Tab-less 50mm Summicron

[aymoon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

I was just doing my usual perusal of the current leica lens range, and wondered why the 50/2 doesn't have a tab when the 50 lux & summarit do, as well as all the 35s and 28s??? It seems to be the odd one out.

 

Is there a reason for this or is it just an older design compared to the other models?

[tdtaylor]

Actually, it is not an older design, I have the latest Cron ASPH with the slide out hood, which I believe is newer than many of the other models, and it doesn't have one- had one added locally.

[Runkel]

Just to be clear, the current 50mm summicron is an older optical design than all of the other lenses that you refer to in the current lens range, and there is no 50mm summicron ASPH. I believe the 50mm summicron is the oldest optical design in the current range of M lenses.

 

The original barrel design of this lens did have a focus tab (1979-1994). The barrel was redesigned with a built-in hood and no focus tab (1994-present).

[topoxforddoc]

Mind you, even if it's old, it's a great lens.

[aymoon]

I can vouch for the quality of that lens too, as it's the only Leica M lens I've owned in the past and I loved it! Still, I wonder about the tab business... why would they leave it out of the barrel re-design? I doubt it would interfere with the hood mechanism.

 

A temporary moment of insanity??

[250swb]

You don't need a tab on the latest 50mm Summicron, the lens is the slickest focusing that Leica make (or should be), so you don't need the extra leverage that a tab gives. It really is one finger and almost no pressure to go from near to far focus.

 

Steve

 

edit: the 50mm Elmar is nearly as slick, and that doesn't have, or need, a tab either.

[aymoon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey Steve, i agree that the focusing ring is slick, but i wouldn't want the tab for leverage. I'd use it for pre-focusing. ie. Setting the focus before raising the camera to my eye to compose and take a picture. With the tab you can do that whilst keeping your eyes on the subject and not on the camera.

[Fotomiguel]

No tab for the 50mm cron, please!

For me the tab is just fine for wide lenses. With the 50 you have to be quick focusing through the viewfinder and just the ring makes it very quick. Wide angle lenses you can focus just metering the distance with your eyes without the viewfinder. The tab for wide lenses is quicker.

[el.nino]

just get the tabbed previous version - the one with the external vented hood.

the optical formula is exactly the same and so is the optical performance.

[lars_bergquist]

Leicathink seems to be that if the focusing ring is below a certain minimum depth, there should be a tab, because otherwise, it is difficult to get a grip on it. See e.g. the current 28mm Elmarit ASPH and ditto 35 and 50mm Summarit lenses.

 

Add to that the whims of mount designers, sales people etc. ... I do not think that there ever was a hard and fast rule.

 

The old man with the tabby lenses

[wda]

Just to be clear, .....

 

The original barrel design of this lens did have a focus tab (1979-1994). The barrel was redesigned with a built-in hood and no focus tab (1994-present).

 

I have an early 50mm Summicron model from 1966 and it has an early tab, not so streamlined as later tabs. I do miss it on my latest version. The focusing ring is narrower than on my older one.

[lct]

The previous Summicron 50 is tiny and needs a tab really. The current one is slightly longer but its focussing ring is not large enough to fit a tab i guess. Not sure though.

[aymoon]

All very interesting observations, thanks.

 

I didn't miss the tab when I had my old 50 cron, as I'd never used a tab before then. Now that I've tried it, I can't imagine using a leica without one. I'd prefer the new 50 lux, which has a tab, but also seems to be MIA.

 

Is the older 50 cron (79-94) genuinely optically identical to the new one? What about lens coatings etc. Or, would it be better to have a tab retro-fitted to a newer one?

 

NB: This is for general interest only. In all honesty, I will probably hold out for a new 50 lux if I can. I'd just like to know your opinions on these things and who knows, I may change my mind

[lct]

...Is the older 50 cron (79-94) genuinely optically identical to the new one? What about lens coatings etc...

I have no experience of the current lens sorry but the 79-94 (in fact 78-94, mine is from 78) is said to be identical. Now different coatings may change things more or less about flare and bokeh. I seem to recall that we've got discussions about this here, you might wish to do a search on the forum.

[aymoon]

Search is usually my friend but couldn't find what I wanted here. I had a look in the Leica document written by Erwin Puts, Leica M Lenses - Their Soul and Secrets. Whilst it was written in 2002, it only compares the 1969 version with the 1979 version, with nothing mentioned for 1994. The 1979 version is called the current lens, so I guess it's correct to say that the optical design has not changed since '79. To quote a part of the review:

 

The 1969 version of the Summicron 50mm lens has about the same center performance as the current (1979) version. In the field however, the 1969 design has quite low edge contrast. On stopping down the field does not improve much. Extremely fine details are markedly lacking over most of the field.

