the 50mm f1.4 (both R and M) is even more outlandish

than for the other lenses. While the superlative 35mm 'lux costs

around 30% more than high quality competitors (Canon 35mm f1.4 is

1840 EUR against 2349 EUR for the Leica 35 asph 'lux for example) ,

the 50mm f1.4 is around 300-400% more expensive than competitors,

with hardly any performance advantage.

 

<p>

 

Same could be said in relative terms for the 50 'cron, but absolute

amounts make that lens the least expensive one of the stable. That

and its excellent performance justify its success.

 

<p>

 

The Nocti is actually around 15% LESS expensive than its Canon

counterpart !!!

 

<p>

 

The latest 50 R 'lux (60mm filter size) seems to provide some edge to

Leica in terms of comparative performances, according to the

Putscyclopedia bible. The M however does not seem to provide that

clear competitive edge Leica users enjoy wide open with jewels such

as the 35mm asph 'lux or the latest 90 AA 'cron.

 

<p>

 

So all in all, there are quite a few objective reasons that explain

why the 50 'lux is not a the centre of the leicaphiles' attention...

[john_collier5]

For a brief history of the 50mm Summilux see:

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.lhsa.org/legleica313.html">

http://www.lhsa.org/legleica313.html</a>

[Robin Smith]

Ray

 

<p>

 

I think it is simply that it is an old design and therefore easily

available in various second hand combinations all offering the same

performance as a new one. As Jacques says, it does not offer cutting

edge performance for the price you need to pay to buy a new one

(unlike the R 'lux), so to many it appears overpriced new. However,

secondhand it just has to be a great bargain if you can pick up an

earlier one. Being a faster lens it does not have the performance of

the Summicrons, but I suspect that it is actually a very fine lens

particularly for portraits and low light shooting. Like you have done,

I would certainly buy a s/h one should I see a deal like yours. Puts

maintains that the Nokton is actually a better performer, but

mechanically perhaps not as good. I guess it must be on the cards for

Leica to update the 50 'lux to follow the R lead. It took over 6 years

for this to happen with the 90mm Elmarit-R ---> Elmarit-M.

[furcafe]

My reasons for not owning the 50mm Summilux would echo Jacques's

comments, only my points of comparison would be to non-Leitz/Leica LTM

50s, like the Canon RF & Nikkor 50/1.4's & my various Zeiss 50/1.5

Sonnars. While the 50 'lux, particularly a newer 1 w/improved

coatings, may provide some performance advantage over these lenses,

it's simply not enough to justify the higher price of even a used

'lux (e.g., it's quite possible to get a mid to late 1960's-era Canon

50/1.4 for < $450). In contrast, I see a significant performance bump

w/the ASPH 35mm Summilux & Summicron as compared to my older 35s.

[jackflesher]

I have one and love it. I like it better than I did my 'Cron and my

Noctilux combined. It is indeed a superb compromise optic between the

size/weight/cost of the 'Cron and the speed/cost of the Noct.

[bill_henick]

I have the 'cron, but after seeing Mike's photo, I wonder if I made

the right choice.

[albert_smith]

In Erwin Puts' newsletter number 5/22, he makes some comments about

certain lenses being over-rated, (enough fuel in there for many

flaming threads!). It is interesting that years ago Puts himself,

did a very long article on how great the Noctilux was. This was

carried in a magazine before his web site picked it up. This single

article was a big spark in my desire to get a Noctilux.

 

<p>

 

Flash forward... in the newsletter, he dispels much of the aura of

the Noctilux, and comes to the conclusion that the Summilux is the

better lens. It has according to Puts, better imagery at f/1.4 than

the Noct' at f/1.4, and of course, the Summilux at f/1.4 is sharper

than the Noct' at its full aperture.

 

<p>

 

So it is either hindsight, or the passing of time after first

acquiring his Noctilux, but three years later, Puts states that the

Summilux is the lens of choice... lacking only f/1.0, but delivering

better results on film than the revered Noctilux.

 

<p>

 

Of course, Puts is either hated or loved on this site, so the above

comments from his newsletter might not mean anything.

 

<p>

 

For a real debate, you should see what he says about the DR Summicron

being bettered by the cheap old f/2.0 Nikkor.

[jay_.]

I can remember as far back as 35 years ago, everyone who used, sold

or even touched a Leica repeated the story that the 50 Summilux

wasn't as sharp as the 50 Summicron, and perhaps that might account

for its red-headed-stepchild status. I have never owned the 50 Lux,

never felt any need to. I didn't own a 35 Lux either until the 3E

came along which made the 35/2 superfluous for me and the 1.4

suddenly seemed the most logical "fast" lens for me. The previous-

mount 50 Lux takes the weirdo 43mm filter, needs a separate shade and

focuses only to 1m; however the new one with E46, built-in hood and

0.7m close focus is more competitive feature-wise with the 50/2 and

if I were buying today I might go for the Lux.

