Summicron rigid 50mm version II

[jpattison]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks pippy,

And the version I entry includes version II as well.

Why haven't they been corrected ? 

John

[BradS]

8 hours ago, jpattison said:

Thanks pippy,

And the version I entry includes version II as well.

Why haven't they been corrected ? 

John

 

I've always wondered about this too.

The wiki page also implies that collapsible is constructed of 4 elements in 4 groups...which is obviously incorrect.

The Summicron summary by Ken Rockwell linked above is correct...or at least more correct than the leica wiki page (s)

[Advertisement]

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

[UliWer]

I'd like to restart this old thread to raise the question again, whether there have been two different versions of the well known "rigid" 50mm Summicron.

When it comes to versions of a certain lens type, numbering and naming is often confusing. I propose the following distinction:

• Version I is the collapsible Summicron (SOOIC- with screw mount and SOOIC-M with M-mount) - from 1952-1956.
• Version II is the "rigid" Summicron (first SOOIC-MS, then SOSIC, finally 11818) from 1956 to 1969
• This version has an obvious variant, the dual-range Summicron, which allowed close focus with additional "goggles": SOOIC-MN, SOMNI, 11918).
• Version III is the second non-collapsible 50mm Summicron having a different optical formula by Mandler, introduced in 1969, 11817.

So far everything seems to be clear.

The question I want to ask again though is whether the "rigid" Summicron (version II) was produced with the same optical design during its complete time, or if there have been optical changes. 

Leitz never announced a new version of the lens. As we know from the 50mm Summlux which had a significant change after approx. 3 years of production, which was never announced by Leitz, this must not mean that there were none for the Summicron. Though at the same time as most authors who deal with Leica lenses point out the changes for the Summilux, they don't mention any for the Summicron version II. 

Only Lager (Vol. II Lenses p. 166) gives some explanation, which is ambiguous though: "Both the collapsible and rigid designs use seven elements. Leitz usually used the original 1953-1954 cross sectional diagram even when discussing the 1956 rigid mount lens. In at least two instances, a similar but different diagram was employed. Both diagrams are illustrated; it appears the later design changed the shape of the air lenses in the front two groups. It must be emphasized , the author found no definitive statement from Leitz suggesting this altercation was in fact instituted."

The scenery changes completely if one looks around in the web and especially in this forum: suddenly it seems to be a granted fact that there are two different versions of the rigid Summicron, often called rigid version I and rigid version II.

I quote from another thread: 

"Tried them all, by far the rigid v2 : ) Best body design of all leica lenses (tied with summilux 50mm v1/2 chrome & summilux 35mm v1 steel rim), great rendering! Only downside is 1m minimum focus. ...
V1 Rigid is a bit heavier too and doesn’t look as nice design wise (to my eyes). The rendering also seems to be closer to the collapsible than the V2, it’s definitely softer than the V2." 

 

In this thread there is posting #5 which states approx the same:

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.

Or the dead link to camerarepair.com in#18: "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." 

It is interesting that all statements who are sure about the changes of the optical design differ a lot when it comes to the principal design: does it have 4, 5 or 6 groups of lenses? Is it  the "shape of the air lens" (Lager) which distincts both versions or a slightly larger optics (#5) or the glass curvature (#18) - or all three factors together?

When it comes to the question at which time the "slightly modified" or "significant" change was introduced, the statements become rather vague: Lager doesn't mention the dates of different diagrams published by Leitz. #5 is not sure, but thinks to remember it was around serial no. 19x or so - that would mean about 1962. #18 mentions 1957, which would mean shortly after the lens was first introduced.

Does the altercation of the optics correspond to outer changes for the mount? (The early numbers of the rigid Summicron had only scales in meter or in feet. Later you find both scales on the same lens with feet in red. Lager shows an example of the latter with No. 1786453 from 1960. The knurling of the focussing ring changed as well, though it is not completely clear whether this happened at the same time when both scales were introduced.) The statements which are sure about the optical differences between two versions differ also in this respect:  "V1 Rigid is a bit heavier too and doesn’t look as nice design wise (to my eyes)" - "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." 

