Is my Summicron 50mm too old?

[planner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a Summicron 50mm of 1968 vintage. It has a little internal dust but that doesn't seem to be affecting image quality. However, I have been considering the latest Summicron version and wonder whether it may prove superior to my lens.

[jdlaing]

I have a Summicron 50mm of 1968 vintage. It has a little internal dust but that doesn't seem to be affecting image quality. However, I have been considering the latest Summicron version and wonder whether it may prove superior to my lens.

 

Think "different" as opposed to "superior".

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

I have both having followed your path some time ago. The modern version is superior as far as clarity and contrast are concerned. It is also mechanically better. But - I couldn't part with my 1966 Version 2 because it is so pleasant for portraits and moody images. It also has a detachable head which I occasionally use for close up photography in conjunction with BOWUM-M copy legs. So it is worth more to me than any funds it is likely to realise. I have been very happy with my decision..

[planner]

Thanks for speedy response.

Different can mean wonderful or awful.

Is it a matter of subjective judgement as to what different may mean?

[Jaybob]

I use a 1965 Rigid (older than I am by one calendar year) and I am not too old.

 

At this point, I have zero interest in replacing it, with what may be a "superior" or newer lens, because mine is a excellent copy, it has no scratches on the elements, no dust, and it operates as intended and as delivered from the factory, 47 years down the road. My oldest Nikon lens is a 300mm f2.8 (ED-AF) that was produced in 1987. Most importantly, I like the way it renders, with lower contrast but still super sharp, especially on digital. It produces pictures that I am proud to attach my name to. The 300? Same story, they make a new one that's "better", but my pictures look like mine.

 

Test a newer one and compare the results side by side...only you can decide.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Jaybob

[Tonki-M]

Think "different" as opposed to "superior".

 

that pretty much sums it up

 

older lens give different feel and overall rendition vs modern lens. i own 35 cron asph and 50 lux asph, and am extremely satisfied with its 'modern' performance. but also recently acquired the 1949 5cm summitar f/2 for that classic look

[M. Valdemar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a mid 1950's collapsible Summicron. I also have the latest Summicron with the attached hood (non ASPH).

 

Stopped down to f4, there is almost no practical difference. The collapsible is only a little less sharp wide open.

 

The contrast on the collapsible is a hair less than the modern one, and I prefer the look it most of the time with my M9.

[andym911]

yes it will be technically superior but it won't make better photographs ...

good luck

andy

[Messsucherkamera]

The new 50 Summicron ASPH will make images that are sharper with more contrast than your 1968 50 Summicron (no surprises there). It will produce a very different result from your 1968 Summicron. Different does not always equal better, though.

 

The question is what type of shooting do you do? If you shoot primarily color, a strong argument can be made for the new 50/2 ASPH. However: If you primarily shoot B&W film, think long and hard before parting with your older Summicron.

 

Older non-ASPH lenses lend themselves to B&W film based images in a way that the hypersharp ASPH lenses do not. It is a look that is not easily quantifiable but is apparent to the discerning eye. If you can compare images made with the 50/1.0 Noctilux vs. images made with the 50/0.95 ASPH Noctilux, you will likely see the difference.

 

Regarding your 1968 'cron, you might consider sending it in for a CLA. That would correct the dust issue, although dust in a lens is rarely bad enough to degrade image quality.

 

Of course, the best solution would be to keep your vintage 'cron and add the new 50/2 ASPH to your kit.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Messsucherkamera

[Jean-Michel]

Hi,

More of the same. I purchased my 50 mm Summicron together with an M4 in 1969. It did need some adjustment by Leica in New Jersey to be used with the M9 I purchased a year ago - if was back focussing by about 10 cm (4 inches). I wondered if it would work fine with the M9, and it certainly does. In my film days (well, I still have al my film equipment although I no longer have a darkroom) I restricted myself to print to 30 cm, 12 inches wide. I now print as large as one meter wide and the images are just fine, thank you!

I also use a 1962 35 Summicron (with goggles) and it too is a keeper. The 135 Elmarit requires more patience but does work, although I rarely use it, I really should have kept the tele elmar, but it is long gone.

