Jump to content

Summicron rigid 50mm version II


IWC Doppel

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been reading about this lens and chatting to a friend looking to get started on the M journey. I thought the non DR early rigid 1956-1968 was circa £600-800 and so long as you avoided marks on the softer than usual glass they were a great lens.

 

Looking at the MTF's and reports I have become more interested as well. Can anyone help with pricing (I have seen over £1k for some), characteristics vs MkIV and tips

 

I understand they have has different coatings as well.

 

I will try not to get tempted as my small 50 Elmar-M and Summilux pre asph MkII make a great combination !

 

Tks

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The contrast is a bit lower than the elmar M which is a very good lens, at least mine is.

 

I will keep my rigid as it is a mint sample in matt chrome finish and looks great on the chrome M9P.

 

As the M9 is fairly new, I have done limited pics with the combo preferring the Elmar M 2.8, but it was the first lens I put on the camera. The lens has nice detail rendering at lowish contrast, low only for Leica, not in general. It can always be raised in post. Detail can not be added.

 

Neither my DR or Rigid were stellar performers at F2 at F 2 on film, therefore I conclude digital will not be there either. Both are mint samples never been opened. By 2.8, it was the same as the older Elmar 2.8 which is not as good as the Elmar M 2.8. By 4 or 5.6, they of kind of equalize, all of them.

 

The best way to describe it is a classic kind of Leica look.

 

The current mark 4 has way more contrast and and is sharper almost to the very corners at 2.0. The Rigid/DR sharpness at 2.0 is limited to perhaps a 15 mm dia circle in the center of the field. Erwin Putts reports will confirm my findings.

 

I never found a sample of the per ASPH Mk 2 Summilux that I liked. All had nasty distortion of straight lines and did not fully sharpen to f 8. The best feature is flare and coma resistance for low light work with lights on the image. My opinion is the first version of the Lux is better suited to me. Many will disagree on this lens.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The contrast is a bit lower than the elmar M which is a very good lens, at least mine is.

 

I will keep my rigid as it is a mint sample in matt chrome finish and looks great on the chrome M9P.

 

As the M9 is fairly new, I have done limited pics with the combo preferring the Elmar M 2.8, but it was the first lens I put on the camera. The lens has nice detail rendering at lowish contrast, low only for Leica, not in general. It can always be raised in post. Detail can not be added.

 

Neither my DR or Rigid were stellar performers at F2 at F 2 on film, therefore I conclude digital will not be there either. Both are mint samples never been opened. By 2.8, it was the same as the older Elmar 2.8 which is not as good as the Elmar M 2.8. By 4 or 5.6, they of kind of equalize, all of them.

 

The best way to describe it is a classic kind of Leica look.

 

The current mark 4 has way more contrast and and is sharper almost to the very corners at 2.0. The Rigid/DR sharpness at 2.0 is limited to perhaps a 15 mm dia circle in the center of the field. Erwin Putts reports will confirm my findings.

 

I never found a sample of the per ASPH Mk 2 Summilux that I liked. All had nasty distortion of straight lines and did not fully sharpen to f 8. The best feature is flare and coma resistance for low light work with lights on the image. My opinion is the first version of the Lux is better suited to me. Many will disagree on this lens.

 

I'm afraid I disagree. My copy of the rigid is tack sharp at f2.0. Here's the prove:

 

6960827036_6007371329_b.jpg

  • Like 19
Link to post
Share on other sites

Read again. I said the image center was sharp, 12/15 mm circle. Putts says the very same thing. Your pic only shows center focus.

 

Do a brick wall a then repost. Look outside the center area. You can mount the optical section on an enlarger and see the same thing. It makes a decent 16X or larger enlarging lens if you allow the negative to curve, ie no glass carrier. The 1969 version is better though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From taking the first Rigid Summicron apart, I'm convinved that the design was slightly modified during production. The later Rigid Summicron 7 element in 5 group that I took apart had slightly larger optics that those from the 1950s. I think around SN 19x or so? It's Been a while. I did not like the 1960s 6 element in 5 group as much as the earlier lens.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From taking the first Rigid Summicron apart, I'm convinved that the design was slightly modified during production. The later Rigid Summicron 7 element in 5 group that I took apart had slightly larger optics that those from the 1950s. I think around SN 19x or so? It's Been a while. I did not like the 1960s 6 element in 5 group as much as the earlier lens.

 

Very interesting Brian. What do you mean by not liking "the 1960s 6 element in 5 group as much as the earlier lens" - IQ or design or?

 

Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 1960s 6-element, 5-group: more contrast than the older lens, and I am biased towards "center-sharp". Hard to put into words. The 1960s lens gives a beautiful image, but different from the "golden-age" Leica rangefinder lenses. The build-quality of the 1st type Rigid Summicron is amazing. Elements are in perfectly tight, perfectly aligned. This was the first Leica lens designed with the aid of a computer. I've taken a couple apart. "In awe of the mechanical precision"

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I'm resurrecting this old thread to help clarify matters; I'm at a loss to identify when the Rigid v.I serial #'s goes to v.II. Is there actually any optical difference between the two?

