50mm lens selection

[philip_wilson]

<p>I am looking at 50mm lens options for my M8 and other Leica bodies and expect to keep the lens for some time. While money is always an issue it is really a question of what I should do. The lens choices are:<br>

Zeiss 50 F2<br>

Zeiss 50 F1.5<br>

CV 50 F1.1<br>

Leica (6 Bit) 50 F2<br>

Leica (6 Bit) 50 F1.4<br>

I am really looking for the logic of what I should buy. I am familiar with a lot of the arguments out there<br>

50 F1.4 - simply the best but big<br>

50 F2 great lens and small<br>

50 F2 Zeiss - great value and supposedly almost as good as the Leica</p>

<p>Phil</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Philip, in my subjective view I might be afraid of the Leica ASPH f1.4 as some reviews see its wide open performance lagging the f2 performance or that of the Summi wide open. I've only used the version V cron, the newer collapsible Leica f2.8 and the VC asph f1.5. I am really happy with the humble and slower f2.8, but would opt for the cron or the Zeiss if I was after a faster lens. The weight/size of the f1.4, f1.1 and f0.95 alternatives, other than cost, is something worth considering I think, as well as the DOF issue with faster lenses (some love this limitation).</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>All good lenses. You must decide whether size is more important to you or the extra stop.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I like the extra stop but I am really struggling with this one. The appeal of the F2 lenses (or the Zeiss F1.5) is their size. I actually like shallow DOF so if I went F1.4 / F1.5 I would use it. The way a lens renders Bokah and the transition from in focus to OOF are also important.</p>

[michael_a._shapiro]

<p>The second best fast lens is the CV 50/1.5. It is a tad cheaper than the Leica. Just curious, how often did you use a 65mm lens on your film camera?</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>I am going to make a case for the Leica f2 50 summicron current with sliding hood (which I own except mine is not 6 bit encoded.) I have voigtlander lenses and enjoy them, but they are bigger than Leica lenses because Leica has made size a priority, which is important to me, and the cron is especially handy with the collapsible hood. I have Nikon f1.4 lenses which I enjoy particularly because of the bright viewfinder image on SLR. Nikon lenses are not at their best at 1.4 but the finder brightness still gives some justification for them, but I stop them down a stop if I can. Also, whether with split image nikon finder or Leica rangefinder, an f1.4 close up is not an easy task to focus accurately. <br>

Lately there is rumor that Leica might finally introduce an updated 50 cron. The current one has stood for years even with their other aspherical lens line up, as an update of a design that is over 40 years old. Perhaps it has been their "bargain" lens so they have been reluctant to modify it expensively, but the fact is that it doesn't need any improvement. There is no distortion. It is perfect wide open. You don't have to waiver about shooting at f2. I have my own expression that I settle on a lens when a lens is "good enough", which actually means it is essentially perfect already.</p><div></div>

[mark_amos]

<p>Hey, that's just a reduced jpeg from a Ritz scan and doens't shown the cron's capability, but I wanted to offer something.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>If you afford it, and even if you have to break the bank, get the Summilux 50/1.4 Asph. If not, get the Summicron 50/2. If not the latest, try a used Summicron. The Zeiss lenses are very good too, but see if you like the ergonomics or not. The Nokton 50/1.1 is very good but heavy. </p>

<p>A few of my 50s.</p>

<p>Summicron 50/2 with add-on hood. Light, great resolution, great ergonomics.</p>

<p>Summilux 50/1.4 pre-Aspherical. I've had this lens for years and only now appreciating it fully. It's central resolution is very good. Its signature is pleasing all around. I got it a rather expensive after market hood that does not get in the way when you are changing f-stops. Turned it into a very user-friendly lens.</p>

<p>Nokton 50/1.1. Heavy but well-balanced. There has been one negative review of this lens that stated the optical quality of this lens is terrible. My photographs say the exact opposite. This includes the shot that Made the cover of Viewfinder magazine last year.</p>

<p>I have some exotic 50s but let's skip those.</p>

<p>Since you have an M8 you near to consider UV/IR filters. Sizes 39, 43, 46, 55 mm are made by Leica and should be easy to get. The Nokton's filter size is 58 mm. Not easy to find. After putting my B&W 58 mm on my Zeiss 18/4 I put a 55 mm Leica UV/IR filter on my Nokton via a 58 to 55 mm step down ring. Works well.<br>

Good luck.</p>

 

[leicaglow]

<p>I currently own the f/2 Summicron, but have owned the f/1.4. I sold it when I was going back to college, but I believe the faster lens (in either 50mm or 35mm) gives the definitive Leica look. My f/2 is nice, but a little less exciting to me than the faster version.</p>

[richard_g]