I suspect that the newest lenses would be more evenly sharp across the whole frame and i may well purchase them if and when I get a second body, probably the new M.

By the way, none of those lenses can be coded by Leica. I simply select them manually. And, the 35 cannot be serviced by Leica as part no longer exist.

Jean-Michel

[lct]

According to J.M. Sepulchre, the current 50/2 is sharper in the angles at fast apertures but has more chromatic aberration. Its main superiority is flare which can be a problem with the "rigid" Summicron. For a review of the latter on the M8, see Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 Rigid (M) Lens Review.

[Tomas F]

Hello everybody

This is my first comment here and I would like to thank you all for your interesting contributions over the years. It has always been a pleasure to vist the forum.

My short question is: will it be possible to use the old near focus summicron 50 on the new M beyond the near focus range and to infinity?

 

I have a M8 and 40+ lenses(M,Screw,R,viso) plus a hand full of old M and R cameras.

 

Best regards

Tomas

[sblitz]

check the other thread showing off vintage lenses, if it delivers what you want save your money to buy a different focal length.

[planner]

Thanks for this advice. Certainly something to think about. And I love the haiku.

[jaapv]

Hello everybody

This is my first comment here and I would like to thank you all for your interesting contributions over the years. It has always been a pleasure to vist the forum.

My short question is: will it be possible to use the old near focus summicron 50 on the new M beyond the near focus range and to infinity?

 

I have a M8 and 40+ lenses(M,Screw,R,viso) plus a hand full of old M and R cameras.

 

Best regards

Tomas

Not without modification. The layout of the camera throat appears to be the same as the M9.

[!Nomad64]

I have a Summicron 50mm of 1968 vintage. It has a little internal dust but that doesn't seem to be affecting image quality. However, I have been considering the latest Summicron version and wonder whether it may prove superior to my lens.

 

Superior at what? As we're talking of Leica, there's no superior lens. There's only lenses that suit better than others your modus operandi and your tastes. Are you sure you're not succumbing to a GAS attack? Does your current Summicron leave anything to desire? If so, what? And if yes, are you sure that the latest Summicron would fulfill that?

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[jip]

I've got the latest non ASPH 50mm summicron, and I really like it, although I do mis my 1961 Elmar 50mm 2,8

[planner]

Dear Nomad

Several responses to this thread mention "superiority" regarding a particular Leica lens' chromatic aberration or contrast or sharpness as compared to another. Would you not agree that there can be a difference between lenses for these objective criteria? - and therefore, in being different, that one lens could clearly perform in a superior way to another? Of course, you can argue that different doesn't mean better because personal preference should be the arbiter. But surely this means the same thing, except that the judgement is subjective: you choose a particular lens for a particular purpose on the basis that in your view it performs in a superior way to another.

[!Nomad64]

Dear Planner,

I don't deny that there are different performances re. chromatic aberration, contrast or resolution. My point is: are they actually discernible on real world imagery? And if they were, would these differences so huge to make one say "If I didn't have this lens then the result would have been compromised" or "If I had shot with this lens the result would have been much better than this"?

I may have an untrained eye, therefore I think I can tell, say, a 'lux 35 PreAsph from a 'lux 35 Asph FLE if they both are shot at 1.4 but at f8 I'd be hard pressed to tell which is which.

And with specific regards to the 'crons I simply do not believe the differences between yours and the latest would translate in an appreciable difference on the final image. Your one was and is already good and IMHO the further improvement is marginal. Just my 2c.

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tobey bilek]

The second version of the Rigid , satin chrome, is what I am using. It is in factory fresh condition.

 

The 1969/79 version three kind of stays at home. Not a favorite, but acceptable. I prefer the slightly lower contrast, higher resolution Rigid.

 

Tried a New Summicron and it has great clarity, contrast, and the best resolution at F 2 of all.

 

3.5 red scale elmar, 2.8 elmar, last version 2.8 elmar, 1.5 Summarit, 2.0 Summitar all seem to work nicely with the same shortcomings we see on film appear on digital.

 

The go to kit remains with the M9 as with film, 50 2.8 last , 90 4.0 macro, 35 pre asph . This is the walk around set.