Collapsible 50/2 Summicron, Canon 50/1.4 or 1.5 LTM, or Zeiss Planar 50/2

[evan_schaaf]

<p>Hello again,<br>

I'm looking to purchase a 50 for my ZI, and these lenses I listed above fit into my budget of under about $750. Of these choices, which would you recommend and why? I'm open to other suggestions as well. <br>

Thanks<br>

PS: Anyone want to sell me a used ZM lens? Listings are practically nonexistent in super-happy-fun-auction-land. </p>

 

[michael_darnton2]

<p>It really is a matter of what you like to see. The Summicron is one of my faves, but it's not a high contrast lens at all. It does, however epitomize Leica "glow", and it's great if all you do is B&W. From what I see, the Zeiss is incredibly sharp and crisp, definitely a modern lens profile, if that's what you like. The LTM Canon lenses I've had are somewhere between, but closer to the Zeiss than the summicron--consistently good performers, neutral in personality. <br>

Summicron: <a href=" and <a href=" </p>

 

[SCL]

<p>The collapsible Summicron (I just sold mine after about 20 years of using it) is terrific....wide open lower contrast but sharp in the center of the field gradually becoming less sharp as you approaches the periphery; everything changes as you stop it down...IMHO a terrific lens, but you need to make sure you get a sample with zero haze and no cleaning marks (a tough challenge) to get the full benefit of the characteristics of the lens (I had mine CLA'd right after I got it a number of years ago). The Canon 1.4 I can't speak to, but I have been using their 1.8 for a couple of weeks; apparent sharpness seems a little stronger than the Summicron wide open, better microcontrast. and stronger overall contrast....I've noticed some distortion at the edge of the field in my copy....seems to go away after stopping down. The Zeiss I've been using is the 1.7 and wide open it is the sharpest and contrastiest of the 3. I'm still working on my 1st roll of film with the Canon, but I've run a series of comparative shots with each of the lenses on my micro 4/3 body. Honestly I don't think you can go wrong with any of them....they do render a scene slightly differently though, so you should think about what characteristics are most critical to you in your photography...be it portraits, nature, street shooting, landscapes or whatever. There's lots of info out there on each of these lenses to help you decide which is best for you.</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>Sorry--the second photo was supposed to be<br /> http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7003/6557232673_fcdd25595c_b.jpg Jim, in smoke by Michael Darnton, on Flickr</p>

<p>Sorry---total fail on the linkage here. I have no idea why....</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The Canon 50/1.5 is the most old-fashioned of the bunch, being a direct copy of the Zeiss Sonnar design. Wide open it has a lovely dissolve of sharpness towards the edge, wonderful portrait lens (if a bit short in focal length for that). Can have haze problems, but generally cleans well. Very small, surprisingly dense. 40mm filter ring makes getting filters a challenge.<br>

Next more modern is the collapsible Summicron 50/2.0. I think others have described it well. Condition is <strong>EVERYTHING</strong> on this lens. The coatings are <em>very soft</em>, both inside and out. Very very easy to get scratches in the coating. Prone to internal haze as the whale-oil lubricants break down, very tricky to clean that haze without removing the coating. The front element is <em>very soft</em>, made of flint glass (lead crystal), many a Summicron front element is just a maze of scratches due to this (not to mention what happened to the coating.)<br>

The next more modern is the Canon 50/1.4. Definitely a modern post-WW-II lens, with a look consistent with many a Japanese SLR lens from the 1970's. Sharp. Not prone to haze problems, hard coating, easy to have cleaned.<br>

The most modern and sharp will be the Zeiss Planar 50/2.0.</p>

[Brian1664876441]

The Best lens for the money is the modern Cosina Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton. I picked up a near mint copy for ~$400. With the new closer-focus M-Mount version out, I would look for an LTM version used.

 

Samples of several lenses here:

 

http://www.leicaplace.com/f34/

 

The 50/1.4 is getting attention of late, and well-deserved. The only thing to watch: the glass used in the element behind the aperture is subject to damage from oil. If it is clean, go for it. The glass can become etched if oil was allowed to stay on it for too long. Canon used a new type of glass in the 50s, high index of refraction with low dispersion.

 

The Canon 50/1.5 is a Sonnar formula lens, but made to the Leica standard of 51.6mm and uses different glass than what Zeiss used. It I not a direct copy of the Zeiss Sonnar, as the KMZ Jupiter-3 was. The Canon 50/1.5 has very smooth bokeh compared with the Nikkor 5cm F1.4. I need to upload some pictures with the Canon. The downside: hard to find 40mm filters, but I have a series VI filter adapter. I have a 1950 Jupiter-3 5cm F1.5, modified to the Leica focal length, that is the sharpest Vintage Sonnar type lens that I own.

