Please suggest a good way to test the 50mm Summicron F2 v5 to get a good idea of its characteristics

[SimonV]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not new to photography, but very new to the M-system, having recently gotten my first body, the M240. I also got the Voigtländer Color Skopar 50mm F2.2, which seems like a great lens. But while it's great, getting into the M-system I feel I have to try out Leica lenses too, so I purchased a used 50mm Summicron v5. I've been testing and comparing them to each other a lot, as well as to the Nokton 50mm 1.2, but it's turning out to be a real challenge choosing only one (I can't afford to keep all of them). The Color Skopar is so light and sharp and I can't really find any fault in it (although I would love a little more light). But from what I've heard, the Summicron should be great as well. 

At the moment, it seems to me the lenses I've tested behave as following:

Color Skopar: Sharpest wide open, good bokeh. Closest focusing distance 50cm which is a big plus. Very light, which is a great plus, but maybe doesn't fit the heft of the M240 quite perfectly. Fits the look of the silver M240 almost perfectly. Picking up the camera feels very easy compared to with the other lenses. 

Summicron: Feels very good, hefty and solid. The aperture ring though has some play both to the left of the F2 marking as well as to the right of the F16 marking. Is this normal or will it need CLA soon? Bokeh is slightly smoother than the Color Skopar. Not quite as sharp wide open, stopped down to F2.2 it's almost as sharp as the Color Skopar, but not quite. But the colors out of the lens seem a bit more pleasing, not something I think can't be easily corrected in software though? Someone also said it's closer to a T2.4 than a 2. But I have the least time with this lens so far, hence the question in the title. 

Nokton 50mm 1.2: Quite soft close up at F1.2 and F1.4 (I enjoy shooting close up too), better at F2 but still not at the level of the other lenses. Quite sharp wide open at longer distances though. Heavy, about the same weight as the Summicron but feels a bit less balanced on the body, this might be its biggest downside, as well as not looking quite as at home on the body as the other two lenses. Has the obvious benefit of light gathering and smoother bokeh even at longer distances. Bokeh at F2 is a bit smoother than the Summicron at F2.

Unfortunately, my time with the lenses is running out and I have to choose which to keep and which to return. I just received the Summicron and have very little time with it before I have to make my decision, so I'd be grateful for some tips to really see where it shines. I'd find out myself through testing otherwise if I had the time. Are there certain areas where it's especially different from other lenses? Certain aperture ranges, colors, contrast and so on? 

Would love to hear your opinions and experiences on these lenses, but especially the Summicron. It seems like a well regarded lens.

[Advertisement]

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

[S/W]

With today's selection of good lenses with the same focal length, it is certainly not an easy choice to find the right one. I have various original 50mm lenses from Leica, and I particularly like to use the 50mm Summicron (V) when traveling. 
I can't comment on the 50mm lenses from Voigtländer, but I can really recommend the Summicron M 2.0/50 (V). To give you an idea of the lens's performance, I've included two sample images (shown several times before) at apertures of 4.0 and 2.0. Perhaps this will help you make up your mind:

f/4.0

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!

Leica M11 * Leica Summicron M 2.0/50 (V) * ISO 64 * f/4.0 * 1/320 sec * CaptureOne * St. Barbara * California * USA

 

f/2.0

Leica M11 * Leica Summicron M 2.0/50 (V) * ISO 64 * f/2.0 * 1/250 sec * CaptureOne * Amboy * Mojave Desert * California * USA

Edited Monday at 05:46 PM by S/W

[SimonV]

Thank you, those shots are gorgeous. Especially love the colors of the first one and the crispness of that blue car!

[jaapv]

Only one way to test: take plenty of photographs and decide which ones, in general, you like best. Actually my favourite is the Nokton 50/1.5 ii. 

[UliWer]

1 hour ago, SimonV said:

I've been testing and comparing them to each other a lot … but it's turning out to be a real challenge choosing only one

That is all you can expect from „testing“ and comparing. Ifyou don‘t use lenses which are 80 or more years apart it is hard to see the differences. They all use glass and optical design is no whitchcraft. 

So my proposal is to look - perhaps most important - at the price tag and then for „secondary“ qualities: how is the handling (focus throw, setting f-stops, blockage of rangefinder, availability of hoods and filters, do you know where to repair the lens etc.).   

