Contax G 45mm F2 vs. Leica 50mm Summicron Rigid/DR Sharpness

[Moriturii]

Ok Guys. I don't give the slightest you-know-what about sharpness when it comes to 35mm B&W photography, BUT, would like to have sharp pictures for color photography (don't ask me why, I was born around midnight).

So, between the Contax G 45mm f2 lens (the one that you would see sitting on a Contax G1/G2) and the Leica 50mm F2 Summicron RIGID/DR (Same thing isn't it?) which one is probably the sharpest?

The Contax one looks great on the photodo MTF list but the Summicron isn't even on there and I've heard legendary things about it.

So, Contax G 45mm F2 Planar or Leica Summicron 50mm f2, which one would you pick for sharpness?

Cheers!

 

[cambolt]

The one which fits on my camera...
so neither

 

[Moriturii]

The one which fits on my camera...
so neither

Ok? Then why did you make a post? 🙄

 

[raid]

Both lenses are high resolution and sharp lenses, with the Contax having higher contrast. I once tried out the 45/2 in M mount. I use such a lens in G mount, plus the rigid Summicron.

 

[cambolt]

Ok? Then why did you make a post? 🙄

What I'm saying is that if you have a contax camera, get the contax lens. If you have a leica, get the summicron. There's no point obsessing over sharpness, especially if the lens won't even fit on your camera.

 

[shyoon]

I'd pick the 45mm Planar, only because it'd be a lot harder to find a Rigid/DR Summicron with clean glass nowadays.

 

[Moriturii]

I'd pick the 45mm Planar, only because it'd be a lot harder to find a Rigid/DR Summicron with clean glass nowadays.

What I was thinking. I can pick up a Contax G2 with the Planar lens for the same price as a Rigid/Dr Summicron in equal shape, or cheaper actually where I live.

 

[scorpius73]

What I'm saying is that if you have a contax camera, get the contax lens. If you have a leica, get the summicron. There's no point obsessing over sharpness, especially if the lens won't even fit on your camera.

You can now have the Contax 45mm f2 converted to M mount nowadays. It will bring up the 50mm framelines. I don't own such a beast........yet. But wold love to.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

This is a classic apples-to-oranges comparison. The Contax 45/2 is a _very_ special, modern lens. It is a stand-out among the Contax G series, in my opinion. I like it so much I own one in G-mount and had one converted to M-mount. It is also 40 years younger than the DR Summicron about which you are asking. The Summicron, which I also love and of which I own two (one rigid, one DR) is a lower contrast lens, with a 1960's look, softer coatings, more prone to flare, but much more robust build quality to the barrel (solid brass, weighs a ton, has already lasted 50 years and still going strong). Color pictures taken with the DR/Rigid will be lower in contrast -- which can make the image appear less sharp, but will also reward you with a longer tonal range.

If apparent sharpness is your highest priority, and your universe of lenses is really limited to these two, go for the G. Know, though, that it will not likely last as long as the M lenses, will be more difficult to repair and is fully functional only on a dead-end system.

If it were me and I had to limit myself to one of the lenses you listed, I would choose the DR, but _for me_ sharpness is not the be-all/end-all.

Ben

Edit/p.s. - the converted G is indeed usable on Leica M's and m-4/3, NEX cameras with adapters. You should know that the Miyazaki conversion results in a click-less aperture ring and a slightly fiddly focus-tab. For me, the conversion has been completely worth it, but it is not like getting M-build quality with a wave of the wand.

 

[Moriturii]

This is a classic apples-to-oranges comparison. The Contax 45/2 is a _very_ special, modern lens. It is a stand-out among the Contax G series, in my opinion. I like it so much I own one in G-mount and had one converted to M-mount. It is also 40 years younger than the DR Summicron about which you are asking. The Summicron, which I also love and of which I own two (one rigid, one DR) is a lower contrast lens, with a 1960's look, softer coatings, more prone to flare, but much more robust build quality to the barrel (solid brass, weighs a ton, has already lasted 50 years and still going strong). Color pictures taken with the DR/Rigid will be lower in contrast -- which can make the image appear less sharp, but will also reward you with a longer tonal range.

If apparent sharpness is your highest priority, and your universe of lenses is really limited to these two, go for the G. Know, though, that it will not likely last as long as the M lenses, will be more difficult to repair and is fully functional only on a dead-end system.