<p>Philip, I think you should get the Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5. You'll fall in love with the wide open shots, and you have 1/8000s available on your M8 so you could use it so much more than with a film M or the M9. It is compact compared to a Summilux and I think it balances very well on the M digital body. On my M9 and my M5 I like this lens more than any other. It is very well made and very nice to use.<br /> <br /> I have been using my Summicron a bit lately but it flares more. The close focus of 0.7 of the f2 lenses is a serious consideration over the C Sonnar whose minimum focus is 0.9m. Starting all over and not knowing of the C Sonnar I might have gone with the lovely Zeiss Planar. I can't see the justification for forking out for Leica with these fantastic Zeiss lenses on offer. Still, I would also have considered the Leica Summarit 2.5 just for its remarkable compactness, 10.5mm shorter than my tabbed Summicron.<br>

<br /> The latest Summilux ASPH would be a great one to have, but it's hideously expensive and rather big. And some people worry having that much money hanging off a mount. I would like to have one or try one eventually but the C Sonnar has virtually cured me of that desire and the desire to replace my stolen version 2 Summilux which was very heavy.<br>

<br /> I do love the ergonomics of the tabbed Summicron and the reversible hood with cap. But this morning I was shooting basketball with a 90 Elmarit M and the C Sonnar - manual focus sports photography - and I managed remarkably well. The Sonnar has a focus bump which is useful but not quite the same as the Leica tab.</p>

[philip_wilson]

Michael. I use 85mm a lot on SLRs and 90mm on my film Leicas. My Leica 50 is a vey old copy (1950s) but I find I use it

quite a bit on the M8 - although I rarely used it on film. With this in mind I decided to upgrade my 50mm. From the

comments above it looks like a choice between the two Leicsa and the faster Zeiss. One concern I have with the Zeiss is

the rumors of focus shift- is it one of these Internet rumors or is it a big deal?

 

Thanks for everyone's responses so far

[baisao]

<p>Philip, I thought this photo might give you an idea of the DOF of the 50mm Summicron wide open. This was taken in a dark restaurant with focus on the tip of the pen using 400 ISO film (HP5+). A samurai doll is out of focus in the background. This is the Type IV, but the optics are unchanged with the Type V. HTH.<br /><br /><br>

<a title="Ryū - 流 - Flow by Baisao, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7249/6968381606_6b398e028d_z.jpg" alt="Ryū - 流 - Flow" width="427" height="640" /></a></p>

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

You're talking Leica glass. There is no logic here. It's emotional. ;)

(Yes, I have some Leica lenses too.)

[charlie_novice]

<p>Richard G.:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... get the Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5. You'll fall in love with the wide open shots</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I second this judgment, although from indirect experience. I use an old Zeiss Sonnar made for Rollei that I had converted to Pentax K-mount for use on a K-5. The Sonnar is an amazing lens formula. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/41790885@N08/6934718496/sizes/l/in/photostream/">The path</a><br /><br />As a result, I believe the praise for the Zeiss C 50/1.5 seen on the lists.<br /><br /></p>

[SCL]

<p>About 6 years ago I was fortunate enough to own a number of Leica 50s simultaneously. When I came to my senses, I realized that it felt like I spent more time deciding which lens to use than actual shooting. My subject matter had changed over time, and I decided to cull the herd, so to speak. So I found one of my favorite models (my orange and white cat) curled up asleep on a dark green sofa, partly in the sun and partly shaded by the arm rest. I then took all my Leica lenses at that time, and shot her at approx. the same magnification, all same exposure, and of course the film development was consistent since all shots were on the same roll. I did a full body shot focussing on her whiskers, and shot wide open. I then contact printed the lot of shots (without reference to which lens was used) and showed the shots to my family. There were subtle nuances (for instance between the 35 & 90mm shots - but I had adjusted the pictures for size). In the end I chose to get rid of the 50 Summilux, the 50 Noctilux, and the 90 Summicron. I haven't looked back. I kept an older collapsible Summicron and the Version IV in the 50 range - one because of its beautiful transitional shading, and the other for its intense sharpness across the entire film plane. I would have been happy with any of the lenses (sold or kept), but have been quite pleased with my decision. If you have a chance to shoot some of the alternatives you mention, try them out and see if the differences in ergonomics, rendition, ease of use are readily discernable to you and go from there. Best of luck in your choices.</p>

[rgerraty]

Interesting thoughts from Stephen and that picture from Jim. I often see a lovely shot with unidentifiable background such

is the blur and think it must be one of the ones Stephen sold, only to find it is with a lens the same as my own Summicron.

I would never have had the neat little lens if my Summilux hadn't been stolen, a lens I'd carried up hills and around the

world, never knowing how happy I'd be with a tabbed Summicron, perfectly balanced on my M4-2 or M2.