 

[lct]

I'm not good at comparing lenses of different apertures. I own both and prefer the Summicon on portraits for the simple reason that i prefer f/2 there. Now the Skopar is hard to beat at f/2.8 and above if you need a small lens and/or if you shoot closeups. The Skopar is also less prone to flare when strong light sources such as the sun stand outside the frame. Also the Skopar allows to shoot at about 20cm subject distance together with the Leica macro adepter. The rest is subjective and only you can know if you prefer modern lenses like the Skopar to more classic ones like the Summicron. Happy snaps

[GFW2-SCUSA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good question!  I read all the interesting posts about lenses and what folk find using them and wonder to myself, "How come I don't know what my lens does or doesn't do.?" Then I think, "am I pleased with the picture?"  If so, great, if not why not? Usually its not the lens but my missing something. So, the question SimonV asked comes up - what is a good way to determine the character of a lens?  As for the 50 Scopar, I have it and really am impressed with it. For reasons unknown I've never been thrilled with the Leica Summicrom V5 or 4 that I have. I really like the 50mm Voigtlander Lanthar - but the little Skopar 2.2 if a delight. 

 

[TomB_tx]

The old saying was that you can't go wrong with a Summicron, and every Leica owner should have one. I got my first in 1969 and it was my main lens for about 50 years. With Digital bodies I switched to the Summarit f2.5 in both 50 & 35 mm for their tiny size and identical fast handling. Th 35 is esceptional, and the 50 was very much a smaller and slightly slower Summicron - from the lens optics diagrams. The 50 has similar central-veiling flare to the Summicron in certain lighting conditions as noted above. I'd say that's the only weakness in these two lenses. I also have a ver 5 and images have more "snap" - but the flare tendency is still there.

I recently got the new Color Skopar 50mm f2.2, and find it to be wonderful for my use: like a tinier version of the 2.5 Summarit that has less flare. It has a bit more corner vignetting, but that doesn't bother me - it can be effective in many pictures. Especially for the low cost the Skopar is worth a try - very low risk.

[costa43]

Welcome. You seem to be doing a really good job in testing and comparing already. It does take time to learn a lens in my experience. There are number of variables that can be measured objectively but in the end, it comes down to what you prefer. Many of us own multiple lenses of the same focal length as they each offer something different. The Color Skopar is a no nonsense performer that can be slipped into a winter jacket easily for instance. The Nokton f1.2 has a dreamy look wide open and an advantage in lower light, the Summicron is a classic design that has stood the test of time. Leica have stuck with the same optical design for over 45 years now. It is also a Leica lens. There is a charm in shooting with a lens that has some history, subjective but the M camera for me is mainly about the feeling so it’s another primary factor in my own decision making.

The handling and actual experience of using the lens is also very important to me. How do they feel in use, do you prefer a shorter throw where you can quickly go from near focus to infinity or a longer one that provides more accuracy in focusing, do you prefer the experience of using a focus tab. Another important factor to consider are the type of photos you take. Are you shooting into the sun a lot, do you take a lot of portraits, lowlight, close up shots etc.

If you really need to whittle the collection down to a single lens, you will compromise on something as there is no perfect option. Just go with the one that feels right. The gut usually leads you down the right path. You may end up buying them back again later on down the line though!

FWIW, If I was picking out of these 3 options then I would choose the Summicron, it’s what you cannot measure that wins out of these 3 for me. A new Leica camera with a classic Leica lens is a good starting point imo. Saying that, having a small slip in the jacket option is appealing also…..oh dear, here we go again!

Edited 12 hours ago by costa43

[DenverSteve]

The Summicron has always been the benchmark for me.  I owned versions 2-6 at the same time to test and evaluate and kept the v5.  If I were testing the lenses you have it would take about 30 minutes.  Find a still life that you like - landscape, people that aren't going anywhere, buildings.... all with sky and foreground.  Look at the images created and pick what you like the best.  I would add that you can't/won't go wrong with the Summicron where the others may exhibit a bit more flare than the v5 Summi.  If the Summicron is in your budget I would take it.  However, don't discount a viii or vIV as you might save some decent change and get the same quality lens with (maybe) slight color difference, but maybe not.  Congrats on the 240.  

What I would do prior to buying a M lens is to take a few minutes and look at the EXIF from your prior photos to see what the most used focal length is.  You may find that 35 might work better if that's what you use more often.  Here's an article by Matt Osborne.  He's very good with these comparisons.  Also, Ken Rockwell has put out some comparison charts that are helpful. 

https://mrleica.com/leica-m-50mm-lenses-compared/

Edited 11 hours ago by DenverSteve