If it were me and I had to limit myself to one of the lenses you listed, I would choose the DR, but _for me_ sharpness is not the be-all/end-all.

Ben

Edit/p.s. - the converted G is indeed usable on Leica M's and m-4/3, NEX cameras with adapters. You should know that the Miyazaki conversion results in a click-less aperture ring and a slightly fiddly focus-tab. For me, the conversion has been completely worth it, but it is not like getting M-build quality with a wave of the wand.

This is very interesting. You make a lot of great points. I've never done color photos before, and don't care about sharpness in B&W but thought it would suit for color for some reason... stuff to think about...
thank you!

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I almost bought a converted 45 Planar here last year for around 600, and now regret not doing so. I loved the hell out of that lens on the G1. I want it for the M9.

I think the exchange rate has a newly converted lens coming in at around a thousand dollars now.

 

[raid]

I also could/should have bought such a lens. I had one as a loaner, and I was given the opportunity to buy it.

 

[joachim]

What I was thinking. I can pick up a Contax G2 with the Planar lens for the same price as a Rigid/Dr Summicron in equal shape, or cheaper actually where I live.

A key issue here is, whether you prefer the way the Contax G works over the way a typical M-mount camera works. If you like a Contax G with its AF operation get it. As you figured they are a good deal right now. If you don't like it, get a Summicron. If you get a 'cron, you still need to debate which version (there are more modern ones around the the DR). If you want better sharpness than either of those, get a Rolleiflex, Fuji Ranger or Hasselblad. Size just matters 😉

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

One other thing, MS Optical's Elmar-like housing for the 45 appears quite handsome to me, and would probably cut a nice profile on a black Leica. Not terribly important but still.

 

[uhligfd]

I have never known of any ill effect when a picture was taken with a slightly "unsharp" lens, but in the most compelling light, with scene and impact to make a great piece of art. I am sure an answer to your question has no bearing on actual photography, i.e. the pictures themselves.

Things may be different if one were trying to document, reproduce for archival purposes. But then one would use neither of these two lenses because rangefinders do not work all that well in macro work.
So the question of lens sharpness is actually quite moot when using a lens for its designed purpose. Even decentered lenses can make wonderful pictures, just look at the Aperture 40 Years book of a few years back and the pictures of Mayan ruins there.

So, what is the purpose of the question? It has only implications as to gear lust, but not to actual photography, in my opinion.

 

[Moriturii]

I have never known of any ill effect when a picture was taken with a slightly "unsharp" lens, but in the most compelling light, with scene and impact to make a great piece of art. I am sure an answer to your question has no bearing on actual photography, i.e. the pictures themselves.

Things may be different if one were trying to document, reproduce for archival purposes. But then one would use neither of these two lenses because rangefinders do not work all that well in macro work.
So the question of lens sharpness is actually quite moot when using a lens for its designed purpose. Even decentered lenses can make wonderful pictures, just look at the Aperture 40 Years book of a few years back and the pictures of Mayan ruins there.

So, what is the purpose of the question? It has only implications as to gear lust, but not to actual photography, in my opinion.

Geez, getting sick of these questions. Why don't people read the thread and what I've said. Sharpness means **** all to me, if I wanted sharp pictures I'd use 8x10, but I thought, for no good reason, that sharpness might be a nice element on color pictures ON TOP OF ALL THE OTHER ESSENTIAL PICTORAL ELEMENTS SUCH AS LIGHT ETC.

Ok? I could show you my B&Ws, none of them are sharp.

EDIT:

 

[_larky]

How do you focus a converted G mount lens?

 

[Bob Michaels]

A key issue here is, whether you prefer the way the Contax G works over the way a typical M-mount camera works. If you like a Contax G with its AF operation get it. As you figured they are a good deal right now. If you don't like it, get a Summicron.....................

This is the key point. You either like the way the ContaxG system works or you do not. You cannot really force it to be what it is not. But if you like the way it works, it is incredible.

Adapting the excellent 45mm Planar to be a M mount lens never made sense to me. And I own that lens and a M mount system.

 

[furcafe]

The optics are put into a new barrel complete w/focus helical.

http://www.japanexposures.com/lens/

How do you focus a converted G mount lens?

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

How do you focus a converted G mount lens?

They just put the optics into a whole new housing:
http://www.japanexposures.com/lens/