[lars_bergquist]

Search is usually my friend but couldn't find what I wanted here. I had a look in the Leica document written by Erwin Puts, Leica M Lenses - Their Soul and Secrets. Whilst it was written in 2002, it only compares the 1969 version with the 1979 version, with nothing mentioned for 1994. The 1979 version is called the current lens, so I guess it's correct to say that the optical design has not changed since '79. To quote a part of the review:

 

That is correct, the optical design has not changed, only the mount.

 

The old man from the days of Walter Mandler

[Clandrel]

I know a guy who just visited the leica factory and asked them why they didn't make a new 50mm Summicron ASPH and they replied:

 

They had no problem making one (and the engineers had even made a prototype) but the price was the problem. It would probably be as expensive as the 50 Summilux, so they didn't think it was a point making it, since most would buy the lux when equally priced.

 

They also said that they were really dissapointed wiht the Summarit sales, and thought the reason was they'd given it a wrong name. They have more than 100% more 50 lux sales than the 50 Summarit.

[aesop]

...<snip>They also said that they were really dissapointed wiht the Summarit sales, and thought the reason was they'd given it a wrong name. They have more than 100% more 50 lux sales than the 50 Summarit.

 

 

...just saw this, Clandrel.

 

Not entirely sure why the folks at Leica are disappointed at the poor sales of a range of lenses which they pitched as perhaps less Leica-esque (in cost and quality?) than your standard Leica fare. They should know their customers by now. Consider this excerpt from the Summarit marketing bumph:

 

"

By consistently concentrating on the fundamentals, the Summarit lenses allow photographers to achieve the best possible results with either our digital or analogue M cameras. The ever more sensitive film materials and image sensors, the consistent starting aperture of f/2.5 and the adoption of a newly developed and optimised spherical design enables the lens's compactness.

In addition it ensures excellent picture quality at an unusually good price/performance ratio

.

"

 

Huh? Unusually good price/performance ratio? As opposed to what? Or perhaps I just don't get it.

 

I have no idea what sort of research resulted in the Summarit range but sometimes, customers simply want the best possible product and are prepared to pay a premium for that privilege. Optically, the Summarits may be just as good as the Summicrons and Summiluxes (albeit slower), but the pitch and pricing leads to questions.

 

I consider Summicrons the "standard" for speed, and if I need more, I would consider Summiluxes or (gulp) a Noctilux. So exactly where does the Summarit fit in? Optically capable, but knowingly slowed or dumbed down, with cost as the main driver? Were there any compromises in the build or materials used? Too many questions. It is certainly not for me - I would rather feel the pain and get a Summicron or a faster lens.

 

There is such a thing as "reassuringly expensive" and personally, I buy into that. None of that dumbed-down nonsense for me. End of rant.

[j. borger]

They also said that they were really dissapointed wiht the Summarit sales, and thought the reason was they'd given it a wrong name. They have more than 100% more 50 lux sales than the 50 Summarit.

 

A marketing miscalculation.

They should know their customer base. For the average loyal Leica user only the "best is barely good enough".

For people who want the RF experience and do not want or can not pay Leica prices: the summarits are not cheap enough compared to Voigtlander, Zeiss or 2nd hand Leica offerings.

No matter how good they are: the Summarits do not fit in.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lars_bergquist]

A marketing miscalculation.

They should know their customer base. For the average loyal Leica user only the "best is barely good enough".

For people who want the RF experience and do not want or can not pay Leica prices: the summarits are not cheap enough compared to Voigtlander, Zeiss or 2nd hand Leica offerings.

No matter how good they are: the Summarits do not fit in.

I think Leica have finally realized that they have shot themselves in the foot by retaining the old lens names. When they were re-defined as just 'speed names', not design names, they became redundant. "Summicron-M 1:2" is just tautological. But they were bound to be misunderstood as "quality classes". Leitz/Leica should simply have called the lenses "Leica M Lens" or even "Summicron" over the board, just as some Japanese firms did -- e.g. all Olympus lenses were long called "Zuiko".

 

Considering the self-evident fact that more than fifty percent of all people who buy a Leica M are ignorant fools who are just out for the bling, the outcome was inevitable. (Please note that we should be grateful for the existence of these people. Without them, Leica would not exist.)

 

The old man from the Age When Lotsa People Waved Nikon F Cameras ...