Modern Classic: Leica Summilux-M 50 mm f1.4

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, farnz said:

This is not a non-answer but it depends what you mean by "sharp".  There is no measurable quality of "sharpness" so it's a subjective quality and will vary depending on the person looking at a picture.

The quality that is called "sharpness" is a combination of various things such as resolution (detail separation), contrast (bright/dark), acutance, and clarity and is affected by under- or overexposure.  The picture of the daffodils is unfortunately a little underexposed so it's not clear where the plane of focus lies although it looks to be at the closest edge of the yellow 'trumpet' in the middle.

In my experience of using it, the lens easily has enough contrast and resolution, which is what Leica lens designers strive for but which produces a gentler gradient between in-focus and out of focus and between bright and dark objects (often called micro-contrast).  On the other hand Zeiss's lens designers strove to maximise these gradients to produce harsher acutance presumably because that's what Zeiss believed its customers wanted.  Leica's customers apparently preferred gentler transitions, which means there's a choice.

All I can say about the 'retro' 50/1.4 Summilux pre-asph v4 is that is sufficiently 'sharp' for my requirements but perhaps not as 'eye-cuttingly sharp' as the 50/1.4 Summilux asph v2. 

I hope the above helps.

Pete.

The worst example of strange behaviour by a Zeiss lens was their 35mm/f2 Planar G lens. It had an extremely abrupt drop off from very sharp and contrasty in focus region to jagged and not very pleasant bokeh. That is one lens I shall not be buying from Funleader as an M conversion (I have bought their excellent conversion of the Zeiss 45mm Planar G). Particularly as I already have the 35 APO Summicron-M, which as an all round performer, is hard to beat and also the 35 ASPH Summilux which has gentler but still good resolution, if you have been lucky enough to get one with minimal aperture shift, like my late (2006 - final batch) chrome one and has lovely soft bokeh.

Wilson

Edited March 28 by wlaidlaw

[Advertisement]

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

[Ken Abrahams]

 I dont have any issues of sharpness with this lens. I havent used Version 2 to know that kind of sharpness. I am aware of the unsharp corner areas for the version 4 but not come across it as yet. I had to stop this image down a bit. I think 2.8 because I detest one person  in focus and the other not, with two subjects. I would say the lens is well sharp.   

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!

[Genoweffa]

10 hours ago, farnz said:

This is not a non-answer but it depends what you mean by "sharp".  There is no measurable quality of "sharpness" so it's a subjective quality and will vary depending on the person looking at a picture.

The quality that is called "sharpness" is a combination of various things such as resolution (detail separation), contrast (bright/dark), acutance, and clarity and is affected by under- or overexposure.  The picture of the daffodils is unfortunately a little underexposed so it's not clear where the plane of focus lies although it looks to be at the closest edge of the yellow 'trumpet' in the middle.

In my experience of using it, the lens easily has enough contrast and resolution, which is what Leica lens designers strive for but which produces a gentler gradient between in-focus and out of focus and between bright and dark objects (often called micro-contrast).  On the other hand Zeiss's lens designers strove to maximise these gradients to produce harsher acutance presumably because that's what Zeiss believed its customers wanted.  Leica's customers apparently preferred gentler transitions, which means there's a choice.

All I can say about the 'retro' 50/1.4 Summilux pre-asph v4 is that is sufficiently 'sharp' for my requirements but perhaps not as 'eye-cuttingly sharp' as the 50/1.4 Summilux asph v2. 

I hope the above helps.

Pete.

Man  oh man...you should be in politics

or at least some VP Sales in a big Corp

Edited March 29 by Genoweffa

[lct]

The lens is too sharp to be soft and too soft to be sharp, in other words it is sharp/soft enough

[Genoweffa]

52 minutes ago, lct said:

The lens is too sharp to be soft and too soft to be sharp, in other words it is sharp/soft enough

All good man...its all cool and fun till someone losses an eye...err..I mean USD3900....

[adan]

59 minutes ago, Genoweffa said:

All good man...its all cool and fun till someone losses an eye...err..I mean USD3900....

