Summilux-M First Version. How bad?

[TJV]

This is a how long is a piece of string kind of question, and it has no doubt been discussed at length before, but how "bad" is the first version Summilux 50mm? Compared to what lens?

As far as I can tell it's got a bad rep for beeing poor until about f4, is that justified? Also, is it true that the cosmetics of the first and second gen lenses very similar? I've seen chrome second version Summilux's advertised that look to be identical to the second version. Is it just the serial number that gives the version away or what?

Funny, I bet I'll get a million people read this thread, compared to a question I asked in the MF RF Modern forum that no one as looked at at all since I posted it four days ago! Shows you how many people love small format Leicas.

J

 

[Doug]

"Bad"? I don't really think so, though I've not used one. Looks fine in the pics I've seen, and it had a very long production run using the same optics. Some now prefer its "vintage" look.

 

[projectbluebird]

The summilux I own is this version, and I've never understood why it has this reputation. The only purpose it seems to serve is to keep prices down, which is the only way I was able to afford one! I think the reputation comes from comparing it wide-open to the summicron of the same vintage, which is a superb lens even now. (I've got one of those too, a DR.) Even then, it's not "bad", it's just not as good. They're both great lenses.

 

[rover]

Don't believe anything you read on the internet.

Bad compared to what? I think cirque has it right, there are a lot of choices. The qualities of those other lenses don't make this one bad, just different.

 

[TJV]

I'm just interested. I already have a current version Summicron. 50mm is my favourite lens for street and general purpose with my 35 Summilux a very close second. In an ideal world I'd like to have a two body kit with f1.4 50mm and 35mm lenses on each. I could lose my 28mm and never miss it, although it's nice to have a wider option if needed. I have to say that the nicest lens I've ever used is probably my old Collapsible summicron that is now dead. That was back in the day I shot only black and white and it died before I even bothered using it for colour work. I never thought it was a great wide open lens but that wasn't the point. For the most part, it got what I saw and that, I think, means it was a great lens for me. Because I shoot mostly slowish colour trannie now, and because my subject focus has changed, an extra stop of the Summilux would be ideal. If the first version Summilux is of the same quality then it can't be "bad" but just not as critically sharp or some such thing. I'm defianatly not a gear head or hung up on everything being tack sharp or flare free, I'm just wondering if people think the first gen has a deserved rep and what its realistic flaws / merits are. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if it had one of those old focus tab wheel things the old Elmar and Cron had. I love those for quick focus pull work.

 

[projectbluebird]

My lens has the classic leica scalloped focus ring, and the throw from infinity to close focus (1m) is about 180 degrees. Which gives more focusing accuracy, but can be inconvenient. To make it less so, I leave mine pre-focused somewhere in the middle, then it's a quarter-turn at most.

 

[pfoto]

Whatever your definition of "bad" is, the v1 Summilux isn't. Except maybe for heavy, it is a brass lens after all. If you can't find any pics on flickr taken with it, take a look at Mike Dixon's pics over on PN. Many of the 50mm shots are done with this lens.

Mike Dixon's gallery on PN

 

[foto_fool]

I have one of the very earliest of these produced. It is one of my favorite 50mm lenses. My only knocks are that it is twice the bulk of a ZM Sonnar C and the focus throw is longer.

 

[chikne]

It can get worse than this.....