Regarding the 50/1.4 R - buying decision

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In common with other Leica collectors, I have probably paid far too much attention to all the MTF data and performance reports documented in the Leica Pocket Books - and have thus previously dismissed what appear to be less than stellar performing lenses. One such lens so far 'dismissed' was the first version 50mm Summilux R; the performance is documented in the Pocket Book as " ... wide open contrast is low and there is a slight tendency to flare ... ". The MTF graph curves are widely spaced at full aperture and thus confirm the 'low contrast'.

 

However, when compared to eg the 50mm Summilux M, the curves are not so bad; my own 50/1.4 M is very usable at full aperture - so the 50/1.4 R should be usable too. And even if the image contrast is 'low' that is easily remedied when used digitally.

 

Furthermore, James Lager in 'An Illustrated History - Volume 2 - Lenses' writes a very different and glowing assessment of the lens, e.g. "Flare and coma are almost completely eliminated and definition and contrast are high at full aperture".

 

Long story short my opinion of the Mk I 50mm Summilux R lens has improved of late ... as have my opinions of other Leitz/Leica lenses with not so perfect MTF curves. I now realise that MTF curves are not the 'be all and end all' ... and that I need to broaden my ideas about what exactly constitutes a good lens.

 

Part of my previous prejudice resulted from looking at eg the MTF data for the Leica 280/4 Apo Telyt R ... i.e. top of the graph parallel straight line "curves" showing minimal divergence. I have this lens .. but also own the 400mm and 560mm Telyt R lenses. The ancient Telyt R MTF curves look disastrous compared to the 280/4 - but I know both my Telyt R lenses perform admirably - especially on 4/3 format where the FF edge resolution is unimportant.

 

Following my reassessment of the 50mm Summilux R, I decided to try and buy one. However, sourcing them at good prices is another matter as they are scarce and expensive. Strangely, the more scarce olive green Safari model complete with the Safari R3 can be a cheaper buy than the lens sans camera. The second version of the Mk I 50mm 'lux R appears to be optically identical to the original first version - but it might have revised lens coatings - and it has an E55 filter thread rather than Series VII . The 1998 MK II 50mm Summilux R ( as distinct from the second version of the Mk I ) also has less than stellar 'open aperture' MTF curves - but it was and is a state of the art optic ... and prices (if you can find one ) are far in excess of the Mk I versions.

 

I preferred to try and source a MK I 'first version' rather than the 'second version' - or the astronomically priced Mk II - because I already have a triple cam 'first version' 50mm Summicron R and both are of similar shape. Browsing through dealers' listings over the last few weeks revealed just two first version 50mm Summilux lenses - both at higher prices than anticipated. However, given that they appear to have been 'stuck on the shelf' for more than a few weeks they are maybe 'overpriced'.

 

Broadening my search finally identified an R3 complete with box and instructions fitted with a first version 50 mm Summilux R c/w caps and hood. Furthermore, the whole package was priced at less than each of the 'stuck on shelf' examples. A phone call to the dealer confirmed that the lens optics are fine and the camera has no 'issues' - so I bit the bullet.

 

Today the package arrived and both the camera and lens are in excellent condition.

 

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!

 

 

 

 

I am immediately struck by the build quality of the 50mm Summilux R. I have other makes of 50/1.4 SLR lenses and none compare build-wise. I'd always dismissed the R3 camera too - thinking that it is 'just a modified Minolta XE-1'. But it's a very well made camera and the XE-1 was and is a very fine camera too - probably only surpassed by the Minolta XM. Unlike my R4-S 2 the R3 does not have 'sticky foam' ( I must remedy that soon), has a lot more 'heft', and promises to be a pleasure to use.

 

So far so good.

 

Maybe I'll investigate an 80mm Summilux R next.

 

Best wishes

 

dunk

[Advertisement]

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

[TomB_tx]

Enjoy the setup! I lusted (luxted?) after the 1.4 after getting an SL and 2-cam Summicron in 1969, and later a new R4 and updated Summicron. (The original was quite flare - or internal reflection - prone.) Then a few years ago somehow ended up with both the V1 and V2 Summilux-R lenses with and R6. I agree the mechanical build of the V1 is very appealing, but in use I think the V2 handles better.

Overall, however, as I use both the Summilux and Summicron Rs, it's the Summicron images that grab me more. I tended to hit focus better with the Summicron, even when the Summilux is at the same aperture. I finally changed the R6 screen to a plain matte screen, and it helps focusing with the Summilux. (It may also be that the 1.4 has more focus-shift than the 2.0 lens.)

[farnz]

... (It may also be that the 1.4 has more focus-shift than the 2.0 lens.)

Tom,

 

Since you're viewing and focussing through the lens, why would focus shift cause a problem with an SLR camera?

 

Pete.

[TomB_tx]

Since you're viewing and focussing through the lens, why would focus shift cause a problem with an SLR camera?

Pete: Because most fast lenses shift the plane of focus (towards back-focus) as they stop down, and normally with an SLR you focus wide open, then shoot with the lens stopped down appropriately. Unless you use the DOF preview lever you don't see the subject with the lens at "taking" aperture, only with the lens wide open.

Of course, as the aperture closes the DOF increases, and that usually is enough to cover the amount of focus shift - but the sharpest plane may still be something other than you planned. I haven't tested my -R lenses to see the amount of focus shift, as I don't yet have a digital body for them; but the M Summilux v1 does shift some, as do the M Summicrons prior to the new ASPH version. The shift is usually not enough to worry about - but it is there.

Actually, my 70s M lenses show most accurate focus at about f2.8, with slight front-focus wide open, and slight back-focus stopped farther down. That's a common way to compensate rangefinder lenses so the inherent shift isn't all "one-sided" - and it works pretty well. But SLR lenses can't do the same because you set sharp focus wide open.

I believe the standard focus screen in the R models has been my main problem focusing the Summilux Rs - as the Summicron R shows a clearer sharp focus point.

I'm planning to try my R-lenses Leitaxed on a D600, and if so I'll try to measure the amount of shift just to see if that is part of the issue.

[jc_braconi]

So far so good.

 

Maybe I'll investigate an 80mm Summilux R next.

 

Best wishes

 

dunk

 

Dunk, I own the 3 R Summiluxes (s/n over 3 xxx xxx) and I can assure You that there are astonishing lenses.

[farnz]

Tom,

 

Of course and thanks for the explanation, which I had forgotten after so long. Despite having used SLRs for many years, this is what becomes of one after shooting stopped-down lenses with LiveView for too long.

 

Pete.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now after buying the Mk I 'first version' , a Mk I 'second version' has surfaced at another dealer cheaper than the Mk I 'first version' that I bought.

 

dunk

[dkCambridgeshire]

Now after buying the Mk I 'first version' , a Mk I 'second version' has surfaced at another dealer cheaper than the Mk I 'first version' that I bought.

 

dunk

 

And it 'sold' within a few hours ... someone has a bargain ... was it bought by a forum member?

 

dunk