Different opinions: Erwin Puts at www.imx.nl/photosite says there is a big difference between old and new versions of the 50mm Summicron. Steven Gandy at Cameraquest.com reckons the differences are infinitesimal for practical users. A professional here in New Zealand who has published a book of landscapes says he can't tell what camera a picture was taken with but he can tell what film was used. I would like to know how my old 1957 5cm Summicron stacks up. Is it worth getting the new one? Here are my own (totally unscientific, since I don't shoot test charts) findings on the old Summicron, bearing in mind the vagaries of different films etc: - At first I thought it wasn't as sharp as Japanese lenses, but this isn't so: it is not as high contrast, which some people mistake for sharpness. - It does have extremely high resolution of very fine details. - Colours glow, subjects stand out from the background. Quite a different look from bitingly sharp rendition of fine detail throughout the scene. - Nice out-of-focus areas. - Appears to be a warmer rendition of colours than (some) Japanese lenses.

Any comments welcome.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), January 26, 2001

Answers

David,

The optical formulation of the 50 mm Summicron has stayed relatively unchanged over the decades but the lens coatings have not. Perhaps, the later 50 mm Crons have a bit better flare suppression with more modern lens coatings and a bit more even (cooler) transmission of all wavelengths of light through the glass. If I were in the market for a 50 (not at this moment as my latest 24 mm purchase has "drained" me) I would be looking for a late model 50 Cron of the previous generation that had the removable lens shade (more effective) and the focusing tab (a God-send and sacrilege when Leica deleted it on the current rendition). But my dream purchase is still the 50 Noctilux... expensive but saves me a membership to the gym!!!!

;-)

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 26, 2001.

MY 70's Black Summicron is a great lens. My take is that once a lens has negligible light fall-off and distortion, and is as sharp as all the Summicrons are, you can no longer really talk about one being better than the other. More contrast suites some and not other's styles. That and features like the hoods and focusing tabs make the difference.

If you are shooting handheld (this is Leica M right :) then the lens is certainly not the sharpness limit. Sharpness is overrated for many forms of photography, but it is nice to have it if you need it.

-- Mark Wrathall (wrathall@laudaair.com), January 26, 2001.

david, recently a friend had John Van Stelton clean, polish and recoat [with a modern hard coating] his late '50s collapsible Summicron. It is better than new, and the tab was under $200. If the formula hasn't changed much, this would seem to be the way to

-- david kelly (kellyco@teleport.com), January 26, 2001.

Ah, a fellow Kiwi (a nickname for a New Zealander to the uninformed, named after one of our flightless native birds) and a Leica user as well.

I agree that Leica lenses (whether old or newer versions) certainly are different to their Japanese counterparts. I really notice this on B&W more so than colour.

I only own the new 50 cron, but have really begun to appreciate this lens lately. It is an amazingly superb lens. When I first used it after using Nikon gear for twenty years I thought the stories I'd heard about it were exagerated, that's because I was using it mostly at f5.6 or f8. Although razor sharp, it didn't seem that much better than a Nikkor 50. When I started to use it at f2, f2.8 and f4 it became apparent why it is held in such high regard. The photos I have seen taken with the older fifties versions certainly look nice as well although some are as you say lacking a little in contrast and apparent sharpness.

If you do your own B&W you could always compensate to a degree for any lack of contrast in the printing stage.

If you are mainly a 50 man then I would look at buying a newer version and selling the older one on ebay, because the exchange rate would work to your advantage. There is an excellent, fairly new 50 for sale at Photo and Video in Christchurch for about NZ$1200 ($US500).

-- matt veld (mahv@xtra.co.nz), January 26, 2001.

There have been four optical formulations of the venerable 50/2 Summicron. The first was the collapsable, great for its day but not so great today. Next was the rigid/dualrange which had a significantly different optical design from the collapsable, many people rave about this lens but contrast is lower than modern lenses probably due to the coatings then available. Next came the black six element (1969 to 1978) and finally the current design in 1979. I use a third version six element lens and see no reason to upgrade. It suffers slightly from veiling flare in side light situations but then so does the latest version as well. I think I will add a focusing tab to mine as I really like the ones on my 35s.

