I'm about to buy a 50/1.4 and was wondering about people's opinions on the different versions. Any help would be appreciated.

-- David Cunningham (dcunningham@attglobal.net), November 22, 2001

Answers

David; as you may know this lens has had the same design since the mid 60īs, and a build in hood has beed added in the last version, I donīt own any and hadnīt had any experience with it, just can recomend the one with the clip-on hood; I do have a summicron latest version with build-in hood, and may look like a good idea if your kind of photography is quite calm and relaxed, if you need to move with your camera a lot and things like that the clip-on hood is the most convinient version. Otherwise the newer version is quite beautiful craftmade. Hope this help.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), November 22, 2001.

As I understand it there has been only one design change some thirty years ago and the Summilux has stayed the same since. If you are talking about cosmetics I prefer any version with a separate hood because of the better protection. The latest built-in hood seems too short to serve any useful purpose. However a new lens will have better coating. Ahhh....freedom of choice!

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), November 22, 2001.

To flashy maybe...

-- Lucien (lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), November 22, 2001.

David: Either M or R lens, IMO the latest version would be preferable. In the case of the R, the current (E60 filter size) version is a complete optical redesign with [supposedly] much improved wide-open performance. In the case of the M, the current (w. pull-out hood) version is the same basic optical formula as its predecessor but with 2 advantages: the E46 vs less-common E43, and more importantly the near-focus limit was shortened to 0.7m from 1.0m.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 22, 2001.

David:

I use the new version and admit I would prefer a removeable hood as it offers more protection, but on the other hand, I like the closer focusing -- perhaps a wash in attributes... Also, I must admit I was worried about performance given the less than stellar reputation the Summilux has. I needn't have been worried, as it performs *much* better than I thought it would and is almost as good optically as the Summicron I replaced it with. Great haptics as well!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 22, 2001.

Why not a Voigtlander Nokton f/1.5? With the money you'll save you could get a Voigtlander 28mm f/1.9 or the 35mm f/1.7.

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@mindspring.com), November 22, 2001.

This guy was my rock until his latest review of the 90 TE which I disagreed with. However he has a great review of the 50/1.4M at the LHSA site:

http://www.lhsa.org/legleica313.html

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), November 22, 2001.

I've got the original chrome 50 Summilux ('59). In addition to lower contrast and resolution at wider apertures, it also has significant off-axis coma wide open. The images have such a great look, though, that I'm willing to forgive a few technical shortcomings.

Also, it's hard to imagine a better-looking or better-crafted lens.

Any lens you choose will be capable of producing great images.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), November 22, 2001.

David, I have gone through quite a metamorphosis with regard to which version 50 Summilux I prefer. I started out with liking the classic look of the older version with the detachable hood. I thought that the clip on hood would provide more protection to the lens as others have pointed out. But, over time, I have grown to like the current iteration of the lens. First, it appears more balanced on the M that the previous. Second, it focusses to .7m. Third, the filter it accepts is 46mm, matching the 35 /1.4 ASPH. both 28's, and the 90/2.8. Finally, I have come to the conclusion that the built-in hood is handier and affords enough protection to the lens. Most of the time, the impact on the hood is at an angle and the hood usually does not collapse.

-- Henry Chu (heninden@yahoo.com), November 22, 2001.

Mike, Wonderful picture (except maybe the hard blue shadow on neck). Does the slide look exactly like this, or have you done some PS blackmagic on the colours (looks like 2 different casts or was there a very different light source at the top right of the model)? What film?

This was not shot at f1.4 (judging by DoF), or was it?

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), November 23, 2001.

The newest version has the ergonomic edge. The balance is better and the closefocus ability is very useful. The coating is better and harder too.

On the other hand older pristine versions can be had for less than half the cost with very little image differentiation. The earliest chrome versions have the edge on build quality, but can be subject to the fogging issues that seem to plague the Leica lenses of the earlier era.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), November 23, 2001.

Hallo Mike Dixon,

wonderful snap of your niece.

I would keep the SUMMILUX just on account of this shot. Great photographer, great lens.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), November 23, 2001.

Thanks K.G. and Jacques. She's not my niece (I'm an only child). Unfortunately, she's not my girlfriend, either. . .

I think the shot was made at f2 or 2.4. Film was Kodak EPJ 320T rated at 1000 and pushed two stops.

I did some color corrections in PhotoShop, but the original slide has the same general look. It was shot on 2nd Avenue here in Nashville (downtown tourist district), and there were a mix of light sources (street lamps, storefront lighting, etc.).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), November 23, 2001.