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I've had the Canon, a Nikon LTM, and I have a Summitar 50/2. My experience is that the results depend a lot on the condition of the particular sample you have, especially this long after they were made. Also, these older cameras with a possibly squinty viewfinder can take careful technique to get the best out of, as well as stopping down a little and maybe using a hood.</p>

<p>I'm just saying that picking at random, you might get any results from a comparison if you bought all of them depending on how the previous owners took care of them. I got a good Summitar and it does quite well, especially for the age. Any modern lens like the Zeiss ones would probably give you a more reliable high quality image. I have a Contax rangefinder too and those lenses are great for the time, but they're not the equal of the Zeiss lenses I got for my Kyocera Contax SLRs.</p>

[evan_schaaf]

<p>I just went to my local camera store and asked if they had any M-mount lenses in stock. The guy behind the counter looked confused, and asked the manager to help him find whatever they had in storage. After about 15 minutes, he brought out the only M-mount lens they had - a Summicron 35/2 in pretty good shape (just a small scratch on the rear element, nothing that would affect IQ) with a filter and hood. They asked for $950. I came home fairly disappointed, this was out of my price range. After a couple minutes, I decided I'd call and ask about the serial number of the lens. I looked it up, and it turns out its the first version Summicron 35/2 (for the M2), German-made in 1963 (as opposed to Canadian-made). I looked up the going rate for this lens both on fleabay and another site and I'd bet this lens is worth at least $3k (maybe more considering it's German and has the original Shade/Hood). So, I got it. I'll shoot a few rolls with it, and sell it if I decide I don't love it - I can always buy something else with the profit I'm sure I'd make. What a find! </p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>Can you find a rigid Summicron 50/2 for $750? If yes, then I would recommend to go for it. It has medium contrast with extremely high resolution.<br>

Yes, the M2 version 35/2 goes for $2500 on average. Good for you.</p>

<p>Raid</p>

[john tonai]

<p>But the scratch on the rear element should drastically reduce its value</p>

[evan_schaaf]

<p>^ How much do you think the value will decrease? I'd definitely get a CLA before selling.</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>It may sell for $2000.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_palsedge]

<p>I have a collapsible 50 mm Summicron (#1093083) which had scratches on the front element. Gus Lazzari had it polished and recoated so that is an option. </p>

[dave_s]

<p>I have the Canon 50/1.5, which is my favorite rangefinder lens. It makes people look good. To get the soft Sonnar-like drawing, <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/">Dante Stella</a> recommended using a fairly large aperture with it. I think that advice was correct, and I usually use it around f/2.8. YMMV.</p>

<p>If I remember right, the 50/1.5 wasn't made for long. Sonnar-type designs are apparently a pain to manufacture because of the triple cemented element, and it was rapidly supplanted by the more modern Gauss design. This means the 50/1.5 is not that common, and it can be a bit hard to find at a decent price. You may have to pay through the nose if you're in a hurry. (Kevin Camera has three for $750 - 800, but that seems a bit extreme.)</p>

<p>Message me if you want to send a couple of sample photos-- my shots with that lens are all of friends and relatives, and I don't post those on photo.net.</p>

[jeff_guthrie]

Another nod to the CV Nokton 50/1.5 lens. I have used all versions of the 50mm Summicron and Summilux, as well as

the Canon LTM lenses (mainly the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2). The CV 50/1.5 has a great balance of contrast and sharpness, and

it is a great value. They are solidly constructed from brass, and my old black paint lens is quite brassy (which matches my

beat up black paint M4). The only Sonnar-type lens I have used on my M cameras is a Nikon LTM 50/1.4, which is also

one of my favorites.

[nozar_kishi]

<p>get a 40/2 summicron mint under $750</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>There was for sale a CL with the 40mm/2 Cron for $800 recently.</p>

 

[phil_brown3]

<p>Collapsable Summicrons can suffer from haze. Don't accept the seller's claims that they can be cleaned. They can't. The glass goes hazy.<br>

That said the Canon 50/1.4 is a terrific lens. Get one if you can.</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>Gee, I don't know, Phil. Any lens can get hazy, and I have had soft coatings cleaned in the past without damage, but you are right; there is certainly a big question mark over just how removable it is.<br>

Disturbance of the coating on the front element, scratching of the glass underneath is nearly always the only serious damage I have seen. Polishing back to clean glass is the only effective treatment, and this can't be done if scratching is too deep. Regrinding can be done by an expert, but this throws all the balls up into the air as it removes glass and affects the formula; element separation distances etc, surely.<br>

It is pretty rare to meet one for sale with perfectly clean original front coating, as is an early one with discolouration from the radioactive elements.<br>

Does anybody do hard coating of these front elements after polishing?</p>

[phil_brown3]

<p>The chemical composition of the glass in some 50s Leitz lenses causes the haze. It can't be cleaned because it's in the glass itself, not on the surface. Not just Summicrons but it's most common in them.</p>

[frederick_muller]

<p>The Canon 50mm f1.4 would be my choice. It's better than the Type 1 Lux. While it isn't as sharp wide open as the Type 2 Lux, it has a wondeful 3D-like signature that is very appealing.</p>

[02Pete]

<p>I've been away on vacation, so I'm late to this thread. Can't speak to some of the other lenses mentioned, but the Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM with a LTM/bayonet adapter is a very good lens when used with a Leica M body. It may not be up to the technical quality of current-production aspheric Leica lenses in all respects, but it is nonetheless capable of taking excellent photos. It is also a convenient size and weight, handles well, and is much more affordable. Remember that the optical design of the lens and the technical quality of the glass are not the only factors controlling image quality. Composition, focusing, exposure, proper technique in holding the camera as still as possible while operating the shutter, choice of film, and developing (or use of a digital M body) also affect image quality to a considerable degree. Don't get me wrong -- modern Leica lenses can provide superlative image quality. Fifty years after being produced, however, a Canon 50mm f/1.4 (if in good condition) is still a very good lens, and highly effective for everyday photography.</p>