Leica 50mm f2 Summicron-M

[Pedro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Film and M9 users - please share your opinion on this lens.

 

Just bought an M7 and I am wondering if I should go 35mm f2 or 50mm f2 as a first lens.

 

Thanks, Pedro

[chris roberts]

Hi Pedro. It really does depend on what it is you like to photograph. Many people would say get a 50 and learn how to work with it before going wider. Others would say the 35 is a perfect 'all round' lens. In the past, cameras usually came with a 50mm as a starter kit. I suppose that might tell you something.

_Personally, a 35 is fitted to my M most of the time - I find it easier to walk towards a subject rather than trying to back away.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[aesop]

Film and M9 users - please share your opinion on this lens.

 

Just bought an M7 and I am wondering if I should go 35mm f2 or 50mm f2 as a first lens.

 

Thanks, Pedro

 

 

...hey, Pedro, I doubt if anyone here is qualified to tell you which of these equally desirable focal lengths to go for - it depends 100% on your preference and what you want to get out of photography. To my mind, taking into account our preferences will only complicate the issue further.

 

Why not go to your nearest dealer for a little test drive? It may help you decide which focal length to start out with.

 

The good news is that Leica and other third party marques offer a wide range of superb lenses with different maximum apertures in both focal lengths.

[wlaidlaw]

Pedro,

 

The 35 is a more modern lens, against the older Mandler design 50, which it is rumoured is due for an update. I have just bought a current version 50 in anticipation of my M9 arriving. Sadly it is a bit out of kilter but the seller had no hesitation in offering to pay for adjustment (probably just mount shims). I personally don't like the latest 50 ASPH Summilux, finding the one I had last year too sharp and harsh on an M8, so I hope the 50 Cron will suit better. It has a very fine reputation as an all round lens. However that said, I am guessing I will use my 35 Summilux more on my M9, therefore if I had to choose between both lenses, I would plump for the 35. It has the additional upside that it is tiny.

 

Wilson

[kenneth]

I have a 35mm Summicron M asph and a 50mm Summicron M. They are both wonderful lenses. Critically pin sharp which possibly makes them not quite the lens you would want to use for a ladies portrait. I still haven't decided yet whether to keep both but if I changed any I would possibly trade my 50mm Summicron M for a 50mm 2.8 Elmar M Collapsable which I would see as my ideal combination giving me a 50mm lens with differing resolving characteristics to the Summicron glass and compactness. In fact I have my name down with a couple of dealers to let me know when they get one in. I would be quite happy to buy second hand from an official Leica dealer

[wstotler]

I bought the 35mm first. Then about two weeks later, the 50mm.

 

If I were to do it again, I'd buy the 50 first and shoot with it for a while. It's an ergonomics, size, and bokeh thing for me, mostly.

 

The focusing on the 50mm is super-smooth and faster to focus than the 35mm--focus just jumps into place with the 50. Image quality is great and the bokeh is lovely--some of my best people shots have come out of the 50mm. (The 35's no slouch, but the 50mm just seems to handle people better. It's probably the older design.)

 

You can have a look, if you like:

Summicron ASPH 35mm - a set on Flickr

Summicron 50mm - a set on Flickr

 

I am shooting the 50mm on an M8 most of the time, but full frame with the M6TTL it's a great lens still. Just feels better than the 35mm somehow. (And I like the built-in, slide out lens hood! That's a plus over the 35mm ASPH's clip-on plastic hood, which just feels cheap to me.)

 

Thanks,

Will

 

P.S. I mounted the 50mm straight up on a (cheaply bought) Visoflex III. Almost no DOF, but incredibly good macro (IMO and limited experience). Couldn't really use the 35mm ASPH straight-mounted like that. . . .

Edited October 3, 2009 by wstotler

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is really two questions, one about focal lengths, and one about one particular lens, the 50mm Summicron.

 

I cannot answer the first question. Nobody can, but you. As for the second question, I found that the current 50mm Summicron does behave admirably when the light is controlled and moderate, but very badly in high contrast situations, when it reacts with uncontrollable flare. One strange case is when you have two parts of the subject with very different levels of light -- say, a lightly overcast sky above a darker bilding or a forest's edge. Here, you do quite often get a roughly rectangular patch of flare in the dark part. Needless to say, this (a) ruins the picture, ( cannot be fixed in PhotoShop, and © does not show up in the usual published test graphs.

