Leica newbie - disappointed in rigid Summicron 50 sharpness

[guernate]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

After many years, I finally gave in and bought an M3 with the 50mm rigid Summicron and at the same time, an Elmar-C 90 mm.

The camera is everything I hoped it would be - a real delight to use (and so is the M6 I bought since!), but I have been disappointed from the start with the Summicron, which produces images very much on the 'soft' side.

From what I've read, this seems like heresy , but the one I have certainly isn't as sharp as the Elmar.

I've attached some 'test' shots, all at closest focus, taken on a tripod with a cable release. The images are cropped to about the central 'half' of the frame. They represent the Summicron at F4; Summicron at F2 and the Elmar at F4.

 

Any ideas on whether this is just normal for this version or if there could be an issue with this specific example?

 

Thanks,

 

Denis

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!

[M. Valdemar]

What are you trying to illustrate with those photos?

 

What is the sharpness at infinity?

 

Have you shot the lens on the M6 also? Is focus good against a known accurate lens?

 

If you look through lens with strong LED flashlight, any haze, cloudiness, etc?

 

PS: Lenses don't have "issues", they have "problems".

[Advertisement]

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

[tobey bilek]

If you are looking for sharp at 2.0 across the frame, then the current model is the only choice. The 1969 version is a fairly close second.

 

The technology for 2.0 did not exist in 1950. With each generation, the circle of sharp definition at 2.0 increased in size. DR and Rigids have actually rather small circles, same lens, different mount to keep things simple.

 

There are two versions of rigid, one with hard chrome and narrow focus grip and later with satin chrome and wide grip. The later is improved again.

 

A document at 45 degrees is a poor way to test a lens, ok as a focus test.

 

Then you have to consider the lens is 50+ years old and who knows what incompetent service it has had or if it needs service now. Shine a pen light or better yet keychain light thru it and look for fog on the elements. If not crystal clear, it will not work as intended. Do not believe a little fog causes no problem. Holding it to a large light will not real minor problems.

 

While great for nostalgia, they are not great lenses by todays standards. They should be quite nice at 4 or 5.6 to 11 however.

[guernate]

As my post suggests, I'm trying to illustrate the relative lack of sharpness of the Summicron compared to the Elmar.

This applies to all subject distances and to the M6 as well as the M3.

No haze, no cloudiness, a few dust specs.

To me, the Elmar is acceptably sharp, but the Summicron is disappointing.

[guernate]

If you are looking for sharp at 2.0 across the frame, then the current model is the only choice. The 1969 version is a fairly close second.

 

The technology for 2.0 did not exist in 1950. With each generation, the circle of sharp definition at 2.0 increased in size. DR and Rigids have actually rather small circles, same lens, different mount to keep things simple.

 

There are two versions of rigid, one with hard chrome and narrow focus grip and later with satin chrome and wide grip. The later is improved again.

 

A document at 45 degrees is a poor way to test a lens, ok as a focus test.

 

Then you have to consider the lens is 50+ years old and who knows what incompetent service it has had or if it needs service now. Shine a pen light or better yet keychain light thru it and look for fog on the elements. If not crystal clear, it will not work as intended. Do not believe a little fog causes no problem. Holding it to a large light will not real minor problems.

 

While great for nostalgia, they are not great lenses by todays standards. They should be quite nice at 4 or 5.6 to 11 however.

 

Thanks for this. The lens seems very clean throughout, and is the version below.

I appreciate your observations about older lenses, but I guess I'm still surprised that the 1958 Summicron at F4 is markedly less sharp than the Elmar C at F4. It's probably just my expectations being too high...

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!

Edited May 29, 2011 by guernate
Oops - forgot the attachment

[a.noctilux]

At that time, lens were created to take "real photographs" in "real life" 3D, not just what you show from your samples.

Modern lens will be better (if that's what you are searching) for that exercises of sharpness.

 

Go and take "real life photographs" and you will see that sharpness is not all in a pleasant picture.

 

Arnaud

[spydrxx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If "sharpness" of test targets is your criteria for a lens and you don't like what you see in your present lens, sell it and get a current model, it renders quite differently. Personally I like the renderings of both...but subject matter drives which one I would use. FWIW I keep on hand both a current one and a collapsible one from the 1950s giving me choices in how I want the final product to come out.

[lct]

Not sure if the current Summicron would give better results at f/2. I would quit using those 45° things and take real images if i were you.

[wda]

I bought a similar version to the one shown in 1966 and still use it on my digital Ms. However, for more critical work, I recently bought (2010) a current version which is superb. I retained the older lens because it is lovely for portraits and dreamy landscapes. Used on film you will get rather different results to those from digital capture.

[01af]

It's a very bad idea to compare two lenses' sharpness at close-up distance.

[Xmas]

Hi

 

The type II is an antique, would you try and race a '58 roadster against a modern one, if you want sharp at f/2 you need an asph lux, there is a queue, and there is a need for more $.

 

Lots of people took photos with a type II. Beware the MTFitis...

 

Noel

[250swb]

It's probably just my expectations being too high...

