50mm summicron V4 vs. V5 (non apo)

[Capuccino-Muffin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Where the Version 4 is the one with the focusing tab, and the V5 is the pre-asph  with sliding hood.

I have decided to test all my 50mm and 35mm lenses with film, and to print all the results on 5x7 paper, the test target was my son reading a book. The film medium on print was the best way to see real life results and absolutely no digital variable whatsoever. This, to me, is the most accurate possible test. 

Only 2 non-Leica lenses among the Leica gang: Canon f0.95 and Nikon 50mm f1.4 millenium. The Canon shows more dof than the Noctilux f1.0 (not a surprise because the difference is negligible and secondly, contrast and character play a big role on perception). Also, the Nikkor millennium is absolutely on top for sharpness and contrast. It was said before but here it is again: that lens is a phenomenon.

Amongst other things, I have noticed that the crons V4 and V5 render differently. There is less difference between the V3 and V4 than there is between the V4 and V5. But I have also read (in the distant past) that the V4 as I know it being refered as a V3 (therefore proving that my eyes don’t lie). And tge Apo 50 summicron has a VERY organic Feel on film. After 400 films shot with it, thousands of prints (truly) and this test, that lens is nothing “clinical” on film, au contraire: good contrast, organic look. Very hard to explain.

Quickly, the V5 renders my child’s head very differently, more Square than oval, versus all the other 50.. This denotes  a clear difference in distortion.

And then, a few lenses (thus prints) later in the test, I see my son’t face rendered more square, less oval,  yet again. Unsurprisingly this time, it was shot with my summicron Black Paint Classic (the Rigid reissue) which is indeed a V5 optically.

Not sure if you all follow me by now but here is the question: is a V4 with convex tab truly a V3 or is it a V4 with its own unique optical  construction? It is different than the V5 in my eye, I cannot accept that the V4 and V5 have the same optics after what I have seen. 
I cannot contradict the experts and the graphs, but do we know for sure that the V4 and V5 sure the same optics/construction?

Edited April 17, 2022 by Capuccino-Muffin
Typos

[RayD28]

I always thought the version 4 had the recipe as the version 5. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Capuccino-Muffin]

Just now, RayD28 said:

I always thought the version 4 had the recipe as the version 5. 

I have added a bit to the text.

I clearly see a difference, I am curious now more than ever. Maybe just a reformulation? Different indexes? Coatings? Not sure... I can never be sure. Just pure SPECULATION.

[lct]

Same optics with different coatings i guess, when comparing v5 to an early v4 at least. v5 shows less flare then. Less obvious when comparing v5 to a late v4 i suspect but i did not do the test. The comparo below has been made with my v5 and my early v4 with convex focus tab from 1979.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-BvXmk5v/0/57160344/X4/i-BvXmk5v-X4.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4RKCr3w/0/2a1f58ed/X4/i-4RKCr3w-X4.jpg

[Capuccino-Muffin]

I feel that a good ‘ole brickwall test would be a good thing to do. It will definitely differentiate them all on the basis of distortion.

[lct]

Doubtful given that v4 and v5 have the same optical design. My v4 and v5 samples show the same focus shift for instance.

[Capuccino-Muffin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

By the way, the differences from all the summicrons show very little differences. Even the V1 collapsible Shows examplary sharpness wide open. They all mainly differ in contrast and minimally in character, but not much. All the Summicrons are well behaved.

The Summitar is much busier in the bokeh, and as such this is why it didn’t qualify for a Summicron. 
 

Looking at prints, with a magnifying glass, it’s so interesting.

[spydrxx]

Out of curiosity did you use a tripod to ensure certain consistencies, like distance to subject, which could influence distortions?

[grahamc]

6 hours ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

 

Not sure if you all follow me by now but here is the question: is a V4 with convex tab truly a V3 or is it a V4 with its own unique optical  construction? It is different than the V5 in my eye, I cannot accept that the V4 and V5 have the same optics after what I have seen. 
I cannot contradict the experts and the graphs, but do we know for sure that the V4 and V5 sure the same optics/construction?

This is interesting, thanks for posting .

I do not have a v5 but I do have a v3 and v4 and have been conducting similar tests .  I have 2 copies of the v4 which helps - particularly as they render exactly the same , meaning they are probably working as designed.  By coincidence they are both 1993 copies, Germany , one in Chrome and one in Black standard. 

Although I find the v3 and v4 very similar, particularly with colour rendering, I can pick my v3 relatively easily in side by sides. It has less contrast and more 'glow'.  For this reason I like using it for specific purposes that differ from when I use the v4.     I bought the v3 first and when I bought/used the v4 it had noticeably more 'pop/3D' effect in the centre of the frame - I know these are terms that some on the forum like to avoid but I can't think of any other way to describe the difference - maybe this is related to contrast, but it's noticeable in my copies.

I have had my v3 serviced recently and the service centre (Leica Australia authorised repair) didn't mention anything about haze, so I assume it's working as designed also. 

It's interesting what you mention about distortion....  I have noticed that my v4's Render a subject more 'fully' - eg a portrait taken with my v4 would render a person's face noticeably rounder than other 50's that I own.  Perhaps this is what gets termed 'organic' as I suspect it's real-life accurate, while my 50:1.4 v3 seems to thin a subject out. 

I personally feel the lux to be a little more flattering but luckily my partner has not noticed that yet so (for now) I am free to use them both

If I can find examples of the above from the little test, I can post .  I didn't use a tripod but the results confirmed what I had seen in real-world use.... I just worked through it with a static subject and was not surprised when comparing them .

Back to the crons though... in short my v3 and v4 are definitely different.  Some other related info for anyone interested :

My v4 matches my 35:2 v4 perfectly in colour rendition (makes a very happy pair).   My v3 does not, but is close. 

