Leica M 50mm lenses (old lenses vs new lenses)

[patrick_lo]

<p>Hello,<br>

I am looking into a Leica 50mm M series lens, but there are so many around and I was wondering from the old lenses to the new ones, which model or series 50mm lens has the best quality and performance?</p>

[michael_a._shapiro]

<p>The newest Leica have the best optics. Second best are generally new Zeiss f2 or CV 1.4. Third are the next older generation of Leica.</p>

[SCL]

<p>You're going to have to be more specific in your definition of criteria for a sensible answer - for instance quality could be interpreted as glass quality, depending on chemical composition, or perhaps reproducability of curvature (modern wins) of elements, or perhaps mechanics of the focus mechanism, and on and on. If you're looking for bokeh as an element of performance, the Noctilux wins. Your best bet is to read the longish Putts review of Leica lenses...it is still available online occasionally at various sites, you'll have to do a bit of searching. You'll also find lots of opinions by searching the threads on this orum and the Leica User's Group...be prepared to spend a couple of days reading.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Any Summicron 50/2 will not disappoint you. The latest Summilux 50/1.4 is the best of that series in terms of resolution; it is one of the best 50/1.4 lenses ever made. The Noctilux is heavy and expensive and at its best shot wide-open at night. It is a specialty lens and not an all-around lens. It is apparently mediocre at middle f-stops.</p>

<p>My most frequently used Leica 50mm lenses are a tabbed Summicron 50/2, which delivers brilliant resolution, contrast and bokeh and focuses down to .07 a meter, and a black non-aspherical Summilux 50/1.4. The latter doesn't have the bells and whistles of the former lens but is great in low light and has a comfortable image quality of its own (speaking unscientifically).</p>

<p>Another lens I use a lot is the Nikkor S 2000 50/1.4, which I use on a Nikon S to Leica adapter.</p>

<p>The Zeiss Planar 50/2 is also extremely good, on par with the Summicron 50/2.</p>

<p>So there you are. You have tons of great 50mm lenses to choose from. When you get to 35s the field gets tighter.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>For top build quality and outstanding sharpness, consider the Dual-Range Summicron, or the so-called "rigid" Summicron. Both use the same optical cell. Only the mount is different. Contrast is medium. For higher contrast, consider Summicron versions later than those two. Beginning with the black Summicron, catalog #11817, the number of elements was reduced from 7 to 6, and the coatings are improved, giving better contrast. The picture may not be any sharper, but it looks sharper. That one was made from 1969 to 1979.<br>

The lens that followed, the 11819, is slightly improved, but the difference is hard to see. It is the one with the focusing tab. The current model is optically the same, but has a built-in sunshade.<br>

The Elmar should be mentioned. They are well made, and are sharp, especially in the center of the field. The earlier f/3.5 Elmar is already a fine lens, but the means of adjusting the aperture is a bit fiddly, and you have to remove the filter to do it. There is a later version with a more conventional aperture ring, and then there is the f/2.8 version, also with a proper aperture control ring. At the widest apertures it is not quite as sharp as the f/3.5, but it's fine stopped down.</p>

<p>The pre-aspheric Summilux is almost as sharp as a Summicron of the same vintage; or, depending on the aperture, is just as sharp. It has the virtue of very good flare resistance, a thing that Summicrons of any vintage are not wonderful with. The Pre-ASPH Summilux was made in more than one version. Version I was beautifully crafted, with a cross-hatched finger grip area near the bayonet mount. Its optical construction owes a debt to the earlier Summarit, a rather medium or medium-low contrast lens, from which the Summilux evolved. It has two thin singlets at the rear, just like the Summarit. In the next version, that was changed to a cemented doublet as the rear glass. Many people feel that there were optical tweaks toward the later Summilux production, but I don't know how to verify that. As Alex said, the current ASPH Summilux is the best ever. But I have to take that on faith, as I don't have one. I have the others I discussed. And I don't have the latest, recently discontinued Elmar, but everyone says it's the best ever, and if you don't need f/2 or faster, it's a good one to get.<br>