Should you upgrade? That depends on what you primarily use it for. If you shoot mostly at f5.6 and lower there is basically no difference between all the versions. Wide open, newer is significantly better....stunningly better! If you shoot Velvia or TechPan on a tripod and enlarge to 20 x24, or larger, then get a newer lens. If you shoot Tri-X handheld at slow speeds then I think any version, except perhaps the collapsable, would produce identical results. Finally if you are happy with your current lens, why not put the money into another focal length, or better, film.

Cheers

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), January 26, 2001.

In my experience the 50mm Summicron (dual range) and the 50mm-R from the sixties are wonderful lenses. Less contrasty than their modern counterparts - but this is very nice and not really a disadvantage - it will look poorer on MTF charts, but all the slides I have seen take with these lenses are very nice and quite different from most modern designs which tend towards high initial "impact" and high contrast. They probably are less good performers at the edges at full or 2.8 apertures, so it depends a bit on what you like. Of course, I have not used a '57 variety Summicron - but certainly the dual range 50mm I used was made in 1965 (I think) and was a lovely performer but with a different look to the modern Leica optics. MTF charts alone would no doubt tell you to get the latest versions though.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 26, 2001.

If you're shooting color, stick with your present lens. For B&W the latest lens is probably preferable.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), January 26, 2001.

Ha! I was going to say exactly the opposite. I really prefer the look in B&W of my old collapsible over my newer version, which is tidy crisp, but not nearly as creamy. I guess if you take the two of us together, we like the older one better, or maybe not :-) Anyone who read Dan Savage this week will appreciate this debate, I think.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), January 26, 2001.

I have used every version of the 50mm f2.0 Summicron, including the ones for the R cameras. The collapsable 50 had noticeably less snap and color saturation than the others, but was a wonderful lens for portraits. The rigid and dual range chromies are very heavy and only focus to 1 meter (without the eyes on the DR). All three of these older lenses are prone to major coating failure. This shows up as a fog when you shine a light into the lens, but it is often a clouding of the soft coatings and not just a dirty film that can be cleaned from the glass. After I had my dual range cleaned up, it just wasn't the same as before the coatings went bad. Sherry Krauter told me it was common for this to happen. Before the coating went bad on the DR, it was a very nice lens and very sharp, but not as able to resolve detail at the wider stops as the current design. It also flared badly if shot into a bright area. All of these "faults" can be used to enhance the images, mind you, and I would not have sold the DR 50 if the coatings had stayed intact.

My 1990's 50mm really is superb wide open, and the flare seems much better controlled. I shot a night city scape recently at 1/15 f2.0, and all the lights were perfect tiny circles on the film-even at the edges there were no football shaped lights. I mentioned in a previous post that I modified my M3 so it will focus couple to .7 meters. The abilty to move in that extra 10 to 12 inches from the older 50mm lenses makes a big difference to me. Subjects less than 1/2 of the size fill the frame compared to with the 1 meter minimum lenses. I also like the compact size and focus tab on the 1980's and early 90's lenses, which by the way are identical to the current lens optically. Yes, I know they don't have the same build quality or feel that the older lenses do. Right now, I am fed up with all the fogging and coating troubles with the older lenses, however, and will not be purchasing any others. The only vintage lens I have left is a 35 f2.8 Summaron that is miraculously still clear inside. One last plug for the inexpensive 40mm Rokkor from my CLE--it is just as good as the current $1000 50mm Summicron except maybe at f2.0, and also as good as the last generation 35mm Summicron. Funny Mr. Putts hasn't made any mention of the 40mm lenses at all, as if they never existed.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 26, 2001.

Andrew

Erwin Putz perhaps shares the common Leicaphile's dislike of the M5/CL/CLE and thereby by extension the 40mm Summicron-C and 90mm Elmar-C. I agree with you about the Rokkor 40mm - excellent it certainly is. Interesting your problems with coatings. I had no trouble with the 50mm, 90mm Tele-Elmarit and 35 summaron 2.8 that I owned in the second half of the 80s. They were just beautiful for color shots with no coating issues at all. I still have a 135mm Elmar which takes fine shots too. Perhaps another fifteen years on has changed things with these lenses.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 26, 2001.