"V1 Rigid is a bit heavier too...".  The balance tells me 260g for my 21160xx Summicron, which is certainly a "Version II version 2", if there are two versions. The german Leitz catalogue from 1959 says 285g.  

So after all I feel more confused than before and stay sceptical towards the assumption that there were two optically different versions of the rigid Summicron.

Is there anybody who can shed some more light on this question? Perhaps someone who has a very early item as well as a later one and could show the results from each?  

[lct]

Excerpt of Viewfinder, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2006, page 44 et seq.
Legendary Leica Lenses, The 50mm f/2 “Rigid” Summicron, by Dick Gilcreast
https://tinyurl.com/mpexjyct
« The rigid Summicron underwent one revision during its lifetime, serial numbers placing it sometime in 1960 (its code name by this time was SOSIC). The two versions have different knurling on the focussing rings, so they can be easily distinguished. Leica claims that the optical design itself was not changed, but the image quality of the later version was definitely different compared to the original version. The image at all apertures was more contrasty and “harder” in the later version. There was also perhaps a slight diminution of ultimate resolving power at the largest apertures, but the greater contrast made the images seem sharper because residual flare was reduced. This change was another step in the quest, mentioned above, to make the lenses match the performance of film more closely, rather than going for theoretical resolution alone. If there was no change in formula, then the change was most likely accomplished by different types and application of the coatings on the elements. (...) 
« In the second version of the rigid Summicron after 1960 the new coating further enhanced performance at f/2 and f/2.8. It was most noticeable in reducing flare and increasing contrast at those apertures. Flare was eliminated at f/2.8, and almost eliminated at f/2. And at the smaller apertures contrast continued somewhat higher. The result was a sharper looking photograph, especially at the largest apertures, but with a reduction of some of the smooth gradation of the older lens. Where the first version closely matched Kodachrome I slide film, for instance, the second version closely matched the softer Kodachrome II. (...) »

 

[105012]

From the material I’ve got it looks like a difference in coatings. Otherwise the design is the same, including enlarged 1.52mm air gap ‘lens’ etc… [compared with the SOOIC(-M)].

[UliWer]

Thank you for your interest and especially for the link to "Viewfinder!!

Now we have the fourth theory:

• size of the "air lens"
• size of the lenses
• curvature of the lens(es)
• coating.

Well, changing the coating was frequent at this time, since the producers got more and more experience how to apply it.

When I compare the coatings of a 50mm Summilux from 1958, a rigid 50mm Summicron from 1965 and a 35mm Summicron from 1958 again, the differences are obvious:

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!

The Summilux shows a strong violet cast, the 35mm Summicron a more yellowish one, while the Summicron is in the middle, more magenta like.

These are completely different lenses of course and one cannot assume that the early rigid Summicron had either a more violet or a more yellow coating. .

So it would be interesting if someone had an early and a later rigid Summicron and could show whether one sees differences in the coatings. 

 

 

[romualdo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/18/2021 at 9:35 AM, lct said:

Excerpt of Viewfinder, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2006, page 44 et seq.
Legendary Leica Lenses, The 50mm f/2 “Rigid” Summicron, by Dick Gilcreast
https://tinyurl.com/mpexjyct

that is one of the most comprehensive reviews of the rigid (type II) Summicron I've seen

[romualdo]

Looks like they have similar magenta casts, the one on the left an LTM rigid cron (early version with narrow knurling) while the one on the right is a later DR version with the wide knurling

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!

[Ecar]

Mmm, this is interesting.

My two rigid copies (both in M mount) have visibly different coatings: amber for the "v2" and purple for the "v1". They also render quite differently to my eyes.

Apologies for the poor phone snapshot:

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!

[UliWer]

5 hours ago, Ecar said:

They also render quite differently to my eyes.

It would be great if you could show a direct comparison. 

[Ecar]

2 hours ago, UliWer said:

It would be great if you could show a direct comparison. 

Might be able to do that over the Xmas break. No guarantees though.

[BradS]

We're looking at 60+ year old optics. Is it possible that the coatings have aged differently depending on how they've been handled and environmental factors during storage for example? As much as I appreciate the side-by-side comparisons, I'm more than a little uncertain regarding their significance.