So that leaves out the lenses from other makers, of which there are many; and many of them are worth considering. One that gets a lot of praise is the Cosina-Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5. The Nokton, I think it is. I've tried to limit this mostly to the ones I actually have, though. Have fun with your search!</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>Oh, I also have the collapsible Summicron; one in bayonet mount, and one in screw mount. These are often dismissed as "not as good." However, I have directly compared my collapsible vs. my other versions. The differences, while there, do not jump right out at you. You have to know what to look for: higher contrast in the later versions, causing shadows to be darker (not always a good thing) and edges to be crisper. Used at wider apertures, the collapsible Summicron has a "painterly" effect that many of us value in a lens. The Summarit and the pre-ASPH Summilux have this, too.</p>

<p>Somewhere in the photo.net archives I have posted comparison pictures of several of these lenses. If I can find them I'll post a link.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I don't think it makes a lot of difference, whether you choose a 1980s Mandler Summicron from Midland or the more recently produced lenses from Solms. The focussing tab is really worthwhile. Mine had some helical focussing looseness, as did my Tele-Elmarit 90mm from about the same time, which are probably not common occurences for Leica but worth checking in any 20 or 30 year old lens. That can be corrected with a servicing and a re-application of helicoidal grease, but at the expense of slightly increasing the friction of focussing.</p>

<p>The Zeiss 50 from Cosina has an excellent reputation as well. The new 50 mm Summilux f1.4 may be slightly better at f2 than the Summicron, which is still very very good, but you will have to pay at least three times as much for a mint minus used one than for a Summicron of the 1980s. I currently use an Elmar-M f2.8 and a VC Nokton f1.5 at that focal length, but do not know them well enough yet to be able to comment critically on performance, like the case of my Summicron (since departed with a sold M6). However, the Elmar-M, recently discontinued, was an advance over previous models and got very high reviews, on a par with the current Summicron. Both have been reported to have very low levels of chromatic aberrations and distortion, slightly better than the excellent Summilux ASPH. The Elmar-M can often be purchased used, in mint or mint minus condition with its accessories, for around $500, about the same price as a 1980s Summicron in similar shape. Good luck!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>".....the collapsible Summicron has a "painterly" effect that many of us value in a lens".</p>

<p>Rob, can you quantify this rather vague description. Not to be a "heathen", but I would like to see some direct controlled comparisons to indicate this effect and the difference with more modern lenses. It should be easy to do (with the same subject, same camera body and shutter speed, film, focus and apertures). I once saw the difference between an old (early 1980s) 35 Summilux and a modern aspherical version at f1.4, but the effects at f1.4 were probably caused by the less well corrected coma, and other aberrations, of the earlier lens.</p>

<p>One has to wonder how apparent such "painterly effects" are, whether they are simply lens aberrations, or what? I remember the endless discussions a few decades ago in some sound magazines ("Absolute Sound" for one) about the (non-quantifiable) qualities of some sound systems, that some people could hear, others not. But if painterly effects occur, I would certainly be very appreciative to see some good comparisons.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'm not even a Leica mujihadi, but I have to acknowledge that these lenses are almost all superior lenses. The newer ones have the advantage most of all of superior lens coatings, but modern technology has brought new power to lens design as well.</p>

<p>Not as an answer to your question, but do look at some of the wonderful Soviet lenses in the LTM. Many of them are very faithful reproductions of pre-WWII Zeiss lenses, with some real improvements in some cases. They are moving up in price (as Kozma laments elsewhere on this site), but they are still wonderful bargains and cheap enough to have some fun with.</p>

[nzdavid]

<p>Some very helpful replies here. I agree, they're all great lenses. My old Summicron Rigid still comes up with fine results. These lenses are also good value (for Leica). I find f/2 very useful as I shoot mostly with ISO 100. Nice for people, producing pleasing soft backgrounds (bokeh). As much as I like the 35, especially for travel, I also think the 50 -- for so long the "standard lens" -- remains under-rated. It's surprisingly versatile for all sorts of subjects, from landscapes to still lifes. No wonder HCB used this focal length almost exclusively. <br>

</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Alex is right on: any of the 50 Summicrons, including the beautifully-made collapsible, will give you super results IMHO.</p>

[kurt_evers]

<p>My black tabbed Summicron 50 is really amazing. It is much better than I am. ;-)<br mce_bogus="1"></p>

[Rob F.]

