Which vintage 50?

[Huss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, darylgo said:

The sleeper in Leica for character, speed and glow is the 50 R Summilux, ver 2 with 55mm filter thread.  The cinema guys want the newer one (e60) so the price of the older glass formula has not been bumped much.  Safari edition is cool.  The lens glows at f1.4, more like the ver. 1 50 Summilux only better (more glow) and stopped down it plays well with digital sensors, less contrast and more sharpness.  I find this lens my favorite for character, over the ver. 1 and 2 Summilux M and Noctilux 50/1.  On an SL it's magic.  The old R lenses are solid, metal and glass.  The Novoflex adapter between the lens and SL body is bullet proof.  When I tried this lens at a Leica dealer I had no intention of buying it.  Once home and seeing the images in Lightroom I couldn't believe how perfect this lens was for the vintage look, it simply flies under the radar.  

 

I must be missing something because my 50 R Summilux v2 is sharp at 1.4, with no glow.  

First pic w my R9 and Kentmere 400, second pic w my R9 and C200.  Both at 1.4

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 July 3, 2023 by Huss

[Advertisement]

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

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, Huss said:

I must be missing something because my 50 R Summilux v2 is sharp at 1.4, with no glow.  

Vintage lenses tend to behave less quirky on film than digital, especially on sensors not optimised for such glass (thicker filter layer). The 50mm Summilux R v2/E55 is a classic Summilux with all the quirks/features we love them for. However, it's relatively sharp at full aperture, even on digital sensors. It used to be a sleeper, but it woke up from its deep slumber some time ago, now in the range of 1,5K+ EUR for a sample in proper working order (pristine lenses go for 2k+).

To leverage the full glory of its failures, it's best practice to shoot it against the light (background up, tons of highlights and reflections, that's what cinematographers do when they use such glass). Below are two snaps of my daughter enjoying the remnants of a chandeliering night at f 1,4 with the SummiluxR lens on my SL2-S—subtle glow and soap-bubbly, whirly bokeh. No sharpening was applied. Click to enlarge.

 

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 July 3, 2023 by hansvons

[hansvons]

On 7/1/2023 at 4:23 PM, trickness said:

I truly adore my Karbe 50 Lux M ASPH, but I would really like to get a 50mm complement to it that has inherent aberrations, glow, flaws and character.

The Summicron V4 is my personal favourite 50. It's eerily the regular Joe but totally addictive. With no real quirks, it is sharp and shows some dimensionality but renders flatter than the modern 50ies; it renders images that don't ask questions. Flaring super-nicely with hardly any glow, it retains sharpness behind the flares, making light visible. The Canada version can be found for 1K. Jointly with the 35mm Summicron M ASPH, this is my bread-and-butter lens. The case can be made that this is the 50mm that anyone who's in fifties should own.

The regular 50mm SummicronR, both v1 and v2, has similar characteristics but is a tad tilted towards a more vintage-ish character. Being the R systems kit lens, it's available in abundance. However, sound samples are now above 500 EUR.

[lct]

The Summicron v4 was a modern lens when i bought mine but it was not yesterday admittedly (1981). My v3 from 1971, another Mandler lens, had more flare but was contrasty too. Vintage lenses are from the pre-Mandler era, the way i understand the word, but i may be wrong

[hansvons]

I’d say the definition of what a vintage lens is and which lens is not in that category is hard to make based on a timeline because it depends on the date when you look back.

However, there could be criteria that would help to distinguish vintage from modern-era glass, for example design and coatings. In that regard, a 50mm Summicron from the eighties would fit the bill as vintage, as the 50mm Summicron V4 is a double gauss design, which arguably is a legacy way to design lenses from a modern perspective. Also, V4 Summivrons have the chance to be coated with lead-containing coatings, which modern glass isn't allowed to be coated with. That has some influence on the rendering.

With all of that and the fact that there exists modern glass featuring properties of old lenses and that many old/vintage lenses are just bad lenses, I prefer the term character lenses. It’s also noteworthy that typical features describing what we understand as character gradually fade away the longer or shorter the focal length becomes. I’d argue that 35mm and 50mm lenses are at the centre of that discussion.