 

Seems some have dual meter/feet measurements engraved while others are only feet; some are engraved 5cm while others 50mm. Also, the later one has the ridges in the scalloped ring in the opposite positions (along the indentation rather than the ridge). I'm a bit unclear how to properly distinguish the two.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Dual Range Summicron/Rigid lenses ((Nos. 11318/11118), are excellent — the reduction in contrast is mainly "in the field" and only at f/2.0 — at least according to an old article that used to be available online by Seth Rosner in the LHSA magazine, Viewfinder.

 

Rosner disagrees with Erwin Puts: the DR Summicorn has, it seems, better resolution than all the Summicron-50s, except the latest ASPH. In any case, I prefer how the DR Summicron renders compared to the latest pre-ASPH version. The build quality is the best I have seen: simply amazing.

 

 

 

M-Monochrom | DR Summicron | ISO 320 | f/4.0 | 1/180 sec

16184249717_10f95e84e7_o.jpg

Bangkok

 

 

 

 

M-Monochrom | DR Summicron | ISO 320 | f/4.0 | 1/250 sec

16244695499_07a443c3bc_o.jpg

Bangkok

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will pose the question again for anyone out there able to shed light.

 

I'm resurrecting this old thread to help clarify matters; I'm at a loss to identify when the Rigid v.I serial #'s goes to v.II. Is there actually any optical difference between the two?

 

Seems some have dual meter/feet measurements engraved while others are only feet; some are engraved 5cm while others 50mm. Also, the later one has the ridges in the scalloped ring in the opposite positions (along the indentation rather than the ridge). I'm a bit unclear how to properly distinguish the two.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will pose the question again for anyone out there able to shed light.

 

I'm resurrecting this old thread to help clarify matters; I'm at a loss to identify when the Rigid v.I serial #'s goes to v.II. Is there actually any optical difference between the two?

 

Seems some have dual meter/feet measurements engraved while others are only feet; some are engraved 5cm while others 50mm. Also, the later one has the ridges in the scalloped ring in the opposite positions (along the indentation rather than the ridge). I'm a bit unclear how to properly distinguish the two.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Summicron_(II)_f%3D_5_cm_1:2

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Summicron_(I)_f%3D_5_cm_1:2

Link to post
Share on other sites

50 Summicron M:

 

V. 1 (collapsible) '54-57

V. II rigid (small scalloped focusing ring) '56-59

V. II rigid (large scalloped focusing ring) '60-69

V. II rigid DR '56-70

V. III fine ribbed focusing ring, no tab '69-79

V. IV tabbed with no ridges on focus ring '80-95

V. IV no tab, built in hood '95-present

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.

 

Of course there were changes to the lens coatings of V. II over the years.

 

Interesting. I was under the (mis)impression that the later Rigids carried a somewhat different optical formula that set it apart from the earlier, narrow focusing-ring version. A friend of mine who owns a particularly pristine copy with the narrow focus ring, insisted his was a v. II; I thought that v. II meant the second version of this same Rigid engraved with both meters & feet. I've never seen one of these before without some mark on the front element. Guess I mocked him needlessly...:o

Edited by james.liam
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss to identify when the Rigid v.I serial #'s goes to v.II. Is there actually any optical difference between the two?

According to camerarepair.com (dead link), « In 1957 Leitz/Leica introduced less than universally recognized but highly significant subtle changes to the original 7/6 (see our discussion of he screw mount version for why we do not call it a 7/4 as other sources do) formulation. To casual observation the 1957 embodiment looks unchanged but both glass curvature and glass composition formulation were altered significantly resulting in measurably better optical results. »

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...
On 2/17/2015 at 5:36 PM, a911s said:

50 Summicron M:

 

V. 1 (collapsible) '54-57

V. II rigid (small scalloped focusing ring) '56-59

V. II rigid (large scalloped focusing ring) '60-69

V. II rigid DR '56-70

V. III fine ribbed focusing ring, no tab '69-79

V. IV tabbed with no ridges on focus ring '80-95

V. IV no tab, built in hood '95-present

so the WIKI page on the 50 Summicron M (II) is showing, and referring to, a Mark III from  '69-'79 ?

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Summicron_(II)_f%3D_5_cm_1:2

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jpattison said:

so the WIKI page on the 50 Summicron M (II) is showing, and referring to, a Mark III from  '69-'79 ?

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Summicron_(II)_f%3D_5_cm_1:2

John

Yes, John.

Here's a comparison photo showing versions 1 - 5 courtesy of Mr. Rockwell's site;

https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-summicron-comparison-table.htm

Philip.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...