 

I do not think sharp pictures are 'harsh' or 'vulgar'. (Remember, the same blame was hurled at the early Anastigmat lenses, such as the Tessar, a hundred years ago!) Therefore, the lens of my choice in your situation would be either the Summilux ASPH, which I own, or the Zeiss ZM Planar. I would distrust the Summarit, because this is basically just a rehash of the Summicron. It is said to be less flarey than the Summicron, but that may be due to better mount design.

 

The old man from the Age of the Zeiss Tessar

[wlaidlaw]

This is really two questions, one about focal lengths, and one about one particular lens, the 50mm Summicron.

 

I cannot answer the first question. Nobody can, but you. As for the second question, I found that the current 50mm Summicron does behave admirably when the light is controlled and moderate, but very badly in high contrast situations, when it reacts with uncontrollable flare. One strange case is when you have two parts of the subject with very different levels of light -- say, a lightly overcast sky above a darker bilding or a forest's edge. Here, you do quite often get a roughly rectangular patch of flare in the dark part. Needless to say, this (a) ruins the picture, ( cannot be fixed in PhotoShop, and © does not show up in the usual published test graphs.

 

The old man from the Age of the Zeiss Tessar

 

Lars,

 

The square flare patch - was that on film or digital. I have also noticed this once but with a 35/1.2 CV Nokton. I guessed it was light reflecting off the front surface of the sensor and then being reflected back by one of the rear air surfaces in the lens. One nice thing with dispensing with IR filters on the M9, is that I will no longer suffer from pink circles from the filters when shooting against a low evening sun.

 

Wilson

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[lars_bergquist]

I have seen this on film. I had dumped my Summicron already when I got my M8.

 

What you are showing is a case of overall flare, plus a funny internal reflection. Bad enough, but forgivable considering the circumstances, and very different from the Summicron phenomenon, which is flare in just part of the picture, in a situation that the Summilux ASPH handles very well.

 

The old man from the Age of Kodachrome II

[wlaidlaw]

I have seen this on film. I had dumped my Summicron already when I got my M8.

 

What you are showing is a case of overall flare, plus a funny internal reflection. Bad enough, but forgivable considering the circumstances, and very different from the Summicron phenomenon, which is flare in just part of the picture, in a situation that the Summilux ASPH handles very well.

 

The old man from the Age of Kodachrome II

 

Lars,

 

I would never have attempted that shot with a 50 Summicron. That was taken with a 35 ZM Biogon, which is noted for its flare resistance. I thought I might just get away with it but I had forgotten about the pesky filter.

 

Wilson

[Overgaard]

It's a good point about moving closer rather than backing away.

 

The 35mm is a great all-round lens and a "classic M lens" (the most sold lens), and with the M9 you have the 18MP and an option to crop to center the scene in the frame.

[rick_dykstra]

I have the Summicron-M 50mm f2. I love this lens. It has one of the highest ratings on the photodo site, for what that's worth. It is small, gorgeous, lovely to use and makes wonderful pictures. The out of focus rendition is very pleasing. It is my favorite M lens.

 

I don't have the 35/2, but have a 35/1.4. I find it too wide for people shots, by that I mean too wide for portraits. The perspective is wrong. It's great for what I'd call reportage though - shots of groups of people doing what they do.

 

If you want to make beautiful photos of family and friends with a small, friendly and non-alarming lens, then you will not go wrong with the 50/2. If you want to scare people, point a Noctilux or a 75/1.4 at them.

[lars_bergquist]

Perspective wrong? All camera lenses, excepting fisheyes, share the exact same perspective: The rectilinear 'central perspective' practiced by Quattrocento Renaissance painters, like Uccello, and ever since until about 1900 (se below). Different focal lengths do only crop different size rectangles out of this perspective.

 

This has been repeated ad nauseam ever since 1931 (when Leitz introduced interchangeable lenses for their Leica camera, including -- yes! -- 3.5cm) but apparently not enough. If you take pictures of the same subject from the same point with a 18 and a 135mm lens, both will share the identical perspective, i.e. the geometrical relations between the objects in the subject (pardon me) will be identical. The 18mm will take in more 'subject objects' of course, but that is all.

 

What you are saying is that if you wade in, pushing a 35mm lens into somebody's face trying to make a head-and-shoulders, perspective will be strange -- because you are closer than normal! The fault is not with the lense's perspective, but with your perspective. Are you married? Have you ever tried observing your wife closely while kissing her? She's got a pretty Picasso-ish face, hasn't she? She would like having a portrait of that face, would she? No. Close your eyes while kissing.

 

The old man who keeps the lights on