Summilux 50 first version- worth to buy ?

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The original 50mm Elmar 2.8 is a very special lens. While the previous 3.5 'Red Scale' version concentrated its definition to the axial and paraxial area, with fairly mushy edges and corners, the 2.8 has its performance pretty evenly distributed across the entire field. The reason is that the lens was conceived as a combination taking, enlarging, projection and copy lens. The contrast is fairly low at 2.8, but the corners are just about as good as the center. At f:8 it is about as good as a contemporary rigid Summicron at 5.6. It is the natural lens to use with a BOOWU-M, and I use it so, occasionally. The result is not half bad, with a M8, and lighting by a SF24D!

 

I also like the lens as a slightly nostalgic optic; if you want a bit of classical 'Leica Glow' (= quite a bit of residual aberrations) then this easily found and low-cost lens is the natural candidate. It collapses OK on the M8, but I do always mount and dismount it extended.

 

The old man from the Age of the Red Scale Elmar

[sbelyaev]

Here you will find images taken with Summilux 50/1.4 v1 @ f1.4 trough f8.

 

summilux 50/1.4 v1 - a set on Flickr

[offshore]

The 1959/1961 version or very first Summilux is a beautiful lens, although not technically perfect. The best sharpness is confined more to the center at 1.4 and 2.0. A nice one is difficult to find and I never did when money was available. It is much like my Summarit which I cherish.

 

The next version, made for 40 years, has the sharpness spreads more across the frame at open apertures, but the samples I tested are never as sharp as the first anywhere. It has better flare control and coma control at the expense of significant barrel distortion. It never really achieves really good sharpness until F8. Despite the fact it was made for 40 years, I dislike every one I ever found.

 

The latest ASPH is a gem of a lens, nearly perfect.

 

The latest 50 2.8 compares favorably with the ASPH 50 Lux at 4 to16.

 

The earlier one is more like the DR / Rigid series of Summicron, with lower contrast and the sharpness more confined toward the center at 2.8. If you like older lenses, you will like this or a DR/Rigid.

 

Tobey I was under the impression there were four versions of this lens the last pre ASPH version had a slight optical change and a closer focusing distance. Am I wrong on this?

[wizard]

... the last pre ASPH version had a slight optical change ...

 

Never confirmed.

 

...and a closer focusing distance.

 

Correct. Focusses down to 0.7m instead of 1m.

 

Andy

[ampguy]

JLV - those are excellent photos!

 

I have a v2 from about 1966 (222xxxx) that was CLA'd by Sherry. It renders very similar to the images shown in this thread.

 

I do want a V3 pre-asph at some point, not so much for the more standardized 46mm filter size, but for the closer focus.

 

Some users of both the v2 and v3 pre-asph feel that the v3 is more flare resistant than the v2.

[JLV]

Dear All,

 

Thanks you so much for your implication and all the useful informations you are giving me.

 

I am still a bit confused about the version I am testing actually.

I explain why:

 

It looks like the first version: Chrome,and description and picture of the lens correspond with first version description given by the"identifying Leica lenses book" of Ghester Sartorius. It weights also 285 grams.

 

Its number should put it in the 2nd version that starts according to the same book with the number 1 844 001 but the look is not the one of the second version (wich I can see in this book) and the lens doesn't weight 360 grams wich is the second version weight.

 

So who's and what's wrong. It seems for me that this lens is really from the first version even if the number doesn't fit or could it be a second version with the cosmetic of the first one???

 

Mr Sartorius says in his book about the second version (quote) "Beginning with 1 844 001, the optical design of the Summilux 50 mmf/1,4 was modified although it retained the same composition of seven elements in five groups.The lens body did not undergo any changes (so why the picture shown in the book of the second version is very different from the first one) so any lens with the serial number inferior to 1 844 001 is a first version"

Thanks for any input on that.

 

All the best,

jean-Luc

[ampguy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

JLV:

 

This one is tricky because as was mentioned already, Leica did not acknowledge the change for a few years, and change from scallop to continuous focus ring does not necessarily mean optical change (note that the very new pre-asph LHSA black paint 46E model goes back to the interrupted scalloped focus ring).

 

I think the "official" cutover from V1 to V2 is 2,077,500, around 1965, with mpns of 1113 or 1114 depending if black or chrome.

 

However, there is a likely chance that for a few years before (1,8xx,xxx/1,9xx,xxx) the optics change from V1 to V2 could have occurred.

 

Similarly, there is no known exact serial number for change from 43E to 46E filter and focus change, though the year is thought to be around 1995 time frame.

 

Dear All,

 

Thanks you so much for your implication and all the useful informations you are giving me.

 

I am still a bit confused about the version I am testing actually.