[ed_hoey]

I recently purchased my first Leica M6, and having no lens to go out

with my new camera I visited my local camera shop hoping to find a

lens...to my good fortune he had a 50 Summilux from 1959. I was

disappointed it wasn't the redesign from the mid-1960's, and almost

didn't buy it, however it was so beautiful I bought it. It was just

traded in by the original owner of the lens, who sold it back to this

camera store to get a digital camera (the camera store has been

selling Leica's since 1952 at the same location). Anyway, the lens

came with the original Leica UVa filter, which has been covering the

lens for the past 40 yrs, and the original XIOOM hood (which I found

out later is very hard to find). So I layed down my $700. Being an

older lens, I shined a flashlight thru the glass to check for

yellowing or defects and it is perfectly clear, the focus is butterly

smooth, as is the aperture control. The pictures are fabulous taken

with the lens, however, I haven't done any "real" testing with

chromes and a loupe, etc...and was wondering...I always hear

experiences and lens tests, etc for all the other versions of the 50

Summilux, i.e. 60's, 70-90 and the newest one, but not the original

1959-62, does anybody know about the performance of this lens? I

wonder how less of a performer it is compared to recent offerings??

[eliot]

Ray

 

<p>

 

I bought a 50/1.4 chrome lens (second version, after SN 1844xxx) for

about $ 350 from Don Chatterton about 10-12 years ago, with shade and

E43 UVa filter. I use it for indoor photography and I think it is a

wonderful lens. They are cheap now because of the down-turn of the

Leica market. Leica has not announced any change in the optical

formula of the 50/1.4 Summilux since the 1961 second version (which

was apparently not even formally acknowledged by the factory until

around 1965-66). However, some commentators (eg., Brian Bowers)

believe they may have "tweaked" the design several times over the

years (certainly, coatings may have improved).

 

<p>

 

I have never had any complaints about the 50/1.4 Summilux. By the

time you get to f/4.0, this lens is a good match with the 50/2.0

Summicron. It is very resistant to flare and veiling glare, so I get

good results indoors and outdoors with light sources in the picture.

Even at f/1.4, the images are quite nice and crisp. The lens is said

to have some curvature of field, but I wouldn't notice this in

ordinary usage. It also has a little more barrel distortion at the

edges of the field, particularly in the closer ranges, than the

Summicron.

 

<p>

 

For me, the eralier Wetzlar lens without the built-in-hood is

preferable to the newer version, even though, as noted by Jay, they

have reduced the close focussing distance from 1.0 m to 0.7 m. In

doing this, they also reduced the amount of rotation of the focussing

ring required to go from infinity to close focus, with the older lens

being more precise. And I prefer not to have the built-in lenshood.

With the older lens, you can use the lens without the hood to

minimize size. For what I do, the lenshood is usually not needed.

 

<p>

 

All in all, I think the Wetzlar 50/1.4 lens from 1973 is a good buy

at that price, as long as the glass is clean. Hope this is

helpful.

[Rob F.]

Ray: the next time I see a 1973 50mm Lux for that price, I'm going

to buy it. So if you change your mand, let me know.

[ray_moth]

Thanks to everyone for your responses; you've satisfied my curiosity!

The consensus seems to be that the 50 Summilux-M is a very

respectable lens but that it doesn't attract much comment these days

because it's been around, relatively unchanged, for so many years.

 

<p>

 

From an aesthetic point of view, I must say that my Wetzlar 50mm

Sumilux-M is a handsome looking beast. The current M lenses that I've

seen don't seem to have the same charm about them somehow. YMMV of

course :-)

[stefan www.randlkofer.co]

so what is your general opinion: comparing the current 50lux with the

50cron at the same aperture, which one is better?

[Alex_Es]

You jumped at the chance and got a gem, luck fellow! I am not much of

a 50mm lens user, and so, of course, I have an extensive 50mm lens

collection. My Summilux (c. 1980, I guess) is no poor cousin to

anyone. I also have a Summicron f2. I tend to tote the Summicron

more because it is lighter and has a focusing tab, which the Summilux

doesn't have, making it easier to use with a Rapidwinder. But there

are times, believe it or not, that I've carried BOTH. (Yes I know

that sounds crazy, but with two normal lens you are doubly normal I

say.)