If you want a modern, sharp Leica 50mm f/1.4, you can always give up the other eye (an additional $700) and get the ASPH II version.

https://leicastoremiami.com/collections/leica-m-system-m-system-lenses/products/leica-summilux-m-50mm-f-1-4-asph-ii-black?variant=43195390623875

Some folks will take the $700 savings, and get a nice, "characterful 1980s" look as well. 🤪

You pays your money and you takes your choice......

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, adan said:

Some folks will take the $700 savings, and get a nice, "characterful 1980s" look as well.

+1 or take another savings and get a superb second hand v2 or v3. The latter can be 6-bit coded easily for those interested.

Edited March 29 by lct

[wlaidlaw]

Can anyone please advise the correct lens code for the 50mm/f1,4 Summilux V.3 (late type with built in hood). Mine is the 1999 year LTM special edition version but the lens code should be the same as the M mount version. This is in order to mark the code onto my Rayqual LTM to M ring. For some reason this is not listed on any of my lists of lens codes. They all jump straight from the V.2 to the ASPH. 

Wilson

[lct]

40 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

Can anyone please advise the correct lens code for the 50mm/f1,4 Summilux V.3 (late type with built in hood).

The 50/1.4 v3's order numbers are 11621 (chrome LTM), 11623 (black paint), 11868 (black), 11856 (chrome), and 11869 (titan).
Same 6-bit code: 000101
You may wish to look for the "50 f/1.4 11868/11856/11114" lens profile if you have an M240 and/or an M11. On other Ms i don’t remember. Happy snaps

 

Edited March 29 by lct

[wlaidlaw]

21 minutes ago, lct said:

The 50/1.4 v3's order numbers are 11621 (chrome LTM), 11623 (black paint), 11868 (black), 11856 (chrome), and 11869 (titan).
Same 6-bit code: 000101
You may wish to look for the "50 f/1.4 11868/11856/11114" lens profile if you have an M240 and/or an M11. On other Ms i don’t remember. Happy snaps

 

Many thanks. Mine is the 11612 Chrome LTM screw mount 50 Summilux V.3,  made for the Japanese collector market. I bought both it and the 50 Summicron V LTM at an estate sale attended by a Japanese friend on my behalf, both at very reasonable but not silly prices. I am sure the optical cell is identical to 11856 so that the 000101 code will be perfect. I can't remember now what code I had on it but part of it has rubbed off and it is currently reading as a f1 50 Noctilux. 

Wilson

[Genoweffa]

10 hours ago, adan said:

If you want a modern, sharp (statement like this one implies that the one in this discussion isn't) Leica 50mm f/1.4, you can always give up the other eye (an additional $700) and get the ASPH II version.

https://leicastoremiami.com/collections/leica-m-system-m-system-lenses/products/leica-summilux-m-50mm-f-1-4-asph-ii-black?variant=43195390623875

Some folks will take the $700 savings, and get a nice, "characterful 1980s" look as well. 🤪

You pays your money and you takes your choice......

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/803106170-USE/zeiss_2010_056_otus_55mm_f_1_4_ze.html

or you can get 2 of those...

cheers

10-4

[farnz]

4 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

Can anyone please advise the correct lens code for the 50mm/f1,4 Summilux V.3 (late type with built in hood). Mine is the 1999 year LTM special edition version but the lens code should be the same as the M mount version. This is in order to mark the code onto my Rayqual LTM to M ring. For some reason this is not listed on any of my lists of lens codes. They all jump straight from the V.2 to the ASPH. 

Wilson

Sorry, Wilson, my M-mount v3 is not 6-bit coded but you have it from LCT. 

In case it helps, the 'modern classic' 50/1.4 Summilux discussed in this thread is also 000101.

Pete.

[evikne]

5 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

Can anyone please advise the correct lens code for the 50mm/f1,4 Summilux V.3 (late type with built in hood). Mine is the 1999 year LTM special edition version but the lens code should be the same as the M mount version. This is in order to mark the code onto my Rayqual LTM to M ring. For some reason this is not listed on any of my lists of lens codes. They all jump straight from the V.2 to the ASPH. 

Wilson

I submitted my v3 to Leica for 6-bit coding and it was coded as a v2. As far as I know, Leica has never counted the “v3” as a separate version, because it is optically identical to the v2.

Edited March 29 by evikne

[lct]

36 minutes ago, evikne said:

As far as I know, Leica has never counted the “v3” as a separate version, because it is optically identical to the v2.