I explain why:

 

It looks like the first version: Chrome,and description and picture of the lens correspond with first version description given by the"identifying Leica lenses book" of Ghester Sartorius. It weights also 285 grams.

 

Its number should put it in the 2nd version that starts according to the same book with the number 1 844 001 but the look is not the one of the second version (wich I can see in this book) and the lens doesn't weight 360 grams wich is the second version weight.

 

So who's and what's wrong. It seems for me that this lens is really from the first version even if the number doesn't fit or could it be a second version with the cosmetic of the first one???

 

Mr Sartorius says in his book about the second version (quote) "Beginning with 1 844 001, the optical design of the Summilux 50 mmf/1,4 was modified although it retained the same composition of seven elements in five groups.The lens body did not undergo any changes (so why the picture shown in the book of the second version is very different from the first one) so any lens with the serial number inferior to 1 844 001 is a first version"

Thanks for any input on that.

 

All the best,

jean-Luc

[lars_bergquist]

Mr Sartorius' reasoning is a perfect example of the inanity of just counting groups and elements. For it is true that both versions have seven elements in five groups--but they are different elements grouped in entirely different fashions!

 

This is easy to show. In the formulas below, which follow the light from outside in, '1' means a single element and '2' a cemented group of two. The / denotes the position of the diaphragm:

 

Version one: 1 - 2 / 2 - 1 - 1

 

Version two: 1 - 1 - 1 / 2 - 2

 

where v.1 is of course the classical Xenon formula patented in the early 1930's by Taylor, Taylor & Hobson and licensed to Schneider (this is the reason for the patent info on the front rings of Leica Xenon lenses and early Summarit lenses). This design surfaced again for the last time in Mandler's design for the Noctilux 1:1.

 

Jean-Luc's lens is indeed an odd one. The only way of finding out what the beast is--short of disassembling it, which we would do only in dire need--is to compare it with both a clear example of the first version, and one of the second. BTW few seem to think that the optical change coincided with the mount change. Some people however find it difficult to keep the two concepts apart.

 

The old man from the Age B.C. (Before Coating)

[JLV]

Thank you Lars and all of you,

 

Considering all these informations, and the price of this lens wich seems inapropriate, I decided to wait and find a newer version ..and if I really wait, maybe even te asph version.

 

This thread and all the information I got,showed the best of our forum and the wonderful and passionate implication of Leica experts.

 

I thank you sincerely.

 

All the best,

Jean-Luc

[k_g_wolf ✝]

Yes, I would like to second that also, Jean-Luc !

 

Learned a lot again in this thread. Thx for all the

valuable input. Helps me to find my way to my first

50mm-SUMMILUX ...

 

The only drawback: my SUMMICRON will most likely

dislike this move a lot.

 

 

 

Best

[lars_bergquist]

I did own both the v.2 Summilux and the current Summicron. I used the 'cron for exacting work where its proclivity for strange flare phenomena did not pose a danger. This was an arrangement that worked well, even though I sold both after purchasing a Summilux ASPH in '03. Today I do not use it much because of its oddball field of view on the M8, but it's so damn good I find it difficult to part with it.

 

The old man again

[offshore]

Never confirmed.

 

 

 

Correct. Focusses down to 0.7m instead of 1m.

 

Andy

Wizard reg "Never confirmed" about the change in optical design here is an optical diagram I finally relocated showing the difference of several elements in the formula. Recognize this? I don't recall where I originally found it.

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!

[ampguy]

more info. on versions and thoughts on v1 / v2 are here:

 

The 50mm f/1.4 Summilux" By Dick Gilcreast, published in Volume 31 No. 3, 1998 of "The Viewfinder"

[wizard]

Wizard reg "Never confirmed" about the change in optical design here is an optical diagram I finally relocated showing the difference of several elements in the formula. Recognize this? I don't recall where I originally found it.

 

That is very interesting. Apparently then, this last optical change coincides with the change in mounts, i.e. the built-in lens hood variety should then be the latest optical version of this lens. It would indeed be worthwhile to know where this infirmation springs from, as I believe Leica has never confirmed or even indicated any optical change at that point in time.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

[offshore]

That is very interesting. Apparently then, this last optical change coincides with the change in mounts, i.e. the built-in lens hood variety should then be the latest optical version of this lens. It would indeed be worthwhile to know where this infirmation springs from, as I believe Leica has never confirmed or even indicated any optical change at that point in time.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

Andy I think this was one of Erwin's charts that I retained from a few years ago. Yes, I believe you are correct in the lens shade change and I'm also wondering if the change in optical design allowed the lens a closer focusing distance.

[Philippe D.]

I decided to wait and find a newer version ..and if I really wait, maybe even the asph version.

Yes Jean-Luc, take your time, save a bit of money more and go for this marvel.

This one and the Lux 35 Asph are fabulous lenses on M8.