Leica Apo-Summicron-M 2/50 APSH

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

jbl,

 

If one is interested in technology and its historical developments, then getting a lens for its "stunning optical achievement" sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Equally sensible to me is getting half a century old lenses that were back then and are even today capable of stunning images.

 

Enjoy what you got! I do.

[jbl]

That's sort of what I was wondering and thinking. I'm kind of intrigued by spherical optics instead of the more precise feel of aspherical optics, but I have been trying to not go totally nuts on the 50mm bandwagon.

 

-jbl

[Advertisement]

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

[Bill W]

I'm told I should seek it, but I did do a two week trip in Hawaii with two kinds of black and white film and three 50mm lenses only. That was fun.

 

-jbl

Then you need one more 50 if you are going to do these kind of trips. I have not owned a film body for several years.

[jbl]

Lol. You people are going to get me shot by my wife.

 

Jonathan

[marknorton]

If it's any consolation, I have 8 50's and two Tri-Elmars which have a 50 setting...

[jbl]

Wow. Okay, which ones? I'll confess to also having a screw mount CV one for a film body. I need to CornerFix profile it for digital.

[Bill W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lol. You people are going to get me shot by my wife.

 

Jonathan

Don't tell the wife...."Oh this lens Dear, I have had this one for years" My wife has the same issue with purses.

[jbl]

That's a good plan. A friend of mine didn't think he could sneak a Canon 200 f/2 by his wife. That thing is hard to hide.

 

Another advantage of Leica equipment.

[Bill W]

The bodies look the same as well but I did tell her I was buying the MM and the cost. She said OK!!! No telling how many purses are hidden in her closet..

[Ecar]

If it's any consolation, I have 8 50's and two Tri-Elmars which have a 50 setting...

You never have too many 50's. The fear of rational thinking suddenly kicking in has so far prevented me from counting and preserved my insanity. I won't buy the AA though. I wont...

[thrid]

I just don't get all that "this lens cannot be focused using the rangefinder" talk. When I tried the Noctilux 0.95/50 at full aperture for portrait shots using an M9-P, i.e. at distances close to or at the minimum focusing distance, I could nail the focus shot by shot. Given the very large full aperture of this lens and the correspondingly shallow DOF, I was at the time surprised at how easy to focus the Noctilux was. Now please do not tell me the new Summicron is more difficult to focus, I just can't believe that. BTW, when trying the Noctilux, I also had a chance to use the new Summicron, and found it to focus more or less the same way as my own non-asph Summicron 50.

 

Andy

 

Same here. I used to shoot my Noct at f1 and close up on a .72 body. The challenge to getting sharp pictures was breathing and excessive coffee consumption, not the rangefinder.

[jbl]

I'm happy that Leica felt the need to address the lack of good 50mm options on the M system.

 

-jbl

[Guest WPalank]

I just don't get all that "this lens cannot be focused using the rangefinder" talk. When I tried the Noctilux 0.95/50 at full aperture for portrait shots using an M9-P, i.e. at distances close to or at the minimum focusing distance, I could nail the focus shot by shot. Given the very large full aperture of this lens and the correspondingly shallow DOF, I was at the time surprised at how easy to focus the Noctilux was. Now please do not tell me the new Summicron is more difficult to focus, I just can't believe that. BTW, when trying the Noctilux, I also had a chance to use the new Summicron, and found it to focus more or less the same way as my own non-asph Summicron 50.

 

Andy

 

I find myself asking the same question as wizard. Including the 50 1.4 Summilux ASPH and Noctilux .095 (and I'll even throw in the 75mm Summilux), I have no problem focusing any of these thee lenses wide open with my M9. Why would I suddenly have a problem with the APO Summicron at 2.0?

 

Bonus to anyone that does not preface their discussion with zone of..., circle of..., angle of... and the answer could be understood by, let's say a child with an 8th grade education or so.

Edited January 29, 2013 by WPalank

[jbl]

What I found with the move from film M's to the M9 is that focus became more critical. Film was more forgiving and I started "missing" more when I was in digital. I doubt the "miss" would matter on a print and is probably irrelevant anyway, but when pixel peeping I noticed it. This is probably made worse by a friend of mine telling me every time I miss focus and I should tell him to take a hike.

 

I will say, however, that the 1.4x magnifier is tremendously helpful for these lenses and it has the added benefit of making it seem like an M3 :-).

 

-jbl

[lct]

No problem.... What is your point?...

I thought that someone had a problem with the focus throw of the 50/2 apo but i must be missing something. Never mind. Where would you draw the 50/2 apo in the (approximative) chart below? Just curious.

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!

[Bundestrainer]

I find myself asking the same question as wizard. Including the 50 1.4 Summilux ASPH and Noctilux .095 (and I'll even throw in the 75mm Summilux), I have no problem focusing any of these thee lenses wide open with my M9. Why would I suddenly have a problem with the APO Summicron at 2.0?

 

Bonus to anyone that does not preface their discussion with zone of..., circle of..., angle of... and the answer could be understood by, let's say a child with an 8th grade education or so.

 

I absolutely agree. It's not difficult to focus the new APO (and I own it).

[pgk]

I absolutely agree. It's not difficult to focus the new APO (and I own it).

As a photographer I get my eyes tested on an annual basis. Lens testing is all very well but just how many people are as pedantic over their own inbuilt lenses, and both test and suitably correct them on a regular basis I wonder (the same is probably true of many audiophiles and ear testing.....)?

[Erik Gunst Lund]

... Where would you draw the 50/2 apo in the (approximative) chart below? Just curious.

 

I would say that its similar to 35/2.5 (11643)

[01af]

I thought that someone had a problem with the focus throw of the Apo-Summicron-M 50/2 Asph but I must be missing something.

You are, indeed.

 

Whether a focus throw is too short or not depends on many factors, not just how many degrees of angle of rotation there are between infinity and minimum focus. Other factors include the focal length, the diameter and resistance of the focusing grip, and what the minimum focus distance actually is.

 

There's a common misconception that manual focusing was faster when the focusing throw is short. Not so. The shorter the focusing throw, the harder it is to accurately set the desired focus and hence, actually takes longer to accomplish. The absolutely worst lens in this regard is the Apo-Summicron-M 75 mm Asph—here, the focusing throw clearly is way too short. The Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph is slightly better than that but slightly worse than, say, the Summilux-M 50 mm Asph which has an uncomfortably short focusing throw but—unlike the 75/2—not entirely insane yet. Still, if you ever used a Noctilux and the current Summilux in parallel then you'll have noticed how difficult the Summilux is to focus in comparison and what a joy it is with the Noctilux due to the significantly longer focus throw.

 

By the way, whenever you hear someone saying the Noctilux was hard to focus then you positively know: that person has never actually used one.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

Whether a focus throw is too short or not depends on many factors, not just how many degrees of angle of rotation there are between infinity and minimum focus. Other factors include the focal length, the diameter and resistance of the focusing grip, and what the minimum focus distance actually is.

 

There's a common misconception that manual focusing was faster when the focusing throw is short. Not so. The shorter the focusing throw, the harder it is to accurately set the desired focus and hence, actually takes longer to accomplish.

I have to be honest and say that in my experience (and having owned and used 50/1, 50/1.4 and 75/2 lenses amongst many other M lenses) I've never found the physical lens design to be the problem where focus is concerned. Problems I've had have generally been down to calibration (solved easily enough), subject failure or just plain slackness on my part. I'm not defending Leica's design engineers on this one at all, but personally I find it a non-issue.