Regarding Mandler-designed lenses, I’d argue that many/all of them fall in the vintage/character category as they show designs and coatings that in today’s world are considered old-fashioned. 

The true line, I believe, could be drawn when aspherical and apochromatic lens designs became the new norm for high-quality lenses for lens manufacturers because testers started to rate lenses on their corner-to-corner sharpness and their ability to render a perfect bokeh due to the modern, high-resolving sensors that allow for such assessments. That turned good glass with character into the soulless, perfect glass we see so often today.

On a last note, I find it intriguing that Leica’s SL APO primes do show character despite their perfection. Their characteristics are very different from what one typically would describe when the terms character and lens are used in one sentence.

 

 

[lct]

Interesting thoughts thank you but the current Summicron 50 (aka v5) has the same optical design as v4 and the same coating as the last variant of it presumably. So modern or vintage? Modern because it has a built-in hood? Some R lenses from the sixties are modern then...

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not sure to perceive significant differences between M & R Summicron 50/2 lenses to the point where one would be modern (M v5?) and the others vintage (R v1, R v2, M v4?) but again i may be missing something. BTW i don't use my R 50/2 v2 anymore but it used to work fine in digital on my good old Canon 5D1 (snaps below). Great lens whatever.

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!

 

 

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Interesting thoughts thank you but the current Summicron 50 (aka v5) has the same optical design as v4 and the same coating as the last variant of it presumably. So modern or vintage? Modern because it has a built-in hood? Some R lenses from the sixties are modern then...

Yes, I learned that too. Two questions remain, however. First, is the V5’s coating the same as the V4’s? And if so, did the v4 receive a lead-free coating despite its vintage? Second, are the available new V5 Summicrons built recently or are they from a batch made decades ago, thus being effectively vintage lenses? 

Regardless of the answers, the 50mm Summicron of today renders like a very good lens with a vintage of over 40 years, leaving most questions answered. This alone is impressive enough considering how much lens design improved over the years.

The built-in hood feels to me like a classic eighties fad. It was a thing of the time and vanished for a reason. Today’s lenses have plastic hoods that are attached in a reversed manner for storage and show that ugly ubiquitous cut-out design. 

 

[lct]

2 minutes ago, hansvons said:

First, is the V5’s coating the same as the V4’s? And if so, did the v4 receive a lead-free coating despite its vintage? Second, are the available new V5 Summicrons built recently or are they from a batch made decades ago, thus being effectively vintage lenses?

The coating of my M50/2 v5 looks identical as that of my late M50/2 v4 but not my early one with "tiger paw" focus tab. So the early v4 would be vintage while both late v4 and v5 would be modern do you mean? As for batches i have no idea but it is the design that counts i would think.  

[rcusick]

I had v 4 tiger paw 50 summicron.  Definitely vintage coating. 

[lct]

13 minutes ago, hansvons said:

The built-in hood feels to me like a classic eighties fad. It was a thing of the time and vanished for a reason. Today’s lenses have plastic hoods [...]

My Summilux-M 50/1.4 asph v1 and Summicron-M 50/2 apo have both metal built-in hoods. You won't argue they are vintage though will you

[hansvons]

29 minutes ago, lct said:

You won't argue they are vintage though will you

Haha. Let's discuss that:)

 

42 minutes ago, lct said:

So the early v4 would be vintage while both late v4 and v5 would be modern do you mean?

My V4 is an early ELCAN copy not sporting a tiger pawn tab. It renders very similarly to the 50mm SummicronR in terms of colour (colder side) and flares but is overall a tad sharper. From that, and compared to my modern 35mm ASPH, I will say it's coatings are not modern-era coatings. I already sang its praise. Best of two worlds.

If we agreed that old-school coatings are a requirement for the vintage badge, I’d concur 😉.

[lct]

42 minutes ago, hansvons said:

If we agreed that old-school coatings are a requirement for the vintage badge, I’d concur 😉.

