50/1.4 ASPH vs. 50/2 (IV) - Quick Check.

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Tabb'ed 50 cron (11819/11825) and the the current one (11826/11816) share the same optical cell designed by Walter Mandler. The mount is the difference as well as possibly a difference in coating, but the last bit is pure specualtion on my part.

 

Carl, there is a persistent rumour that when the Summicron 50 version with the retractable hood was introduced, some fine tuning to the optical formula was done as well. Certainly not enough to call it a new optical computation, but enough to be a little different from the previous version. Coatings, of course, have always been upgraded over time without specific notice from Leica.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

[Guest leica_mage]

I particularly treasure Lars' abrasive view of things, albeit not agreeing with all of it.

 

I, too, have come to appreciate the absolute brilliance of the modern ASPHs over everything else. And I do agree about the Summicron's poor flare resistance, it is very obvious.

 

Some of the under-corrected (in retrospect, of course) Leitz optics of yore, however, are magical in their own right, because they excel at the mid-tones. I'm thinking of the 21mm f/3.4 Super-Angulon, the 35mm pre-ASPH Summilux, the 90mm Elmarit (I). The competition at the time couldn't churn out optics like that if their life depended on it.

 

Still, having tried and loved that look, I'd never go back to it today.

[Theodor Heinrichsohn]

I particularly treasure Lars' abrasive view of things, albeit not agreeing with all of it.

 

I, too, have come to appreciate the absolute brilliance of the modern ASPHs over everything else. And I do agree about the Summicron's poor flare resistance, it is very obvious.

 

Some of the under-corrected (in retrospect, of course) Leitz optics of yore, however, are magical in their own right, because they excel at the mid-tones. I'm thinking of the 21mm f/3.4 Super-Angulon, the 35mm pre-ASPH Summilux, the 90mm Elmarit (I). The competition at the time couldn't churn out optics like that if their life depended on it.

 

Still, having tried and loved that look, I'd never go back to it today.

 

I have been following this thread with interest, as I own most of the lenses referred to.

One thing I would like to mention: With today's b&w slow successor films to Tech Pan which are very contrasty, the older, less contrasty lenses give very pleasant results. The 2nd version of the 50/2 Summicron is a high resolution, low contrast lens. Same goes for the 1st version of the 35/2 Summicron in my experience.

Both these lenses remain in use for slow b&w emulsions and slow, contrasty slide films such as Velvia 50.

Teddy

[thrid]

And I do agree about the Summicron's poor flare resistance, it is very obvious.=

 

In that respect there is something very strange going on with the current incarnation of the Cron. I've seen this a few times and it looks like internal reflections coming off the inside of the barrel or the rear of the optical mount. I used to see a similar thing with the thin Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90. A semi circular reflection coming off something....

 

It's rare, but it does happen and the few times it has happened to me it occurred under fairly normal conditions on a sunny day.

[Guest leica_mage]

I have been following this thread with interest, as I own most of the lenses referred to.

One thing I would like to mention: With today's b&w slow successor films to Tech Pan which are very contrasty, the older, less contrasty lenses give very pleasant results. The 2nd version of the 50/2 Summicron is a high resolution, low contrast lens. Same goes for the 1st version of the 35/2 Summicron in my experience.

Both these lenses remain in use for slow b&w emulsions and slow, contrasty slide films such as Velvia 50.

Teddy

Ted, indeed. It was the first thing I noticed when opting for the newer optics quite some time ago. Things like PanF Plus in broad daylight was shocking the first time. But I soon discovered something very interesting! None of the information whatsoever was lost in the negative! What appeared as blown highlights was actually not! A bit of judicious printing and the use of a lower-contrast paper brought everything back to life again.

 

And because I do a lot of night photography, nothing beats the vibrancy of the ASPHs. With the older lenses, night turns into mush.

[Shootist]

I own the current 50 Cron and the current 50 Lux.

The 50 Lux lives on one M8 and the 50 Cron sits on a shelf. Not that I don't like the 50 Cron, it is a great lens, but I find the 50 Lux ASPH to be superior in all respects, IMHO.

I still use the 50 Cron sometimes but not often. I will be doing a wedding for a friend in November and will bring both with me and use both.

[peter_n]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been following this thread with interest, as I own most of the lenses referred to.

One thing I would like to mention: With today's b&w slow successor films to Tech Pan which are very contrasty, the older, less contrasty lenses give very pleasant results. The 2nd version of the 50/2 Summicron is a high resolution, low contrast lens. Same goes for the 1st version of the 35/2 Summicron in my experience.

Both these lenses remain in use for slow b&w emulsions and slow, contrasty slide films such as Velvia 50.

I'm with Teddy. Five years into Leica ownership and I have two sets of the medium focal lengths: 35 Summicron v1, 50 DR Summicron, 85/2 Nikkor. Then either 35 Summicron ASPH/35 Summilux ASPH, 50 Summilux ASPH, and 75 Summicron ASPH. I like both types of lenses and use them where they are suited. As Alex points out, the ASPH lenses are very well suited to night shots, although I must admit that if it is a one lens situation I take my Noctilux at night. That thing is in a league of it's own.

[lct]

...I sold the 'cron because while a really excellent lens under ideal circmstances, it was and is a dog when it comes to resistance to stray light. It produces flare phenomena that are specifically its own, and which can and do ruin pictures...

Never got this with my Cron 11819 so far. Here compared to the 35/2 IV. Another difference with the current version?

 

 

[rsh]

Either one is great. In fact, there is not one bad lens in Leica's current lineup. Just different.

[NZDavid]

<<And because I do a lot of night photography, nothing beats the vibrancy of the ASPHs..>>

 

There you have it! A lot depends on light. My experience precisely with the 35 'cron ASPH for dusk travel shots on 100 ISO slide film. At dusk and night time, maximum detail makes all the difference.

 

In bright contrasty light, the ASPH difference may not be so decisive.

 

I still love my rigid 50 Summicron from the M3. It's an amazing performer.

 

A case of horses for courses, surely?

[Guest leica_mage]

Never got this with my Cron 11819 so far. Here compared to the 35/2 IV. Another difference with the current version?

Maybe because the second photo was taken in 1979, you had upgraded the Wattage in your light bulb??

 

Seriously though, some of this might be attributable to lens sample variation. I tried to keep the thread I started on the issue alive, but to no avail. People somehow seem to be shy of this topic when it comes to Leica.

[xjr]

There is no real comparison as the ASPH is superior in all departments except cost.