Leica wrote to me that what we call the v3 « was the third generation of this Summilux lens and was totally redesigned, optical and mechanical ».

[evikne]

49 minutes ago, lct said:

Leica wrote to me that what we call the v3 « was the third generation of this Summilux lens and was totally redesigned, optical and mechanical ».

I think the answer might depend on who you ask at Leica.

On their website they write about the new lens:

"The reinterpretation is based on optical calculation for the second Summilux-M 50 f/1.4, which was produced between 1962 and 2004 with very few modifications."

That time span includes both v2 and v3.

https://leica-camera.com/en-int/photography/lenses/m/summilux-m-50-f1-4-silver-chrome-finish

Edited March 29 by evikne

[lct]

I have no idea but i wonder if reducing MFD from 1m to 0.7m is that simple a thing.

[wlaidlaw]

My understanding was that there are two versions of the Summilux III, effectively an A and a B version. The A is almost identical to the V.2 but the B version uses slightly different glass for the elements and has the built in lens hood. Erwin Puts said that the problem is sample variation on the V.3 rather like is very evident on the 35 ASPH Summilux, so that it is very difficult to compare its performance to a V2, as you might be comparing a "good" V.2 with an "indifferent" V.3 or vice versa. I was expecting noticeable aperture shift on my V.3 S-E but test shots with an A3 print out of the Nikon focus chart showed that on my sample, it was minor. Again I understand that the brass bodies used for some Leica lenses could be machined with greater accuracy than the alloy bodies and this may have something to do with it. From my experience, it is far easier to machine brass than aluminium alloys, where galling is always a problem. 

Wilson

[willeica]

26 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

My understanding was that there are two versions of the Summilux III, effectively an A and a B version. The A is almost identical to the V.2 but the B version uses slightly different glass for the elements and has the built in lens hood. Erwin Puts said that the problem is sample variation on the V.3 rather like is very evident on the 35 ASPH Summilux, so that it is very difficult to compare its performance to a V2, as you might be comparing a "good" V.2 with an "indifferent" V.3 or vice versa. I was expecting noticeable aperture shift on my V.3 S-E but test shots with an A3 print out of the Nikon focus chart showed that on my sample, it was minor. Again I understand that the brass bodies used for some Leica lenses could be machined with greater accuracy than the alloy bodies and this may have something to do with it. From my experience, it is far easier to machine brass than aluminium alloys, where galling is always a problem. 

Wilson

I find the discussion here hard to follow, but I sent Jono some material before the latest/vintage Summilux M appeared. It seems that in the early 60s Leitz changed the optical formula of the 50mm Summilux, but did not inform customers until some years later. Here is a cut and paste from my last email to Jono. Bill Rosauer was also in on the conversation.

" The 1963 and 1964 catalogues are the same and show the V I Optical Formula

The 1968 catalogue shows the scallops and the V II Optical Formula

The 1969 catalogue shows the plain ring with no scallops and the V II Optical Formula

 

All this fits with what we know, that the new formula was 'hidden' for some years and that the scallops were around until at least 1968. "

 

This may be of some help. I also have photos of the catalogues with the optical formulae should you wish to see them.

I may be missing the point, in which case you can ignore the above.

 

William 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

3 hours ago, lct said:

I have no idea but i wonder if reducing MFD from 1m to 0.7m is that simple a thing.

Of course my 1999 year LTM version of the Summilux V.3 to suit the RF of the Barnack cameras, only focuses to 1m. My suspicion is that Leica has a policy of continuous improvements and tweaks on its lenses, so that the final version by the end of its production life, will be somewhat to considerably different to one from the beginning, even though Leica do not advertise it as a new version. Given that the version 2 first appeared in 1961, I cannot conceive of Leica not effecting any improvements between then and 2004, when the ASPH appeared. A 44 year life for a lens would be unprecedented. 

Wilson

[pedaes]

On 3/29/2025 at 10:51 PM, wlaidlaw said:

A 44 year life for a lens would be unprecedented. 

The official Leica position on the v3 is "It proved to be so powerful and well engineered that it remained in Leica's catalogue for more than forty years with almost no changes"

So you are correct - 'almost no' = some.