[Michael Geschlecht]

7 hours ago, BradS said:

We're looking at 60+ year old optics. Is it possible that the coatings have aged differently depending on how they've been handled and environmental factors during storage for example? As much as I appreciate the side-by-side comparisons, I'm more than a little uncertain regarding their significance.

Hello Brad,

As per the lenses & their coatings in Post #30, just above:

I have a 135mm f4 Tele-Elmar that has an amber colored coating on the front of the front element that is like the amber colored coating on the right & the same lens has a violet colored coating on the back of the last element that is like the violet colored coating on the left.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited December 20, 2021 by Michael Geschlecht

[shirubadanieru]

I’ve had the collapsible summicron, the early rigid (heavier, all brass body), and the later rigid (lighter, slightly different / more modern external design). I don’t know in detail nor have I read the books around optical changes but I can say with certainty after having used them all them that the early rigid and later rigid models have a different rendering. The early rigid rendering is much closer to the collapsible, compared to the later rigid VS the collapsible. The bokeh, and sharpness are also slightly different. I’d say the later rigid is fairly sharper than the early rigid…

[wizard]

Am 18.12.2021 um 23:44 schrieb UliWer:

When I compare the coatings of a 50mm Summilux from 1958, a rigid 50mm Summicron from 1965 and a 35mm Summicron from 1958 again, the differences are obvious:

The differences in the color of the coatings may be obvious. However, that does not mean that the coating's efficiency is any different. Just look at the intensity of the reflections on each lens, they all have approximately the same intensity. In other words, none of those coatings is any better or worse than the other, it is just the color that differs. As with any coating, the color will differ slightly depending on minute variations of the coating's thickness, which variations are unavoidable and happen even today. I have a v5 LTM Summicron 50 and another v5 M-mount Summicron 50 of the same vintage. One of them (the LTM) has a distinctive reddish coating, whereas the other one's coating is violet-bluish. So while a different color of a coating may indicate a different coating, this is not necessarily so.

 

Am 18.12.2021 um 23:44 schrieb UliWer:

So it would be interesting if someone had an early and a later rigid Summicron and could show whether one sees differences in the coatings. 

I have an early DR Summicron with a bluish coating and a later rigid v2 Summicron with a magenta colored coating. In this particular case, I do attribute the difference in the color of the coating to another type of coating, as there was a lot of progress in the art of coating in those early days.

[UliWer]

2 minutes ago, wizard said:

I have an early DR Summicron with a bluish coating and a later rigid v2 Summicron with a magenta colored coating

Do you see differences in the results from both lenses?

[wizard]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb UliWer:

Do you see differences in the results from both lenses?

So far I have not seen any differences. They are both very good. Years ago, I did nighttime comparison shots on slide film at a Christmas market, and both lenses performed virtually identical. At that time I also tested the collapsible Summicron (of which I have a mint copy, no scratches and no internal fogging), and the main difference between the collapsible and the rigid was at full aperture, where the rigid was visibly better. At f2.8, the rigid was still slightly ahead of the collapsible, but from f4 onwards, they were almost indistinguishable. During daytime use, I have noted that the collapsible has a slightly warmer, more pleasing color rendering on slide film than the rigid, which is "cooler" so to speak.

[a.noctilux]

On 12/20/2021 at 4:46 PM, wizard said:

...They are both very good ...

My observations also that old lenses are as good as how we accept to deal with flaws that we can not see, or better we want not to see.

Strange that newer users ONLY see flaws and don't want to "learn" how to use these old "farts".

 

[shirubadanieru]

Today I was at a photo exhibition with pictures from 1900s to today, and by far all my favorite photos were taken in the 1950s and 60s. Happy that I still am able to use the rigid and other lens from that period without any compromises! And hopefully some day Leica will remake all of the 1950/60s lenses so we can keep using them even longer (fingers crossed)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[a.noctilux]

@shirubadanieru

Maybe they are good photographers knowing how to use these nice body+lens+film AND their talents.

I admire other photographers pictures not taken with "high grade" or renowed gears.

 

As you I'm happy to use these old lenses and bodies but Leitz/Leica is not the only maker of these nice old farts.