 

But still I would come back to the Sonnar. An eye will be razor sharp and the ear already blurred and background

completely gone at f1.5. That magical definition of the subject against the background really does exist with this lens, and

even I achieved it once or twice.

 

Focus shift with the C Sonnar is a reality. There are online posts of people getting rid of it, so frustrated have they been.

Countless others never tried it. I acquired mine from Popflash Photo in the US fully aware of these concerns and at a time

that apparently all of them were being made optimized for 1.5 instead of 2.8. I did my own tests with a tripod and

minimum focus and a notebook and a test roll of film and I just wasn't quite sure. Like a number of people who have

posted lovely photos online with the C Sonnar I just came to ignore tha matter and have never looked back. I might repeat

my experiments now I have the immediacy of the M9. I don't think that with your greater apparent focal length with the M8

that the actual depth of field is any shallower in millimeters but someone more expert in optics might correct me.

 

M.fogiel of this forum posted some test shots with the differently optimized C Sonnars a couple of years ago and Roger

Hicks's site has some tests also. Marek kept both of his! In his postings then he had a gorgeous shot of a seated woman

with the Canon 1.2 and lamented the lack of a time machine to return and re-take it with the with the Zeiss 1.5.

 

And now I come back to Stephen's post. Maybe if all my gear was stolen I would just get an M9-P with the tiny 2.5

Summarit and be done with it. There is a sense that a beautifully rendering lens should be sold or given away lest its siren

call distracts you from the proper concerns of photography and this is where the Summicrons have stood the test of time.

But I have strapped myself to the mast and unblocked my ears and I won't voluntarily give up the C Sonnar.

[richard_g]

<p>Roger Hick's Site on the Sonnar:<br>

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20firstlook%20sonnar%2050.html<br>

Markek Fogiel here:<br>

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Tylv?start=10<br>

And on RFF:<br>

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51742&highlight=mfogiel+zeiss+sonnar<br>

My flickr stream which contains a slightly larger verson of this photo:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardgm2/sets/72157622434943943/</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[jeff_drew4]

<p>I Have used the ZM Sonnar C 50mm for a couple years and find it near perfect for people and groups etc. You have excluded the Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8, I assume for its slower max aperture. A few years ago I lucked into a LNIB Elmar-M for $400 because its original owner never used it. Frankly, the Elmar-M is also one of my favorites and much lighter weight to carry and to fund! Of all your listed choices, there really is not a bad one.</p>

[rgerraty]

See my later thread on the focus shift of the C Sonnar. I don't think mine is truly optimized for 1.5 or 2.8, but as I said

above, in practice I don't notice a problem. I think the f2.8 optimized Sonnars are more front focussed than the 1.5cm

front focus at 1.5 of my tests.

[Rob F.]

<p>At the risk of making things harder, let me suggest the 50/1.4 pre-ASPH Summilux. It has good bokeh and "character." And it's smaller than the ASPH version. But in any case I think you should get one of the fast lenses on the list, since you like the wide-open image character. You may not really be satisfied with an f/2. Be aware that people talk/complain about shift of focus issues with the Zeiss 50/1.5.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Although one you haven't considered, the Elmar-M f2.8 (relatively inexpensive but high quality), will not give the same limited DOF, it is probably the best of all the 50s in terms of close focus (3 to 6 feet) overall image quality, which at widest aperture allows some reasonably limited good DOF photography. Collapsed, the camera hangs easily from the neck and within a jacket, ready for shooting, yet relatively well protected from impact. If you need the speed (questionable with many digital cameras), then more bulk, weight and more Leicadollars, Cosinadollars or Zeissdollars are necessary additional considerations.</p>

[jason]

<p>All Leica lenses are good.Using Zeiss,Cosina and others may introduce differences in look, application and usage. I added a slightly damaged 35mm-Summaron rather than a new Cosina.<br>

The Elmar 50mm is simply stunning. The "collapsible" feature a major plus for carrying under a jacket or under a sweater. I have the 50mm Summicron from 1954. It has traveled the world.<br>

The new bargain 50mm lens from Leica is very small. I think it might be better than a collapsible in use. The use of limited depth of field to me, in silly. I don't see that way. Your viewfinder(not being an SLR) doesn't show it. Since using small sensor digital cameras, i way prefer everything is sharp!(relatively).</p>

[rgerraty]

You guys are making some very good points about the Elmar M which I agree would be great on a digital M. I didn't know

about the close focus.

[love4leica]

<p>How about this</p><div></div>

[Uhooru]

<p>Here's the 50 Summicron last generation (same formula as current). I think it has that so called "Leica look". here at f2 <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11553570-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>