We won't i'm afraid but it is an astute idea

[Huss]

13 hours ago, hansvons said:

Vintage lenses tend to behave less quirky on film than digital, especially on sensors not optimised for such glass (thicker filter layer). The 50mm Summilux R v2/E55 is a classic Summilux with all the quirks/features we love them for. However, it's relatively sharp at full aperture, even on digital sensors. It used to be a sleeper, but it woke up from its deep slumber some time ago, now in the range of 1,5K+ EUR for a sample in proper working order (pristine lenses go for 2k+).

To leverage the full glory of its failures, it's best practice to shoot it against the light (background up, tons of highlights and reflections, that's what cinematographers do when they use such glass). Below are two snaps of my daughter enjoying the remnants of a chandeliering night at f 1,4 with the SummiluxR lens on my SL2-S—subtle glow and soap-bubbly, whirly bokeh. No sharpening was applied. Click to enlarge.

 

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!

Looking at both those very nice pics, there actually is no glow.  Just really nice back lighting. The glow would show itself on the image separation - where th edges of the subject fall off into the back light.  Yours, like mine, doesn’t do it.  And frankly I don’t want mine to as I do not consider it a vintage lens in design.

[Huss]

For the full ‘vintage’ glow effecr w back lighting, film demonstrates that much better because there is actual thickness to the entire recording medium.  Whereas a digital sensor is flat in comparison.  Sensor cover glass is just that - cover glass.  It doesn’t actually record anything.

in extreme back lit conditions the thickness of film allows for light bleed around the subject edges. This is different than halation.  For example shot on HP5 which has excellent anti halation properties:

 

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!

[Huss]

2 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

The 7Artisans 50 f/1.1 is just an ultra cheap Chinese revamp of the 1932 Bertele Sonnar, very similar to before mentioned hand made Japanese  Sonnetar from post #13. It is the cheapest RF coupled "vintage style" 50mm, but I presume the OP is not after a bargain Chinese optics.

What’s wrong with bargain Chinese optics if they give you the look you desire?

[hansvons]

48 minutes ago, Huss said:

in extreme back lit conditions the thickness of film allows for light bleed around the subject edges. This is different than halation.  For example shot on HP5 which has excellent anti halation properties:

Perhaps we are debating semantics here. But from my understanding, the anti-halation layer (that’s a Kodak term) of cine stocks, aka rem-jet coating, prevents that phenomenon in your picture (nice image by the way!). At least back in the day, when shooting Kodak Vision stock on film projects, I was not able to produce that (and I tried hard). 
Perhaps HP5 has some anti-halation layer incorporated, but it indeed is somewhat ineffective, which I find a good thing. 

The glowing hair in the images I posted I would describe as glow. But I have no problem in describing it as soft, lacking micro-contrast, overriding highlights, etc. 

[Huss]

53 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

There is the vintage look and there is the "Chinese" vintage look. They are not the same. Our mothers would probably not be able to tell them apart though, and if there is one person you cannot fool it's your mother... however, this highly academical debate about the different vintageness will not follow here.

Yeah, that made no sense at all.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Huss]

27 minutes ago, hansvons said:

Perhaps we are debating semantics here. But from my understanding, the anti-halation layer (that’s a Kodak term) of cine stocks, aka rem-jet coating, prevents that phenomenon in your picture (nice image by the way!). At least back in the day, when shooting Kodak Vision stock on film projects, I was not able to produce that (and I tried hard). 
Perhaps HP5 has some anti-halation layer incorporated, but it indeed is somewhat ineffective, which I find a good thing. 

The glowing hair in the images I posted I would describe as glow. But I have no problem in describing it as soft, lacking micro-contrast, overriding highlights, etc. 

not semantics because halation shows as glow around light areas, not through dark areas.  Through dark areas is light bleed which is a function of film thickness.  In ways it is a form of light piping.  HP5 has excellent anti-halation properties - you can see this as none of the light spots have that tell tale halo glow.

[trickness]

Reading through all this wonderful feedback and discussion, which I am hugely grateful for, I find myself where I was a couple of months ago on this quest: maybe the answer is the Nocti 1.0?

Vintage, 50, Mandler, 1.0…..ticks every box except my budget 😂 - I want to create a degraded dreamworld, is the Nocti 1.0 my zip code?