 

There are so many variables in your test that any result is unquantifiable. I often feel that when people test lenses for themselves a large amount of simplification creeps in, the main one being the comparison of contrast versus sharpness. They are not the same thing, but contrast markedly accounts for a good proportion of what people take to be sharpness. And in the period between your Summicron and the Elmar C Leica embarked on a period of re-design that involved a marked increase in contrast of its lenses. The Summicron III of the late 1960's is much more contrasty compared to the II for example. So I think you are trying to test two design philosophies against the moveable goalposts of film. For instance, a different film in your camera may move those goalposts the other way, something more contrasty (or the same developed with the idea of making the mid-tones more contrasty) may make your Summicron II appear much sharper, and perhaps even make your Elmar C appear a little crude and unrefined.

 

The best solution is not to micro manage these differences in lenses but use them equally and just accept the small foibles.

 

Steve

Edited May 30, 2011 by 250swb

[jaapv]

"sharpness" is a highly subjective and undefined factor. In this case I strongly suspect that the impression of "not sharp" is because of the low contrast in the images.There does not seem to be much wrong with the resolution of the lens, in so far as one can tell on scanned film images reproduced on the computer. Heed Steve's post. Either the scanning technique or the postprocessing of the scans is suboptimal. I would suggest working on that aspect first.

Edited May 30, 2011 by jaapv

[guernate]

There are so many variables in your test that any result is unquantifiable. I often feel that when people test lenses for themselves a large amount of simplification creeps in, the main one being the comparison of contrast versus sharpness. They are not the same thing, but contrast markedly accounts for a good proportion of what people take to be sharpness. And in the period between your Summicron and the Elmar C Leica embarked on a period of re-design that involved a marked increase in contrast of its lenses. The Summicron III of the late 1960's is much more contrasty compared to the II for example. So I think you are trying to test two design philosophies against the moveable goalposts of film. For instance, a different film in your camera may move those goalposts the other way, something more contrasty (or the same developed with the idea of making the mid-tones more contrasty) may make your Summicron II appear much sharper, and perhaps even make your Elmar C appear a little crude and unrefined.

 

The best solution is not to micro manage these differences in lenses but use them equally and just accept the small foibles.

 

Steve

 

Thanks Steve, this is very helpful. I think the difference in contrast is the key here. I am used to much more modern lenses and hadn't appreciated how much 'softer' this lens would be. The feedback on this thread all suggests that what I am seeing is characteristic of this lens model / vintage, rather than some specific problem.

 

Good news - I can stop worrying about it and enjoy using it instead!

[guernate]

"sharpness" is a highly subjective and undefined factor. In this case I strongly suspect that the impression of "not sharp" is because of the low contrast in the images.There does not seem to be much wrong with the resolution of the lens, in so far as one can tell on scanned film images reproduced on the computer. Heed Steve's post. Either the scanning technique or the postprocessing of the scans is suboptimal. I would suggest working on that aspect first.

 

Thanks, Jaap. 'Suboptimal' is a very polite way of describing the results of my film scanning so far. I know I have a LOT of work to do in this area....

 

Denis

[budrichard]

I have had and used a DR Summicron 50 for many many years, mostly using it at f2.0 at night with HS Ecktachrome Type B at night on an M3. Great lens!

About 15 years ago I acquired a 35mm Lux ASPH with an M6, great lens, used a lot at 1.4 but I never put the two side by side with the same images but judged the lenses on the pictures they provided.

I think using the lenses to take pictures is Photography, comparing the lenses is Testing, something I have no interest in but I do realize that many others do have an interest in Testing.

Since I have/had a correct set of lenses for the M3 and acquired an analogous set for the M6 and now M7's, the best I did once was to use them on the M6 in a series of side by side comparisons using the now defunct K25/K64. Under 5x mag. I could not detect any differences in resolution and contrast. I'm sure if I used the appropriate testing subject matter, i would discern differences but what would that do for me?-Dick

[tobey bilek]

what you have is version 2 of the rigid like mine. 4.0 is decently sharp on mine.

 

Use a real world subject remembering lenses are made for distance , not close work. If you were to use it for close range on focoslide or enlarger it must be stopped down further.

 

The next version was much better in close range and is a great enlarging lens for very large prints, not small prints. Your version is noticeably inferior even stopped down for large or small prints.

[Mountaineer-American]

I was a newbie in 1962 when I received my 1st 35mm camera for Christmas (Tower 10B). The geezer gave me some good advice. It is still good advice. He said there are 2 things that affect the sharpness of photographs more than the equipment you use. I reckon few of us are as good as our equipment.

 

"Focus correctly & hold the damn thing still," said the geezer.

[Ecar]

To add to what's been said before, I'd argue that images taken with old low-contrast lenses sometimes offer more tweaking latitude in post-processing - with more tonal gradations to start with - than modern, high-contrast glass.

In other words, unless you need/want to keep computer time to an absolute minimum, you may also want to look at applying post-processing differently to increase contrast/perceived sharpness, while taking advantage of more subtle tones. The same would apply (although trial and error is bound to be more costly and time-consuming, and somewhat more unpredictable) if you are using a purely traditional developing and printing process.

FWIW, I'm very happy with the results I get after some work in LR/PS from my 1955 collapsible Summicron on the M9, although the out-of-the-camera files are definitely lower-contrast and look less sharp than those taken with the Summilux ASPH.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[k-hawinkler]

Denis,

 

Here is my experience with a 50 rigid Summicron

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/181865-1956-50-2-1959-90-2-a.html

 

Best, K-H.