Thanks again for the info @Capuccino-Muffin

Edited April 18, 2022 by grahamc

[grahamc]

This shows the difference between my v3 and v4 quite well.   Both wide open so probably not the sharpest test shots, but illustrates the difference.  I was able to pick these out from my gallery by site , rather than looking at keywords labelling the lenses.

My v3 is 'creamier' which I find really nice.  Slightly different light between but this is very consistent difference in look for mine.

V3:
 

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!

 

V4:

 

[grahamc]

And not to take the thread off topic, but finally here is the 50:1.4 v3 pre-asph.  I find it sharper and with more contrast than my crons (not what I expected from researching the lenses, but really nice).  Although of course these shots all taken at F2 which is not wide open for the lux. 

Also 'seems' to thin a subject out versus my v4's (slightly but noticeably) in real world use,  although I can see that's not really evident in these shots I'm posting.  

 

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 April 18, 2022 by grahamc

[Capuccino-Muffin]

I totally see what you are explaining!

2 things:

-indeed, the summilux are sharper. I totally wasn’t expecting this and yet I have seen it.

-the V3, according to Ken Rockwell and other bloggers, is a softer but more contrasty lens, and yet you confirm that it is not contrastier. My test and general experience agrees with your test.

And I can say that its construction is top, as opposed to rhe internet myrh which sometimes questions this.

 

[grahamc]

54 minutes ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

I totally see what you are explaining!

2 things:

-indeed, the summilux are sharper. I totally wasn’t expecting this and yet I have seen it.

-the V3, according to Ken Rockwell and other bloggers, is a softer but more contrasty lens, and yet you confirm that it is not contrastier. My test and general experience agrees with your test.

And I can say that its construction is top, as opposed to rhe internet myrh which sometimes questions this.

 

Yes it’s really evident in my copies. In both focal lengths my cron set  (35:2 v4 and 50:2 v4) and summilux “pre-asph” set (35:1.4 v2 and 50:1.4 v3) actually contradict much of what I read about them prior to purchase. Meaning that both my summiluxes are sharper and have noticeably  more contrast than my crons.

The summiluxes are both 1990s Germany, if it matters. Crons (by coincidence) are all 1993 Germany  

Bare in mind I shoot these generally up to F5.6 ish so these observations are at wider apertures but quite evident in use. 

The great thing is that these differences are consistent across the 35s and 50s, meaning the summiluxes match eachother almost exactly, as do the crons. 

(And finally for the 50s, my v3 has less contrast than my v4s, as shown.  This also means it doesn’t match with either of the 35’s I’ve mentioned above and is looking for a partner 😂). 

I also agree with what you notes about build - the v3 feels way better built to me, another contradiction to what is commonly written about these lenses. 


 

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by grahamc

[lct]

4 hours ago, grahamc said:

Yes it’s really evident in my copies. In both focal lengths my cron set  (35:2 v4 and 50:2 v4) and summilux “pre-asph” set (35:1.4 v2 and 50:1.4 v3) actually contradict much of what I read about them prior to purchase. Meaning that both my summiluxes are sharper and have noticeably  more contrast than my crons.

You mean at the centre of the frame i guess. My 50/1.4 v2 & v3 are rather soft on edges and corners below f/5.6. Good for portraits but i would not do landscapes with those lenses below f/8 or f/11. YMMV.

[grahamc]

9 minutes ago, lct said:

You mean at the centre of the frame i guess. My 50/1.4 v2 & v3 are rather soft on edges and corners below f/5.6. Good for portraits but i would not do landscapes with those lenses below f/8 or f/11. YMMV.

Yes thanks for the reminder - indeed the centre of the frame .  Also I rarely use the 50's closed down more than F5.6 so my observations on all these 50's are with that in mind . 

[28framelines]

13 hours ago, grahamc said:

And not to take the thread off topic, but finally here is the 50:1.4 v3 pre-asph.  I find it sharper and with more contrast than my crons (not what I expected from researching the lenses, but really nice).  Although of course these shots all taken at F2 which is not wide open for the lux. 

Also 'seems' to thin a subject out versus my v4's (slightly but noticeably) in real world use,  although I can see that's not really evident in these shots I'm posting.  

 

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!

Is it just me that noticed the incredible amount of distortion on the Summilux? It’s still evident with the cron images you posted, but the table behind the subject boughs a lot in the image. Is that normal for these lenses?

[lct]

There must be about 0.5% barrel distortion on 50/1.4 v2 and v3 lenses. Easy to tweak in PP. 

[grahamc]

15 hours ago, 28framelines said:

Is it just me that noticed the incredible amount of distortion on the Summilux? It’s still evident with the cron images you posted, but the table behind the subject boughs a lot in the image. Is that normal for these lenses?

Good point. M10-D user so this doesn’t automatically correct via a lens profile (my copy is uncoded and 10D you can t assign lens in camera ). Assume most users would set manually the lens type so these corrections are automatic. 

[Huss]

16 hours ago, grahamc said:

Good point. M10-D user so this doesn’t automatically correct via a lens profile (my copy is uncoded and 10D you can t assign lens in camera ). Assume most users would set manually the lens type so these corrections are automatic. 

The lens profiles in digital Leica Ms only correct for vignetting.  Nothing else.  You can test this by turning in camera profile correction on and off.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Huss]

On 4/17/2022 at 7:17 PM, grahamc said:

This shows the difference between my v3 and v4 quite well.   Both wide open so probably not the sharpest test shots, but illustrates the difference.  I was able to pick these out from my gallery by site , rather than looking at keywords labelling the lenses.

My v3 is 'creamier' which I find really nice.  Slightly different light between but this is very consistent difference in look for mine.

V3:
 

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!

 

V4:

 

As an aside, some excellent shots on your Flickr Graham!