Throw of a current 50 Summicron vs. 70's version...

[jim_clifford]

Is the focus throw of a 70's 50 Summicron about the same as the

current version? I had the current version (which I liked) but it was

stolen and I am thinking about replacing it with an older version. I

am hoping that the lenses are identical except for the built in shade.

[harry_soletsky1]

Leitz made the #11817 Summicron from 1969 until they introduced the #11819 in 1979. The latter lens is still the current formulation of the 50mm Summicron. The 11817s were all made in Wetzlar. The 11819 was made first in Canada and relatively recently now in Solms. Which is better optically is very esoteric argument and I have both and optically I think they are quite similar but the ? of differences excites lots of passion. I prefer the early 11819 as I like the focussing tab, missing on later models when that (to me) awful sliding lens hood was added (I can be passionate also about some things Leica). The 11819 is identical to your lens and in fact has the same model #. So you are looking for a 50mm Summicron made in Canada with a separate hood.

[harry_soletsky1]

Regarding the throw, my early 11819 focussing ring turns a shorter arc to go from infinity to 28 inches than the 11817.

[jim_clifford]

Thanks Harry. Is the throw on the 11817 considerably longer than the 11819(ie. Noctilux or Summicron 90) because I have those lenses and I would like a shorter throw.

[Rob F.]

I have both versions: the tabbed one and the 1969-79 version. I find advantages with each. The longer throw of the 1969-79 version allows a longer, more expanded DOF scale, which I value for pictorial photography. The current formula (the tabbed model is the current formula) however has, I find, the lowest flare of any 50mm Summicron. If the sun is somewhere just outside the frame, any veiling flare or diaphragm images will be less severe, or may not occur (depending on just how far the sun is outside the frame).

[albert_smith]

<I>Is the focus throw of a 70's 50 Summicron about the same as the current version?</I><P>

 

I have both a 70s version and the tabbed / hooded penultimate current optical formula. Without actually getting out a protractor, just using my eye, the 70s version has a rotation of about 185 degrees from infinity to the minimum distance. The 80s lens has about 95 degrees for the same range.<P>

 

Personally, I believe the optics of both lenses to be so close as to render a choice for that reason moot. However, I do enjoy the tab and shorter action needed to adjust focus, so I use the later lens most often. Some do feel that a more gradual focus action is better for accuracy, and maybe it is. I never miss focus with my tabbed lens, so I will not engage in theory over actual results.

[jack_markham]

The throw on the 11817 Wetzlar is about twice that of the current version. I've used the Wetzlar version for thirty years and recently purchased the 50-Year Summicron. I haven't made many images with the 50-Year yet and have not decided which I like better.

[jay_.]

I have the 11817 from 1969 and the current one. Optically they are so close as to be indentical. The focus throw of the 11817 is about twice (about one full revolution vs 1/2 turn)and somewhat stiffer. The current lens is definitely quicker to focus (I do it by simply running the edge of my left index finger along the underside of the focusing ring)and also the pull-out hood is a major improvement from having to clip the 12585 on and off, and it doesn't jut into the viewfinder. The 11817 is (without the shade) smaller and lighter, and lets me use the old-style swing-out polarizer, which (along with some admitted sentimentality) is why I still have it.

[jack_markham]

Well, actually, the throw of the 1969 Wetzlar version is about 190 degrees, or just over one-half turn. The throw of my 50-Year Summicron (i.e., the current version)is about half that.

[jim_clifford]

Thanks for the great input everyone. It's interesting that the lens has been so great for so long with the same basic formula (I guess I can't go wrong with either one).