I've got a '60 DR Summicron with a big scuff right in the middle of the front element. No one (including me) has ever had a complaint about the optical performance of the lens. It wouldn't surprise me if a new lens has measurably better performance, though. A significant benefit (to me) of my old lens is that I have no qualms about subjecting it to rain, snow, smoke, sweat, spilled drinks, or the other slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that arise when I'm out using the lens.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 27, 2001.

I concur with Mike's philosophy. While I own some new stuff from both Nikon and Leica, I seem to get my most consistent results with my beaters... old and ugly. I am over any psychological hindrance to actually using the equipment as a tool, and therefore just get on with picture taking. New might be better on paper... but a real workhorse is better on film.

David... I upgraded my Summicron from the late 1950's and now use the current formula, (as well as the 1969-1979 model), and yes there is higher contrast and the image seems sharper on slide film. BUT... I have many images taken with the older lens that I can't replicate with the newer one. It is an intangible quality that makes me curse the fact that I got rid of the lens. If you upgrade.. hold on to the older model. There really is something to that lens' "fingerprint" that can make it the correct lens for a specific task. If I want to count every brick in a building, the latest lens would be my choice, but for window light portraits... I miss my old lens.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 27, 2001.

Al is right, I wish I had kept the compact,low contrast (but beautiful skin tone producing) collapsable 50mm that came with my camera. I sold it when I bought the dual range, (that ended up developing internal problems a few years later). The fact that it collapsed alone was probably made it worth keeping around. I sometimes think about hunting for another one. Maybe if I found one cheap enough I wouldn't worry about cleaning marks on the soft coatings and a slight internal fog.(like having a built in Zeiss Softar)

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 27, 2001.

I have a late model 50mm Summicron of the previous generation (the one with a removable lens shade) that I picked up for pretty cheap. While I can't compare it to the newer version (because I've never owned one) I must say that my lens seems to be incredibly sharp and contrasty--often noticably more so than my 35mm Summicron ASPH, for example. For the difference in price between what I paid and what you would pay for a brand new one, I would stick with the previous generation--it is still an incredible piece of glass!

-- Buzz Andersen (landerse@du.edu), January 28, 2001.

The first time I tried comparing my collapsible Summicron with my Summicron-M (focus tab version), saw the higher contrast of the M right away, as deeper, darker shadows. Shadows in the shots of identicall subjects, made at the same time on the same film, with the collapsible were infused with stray light, and thus appear more open. I also shot comparison slides with both lenses, of some downtown buildings. At first I couldn't see any difference, even with a 12 power magnifier, looking for fine details like roof mounted antenna elements. Months later, the same two slides found their way onto my light table again. I realized they were my test shots, and made a judgement about which was which, before I peeked at my notes written on the slides. I correctly identified the M by its crisper edges around windows and such. So I can tell you the differences are real, but the sharpness difference (edge acutance?) is subtle. In fact, it is probably mostly an artifact of the higher contrast. I'm pleased with the M, as I am with my 1969-to-79 cron, which also is very nice for architecture shots. But I'm not selling the collapsible because I have some nice old slides shot with it that exhibit very lovely soft glowing colors. Just a matter of using the right lens for the right subject.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 29, 2001.

Once again some interesting answers. This forum attracts a lively response! I agree there are noticeable differences between lenses of different vintages, and reckon I'll exploit the characteristics of this Summicron rather than upgrading for the sake of it. And yes, maybe get another focal length instead. I think there is sometimes too much emphasis on ultimate sharpness when other factors may be more important. I like the glow of the old lens in colour slides and prints. I like it for low light portraits; pleasing even at full aperture. I may get back into B+W too (has anyone tried Agfa Scala B+W slides, BTW?). Will also check out capability for big enlargements. Happy shooting!

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), February 01, 2001.