50mm Summarit f/1.5 or 50mm Summilux f/1.4

[ezc203]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am presented with a very tough decision. Here's the story:

 

I have always wanted to buy a older/faster 50mm to add to my lens range. So what I want is an older 50mm lens that has that "classic look" to it.

 

Recently I've been presented with the opportunity to purchase a 1950 Summarit f/1.5 or 1959 Summilux f/1.4 at about the same price. Which one should I go with for that "classic", softer, look?

 

Can the members with experiences with either of the lenses shed some light on the topic?

 

Or if it was you, which one would you go for?

 

Any and all comments will be greatly appreciated. And thank you in advance!

[ns_ng]

Hi Eddie,

 

I used the 50 Summarit with my M3 back in my film days in the '70s. This lens is soft wide open with low contrast and tends to flare under very strong and bright light. Things do improve when stopped down to f5.6 when it is reasonably sharp, but contrast is still low by modern standards. Bear in mind this lens is the same as the pre-war, 50mm f1.5 Xenon, except it is coated.

 

I have the later version of the 50 Summilux, but with R mount. This is a much better lens than the 50 Summarit.

 

N.S. Ng

[Advertisement]

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

[lars_bergquist]

Bear in mind that the Summilux was re-designed in the winter of 1961-62; the new design was phased in from serial no. 1,844,001. This new design was vastly better than the original 1959 Summilux, which was just a slightly recomputed Summitar/Xenon. This design lived on until 2004, the absolute Leica record.

 

The v.2 had higher contrast and better definition, especially centrally. Its most striking improvement however was is vastly better resistance to flare and reflections -- better than the current Summicron, in fact. It was and is a lovely lens, with a 'period' touch in its drawing, and unless you are a flare masochist, you would love this lens too. The choice between the Summitar and the v.1 Summicron is really moot.

 

The R-Summilux did not appear until 1970, in its first version (until 1998). Its performance is about equal to the v.2 Summilux-M. Its optical layout is not identical, however.

 

The old man from the Age Before Nearly Everything

[delander †]

If you buy a 1950s summarit make sure that it is free from fog and other problems. Shine a torch into the lens etc.

 

I have this lens in screw mount. It is a low contrast lens if that is what you are looking for. I would think a 1960s summilux would be a better buy.

 

Jeff

[tobey bilek]

I can only tell you my experience. I purchased a very clean 1.5 for my collection. While not sharp like a new lens, it has the period look and speed I wanted.

 

Several years ago I found a like new 1959 ~lux and compared the two in the store. Performance was similar centrally, the old 1.5 won by a small margin on the edges. Contrast was the same. I did not buy it.

 

I have tried numerous v2 `Lux lenses. They all had the worst barrel distortion of any 50 mm I ever used born out by writings of Leica authors. None ever got really sharp until f8.

The other thing that changed was the central sharpness was reduced while the edges were improved over Version 1

 

A Summicron is a far better lens.

 

Consequently I have never upgraded.

 

For the average user, I would say get a Summicron or the new 50 1.4 which is very costly and heavy, buy has nearly perfect performance. Probably the best 50 I have ever used.

 

If you don`t need speed, the last 50 2.8 elmar recently discontinues is a fine lens and equals the new 1.4 srarting at 4.0. It is my go to lens most always.