<p>Arthur: I meant to add that the painterly quality occurs at the widest apertures. Yes, I am certain it is due to abberations; mainly, I think, spherical abberation.<br>

Here you go:</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>Arthur: I meant to add that the painterly quality occurs at the widest apertures. Yes, I am certain it is due to abberations; mainly, I think, spherical abberation.<br>

Here you go:</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>Try again:</p><div></div>

[Rob F.]

<p> The above is my idea of a painterly effect. In other words, pleasingly soft-sharp. This picture does it for me. So if this isn't painterly, then I guess I don't know what is.<br>

Best,<br>

Rob</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks for the example Rob, even sans comparison. Other than the good looking bokeh, the soft effect in the sharp zone is interesting. Now that we have software post production effects (and in camera sharpening and dulling), perhaps lens choice wil be less important? Anyways, I might get out my old 30s uncoated Elmar 50mm tomorrow and try shooting it at its maximum aperture. TBC. </p>

[geoff_r1]

<p>I've thought of this photo having a painterly effect, due to the smeared look of the bokeh. A different look to Rob's, but I can see the painterlyness in his too.<br>

This was taken with a Noctilux, around F1.4 I think.<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/3246629239_b55c2ae024_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="678" /></p>

[nzdavid]

<p>Fuji 400 print film, 50 Summicron Rigid, about 15 at f/2-2.8.</p><div></div>

[35mmdelux]

<p>I can't comment on the older lenses but for the newer ones the Leica 50mm Lux ASPH is the best quality/performance in my view. Its amzing what it can render wide open. Its the perfect 50 ASAIK. However, since my main lens is the 35mm Lux ASPH, I traded the 50 Lux ASP for the 50mm Lux pre-asph which is also very good, but not as sharp. For my portraits I wasn't looking for the sharpest lens.</p>

<p>One thing for sure, after shooting f/1.4 for a while now, no way I'll ever go back to f/2.0. Love that extra stop.</p>

[patrick_lo]

<p>Dear All,<br /> I like all of your photos! They are very nice photos! <br /> I went to the Leica store the other day to take a look at the prices on the new Summicron 50mm lenses, there is a huge difference in the price between F1.4 and F2... that extra stop is not cheap...<br /> I am not very familiar with the Leica lenses. From the blog above, I feel like, choosing and finding a right lens is like looking for a good bottle of wine. You need to know which year and vintage that produce the best wine. So if the old Summicron lenses are as good as the new one, and considering the price for a new lens… I might start looking for an old lens…<br /> When you are given choices to choose from, its easier and more likely for you to get confuse, and in this case I wish my choices is simpler. But its all part of the fun I guess. :)<br /></p>

[richard jepsen]

<p>I found B&W negatives benefit from low/medium contrast optics. The Mandler lenses are the best compromise between modern wire sharpness and the lower contrast found in any lens manufactured in the 50s. My sold 35/2 cron had wonderful color and good B&W.<br>

I'm shooting with a recently acquired, mint, Cron 50/2 collapsible. 11116 has great bokeh, a circular iris, and high resolution. The resolution comes out in Oklahoma's angled Feburary daylight with open shadows. </p>

[richard jepsen]

<p>It has been said the more highly corrected a lens becomes the less interesting picture it takes. Nothing wrong with the older glass, as long as you know there performance fingerprint. At f/5 and smaller apertures, there may be no difference in sharpness at 5x7 or slightly larger. </p>

[richard jepsen]

<p>".....the collapsible Summicron has a "painterly" effect that many of us value in a lens". Rob, can you quantify this rather vague description.<br>

I can't show images but 11116 focused at 3 ft at f/2.0 is low contrast with strong creamy backgrounds. Low tones seem to resist sliding to black through the wider apertures. This helps make B&W tonality broader. The image has a sharp/unsharp look. Backgrounds have a Hasselblad-like smooth OOF effect. Focus at 4 or 5 feet at f/2.8 and the image sharpens but is not too sharp. Again you have a strong OOF effect that looks creamy. At f5.6 and smaller the image is very crisp and highly detailed. </p>

 

[Brian1664876441]

I've never used the phrase "Painterly effect", but I do like the way the collapsible Summicron handles contrast, shadow detail, and highlights. Collapsible Summicron-M, wide-open on the M2, Fujicolor 200.

 

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2287586434_d9aa2807a2_o.jpg">