ramarren Posted February 28, 2017 Share #1  Posted February 28, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have an opportunity to buy at pretty close to the same price, and in the same excellent condition, either a 1980 Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 (black) or a ten year old, six-bit coded Summicron-M 50mm f/2 (black). From Erwin Puts' write up, the older Summilux 50 should render much like my 1972 Summilux 35 does, my all time favorite Leica 35mm lens. And the Summicron will have the modern look that works so well in my Summarit-M 75. I like both ... but which one to choose is a puzzle. They're both clean and include caps and hoods (built-in on the Summicron); the Summicron also includes original box and such. I'd want to have the Summilux six-bit-coded.  Briefly, which would you choose and why?  thanks in advance! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 Hi ramarren, Take a look here which 50mm .... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Ko.Fe. Posted February 28, 2017 Share #2 Â Posted February 28, 2017 Wilco. On digital, Lux. On film, Cron. I burned out shutter curtain with f1.5 lens once, but never with f2 one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted February 28, 2017 Share #3 Â Posted February 28, 2017 If you really like both buy both. If you really can't decide on which one, take a time out and don't buy either until you're sure, absolutely sure, it is the one you want. You may miss the current price by buying later, but at least you won't have a case of buyer's remorse on which lens you want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 28, 2017 Share #4 Â Posted February 28, 2017 Godfrey, is the difference truly significant? Really? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted February 28, 2017 Share #5 Â Posted February 28, 2017 Impossible . Â Either you like old rendition or new. Â Â I shot with the original 35 Lux and returned it after a 10 minute trial. Â He warned me . Â Â I ended up with a 35 V4 which lives on my M8 and recently purchased a 35 2.0 ASPH for my M9. Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share #6  Posted February 28, 2017 Thanks Ko.Fe. Your response has been the closest to what I'm looking for with this query so far.  Hmm. What's impossible?  For some photographs I want a more classic rendering. For others, modern sharpness and contrast do the job I'm after. Neither of these will be my only 50mm lens ... I have Summicron and Summilux 50s in the R system as well as Voigtländer Color Skopar and Nokton 50s. Each of them produces different imaging qualities.  I've flip-flopped between the modern Summicron and the classic, Mandler Summilux several times now. There's no rush ... If I delay and miss one, and don't want the other, I just wait a little and other choices come up. I'm more interested in why other Leica M owners choose one of this pair over the other.  I never buy two lenses of the same focal length at the same time. That would be excessive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 28, 2017 Share #7 Â Posted February 28, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Personally, if I had to meake the choice, would go for the Summilux. I have both (old Summilux and Summicron of 1984), and use more the Summicron.... but when I WANT to go 1,4 the choice is obvious... the only field in which, at similar closure, I find that Summicron is superior, is in macro mode with bellows/tubes... but have other glass that is even better for such usage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 1, 2017 Share #8 Â Posted March 1, 2017 I have all those lenses and don't see huge differences between 50/1.4 pre-asph and 50/2 non apo aside from macro works (see Luigi's post above). The 50/1.4 focus only at one meter vs 0.7m for the 50/2. The latter is sharper in corners and borders but has more flare and focus shift. The 50/1.4 is as sharp in the centre but has more CA. The 50/1.4 is sharper than your 35/1.4 at full aperture but has no glow (halos around highlights) contrary to the latter. For indoors, the Summilux is the way to go. For landscapes better choose the Summicron if you shoot below f/11. For portraits the Summilux is hard to beat at f/1.4. Matter of tastes as usual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share #9  Posted March 1, 2017 Thank you, luigi and lct. Good information!  If I buy one of them, I'm more and more becoming likely to buy the Summilux. I've always found that Arthur Mandler's notion of lens rendering agrees with me, might as well go with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted March 4, 2017 Author Share #10 Â Posted March 4, 2017 To follow up and close this story: I'd decided that I'd go for the v2 Summilux 50 if it was still available. Otherwise, I would go for the Summicron. The Summilux had been sold earlier on the day that I called to buy it. So I called back yesterday to negotiate my larger deal of equipment juggling, and closed the conversation by saying, "Oh yes, and I'll take that Summicron 50 too."Â Â A new-DEMO Vario-Elmarit-SL 90-280 and a used-MINT Summicron-M 50 are on the way to me now. Now neither the SL nor the M-D will feel neglected... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.