ecowarrior
Established
Amongst other things I have a Nikon ZF, and a Leica M240. Between those two cameras, I have, or have access to, all the lens focal lengths I could possibly need.
So any lens purchases now are really going to be upgrades, replacements or duplicates (of focal length).
For my Leica I have (in addition to a CV35) a Zeiss Planar 50 F2. I like it.
I COULD trade it in, spend a fairly reasonable amount of money, and buy a used 50 Summicron in excellent condition. I don't own (and never have) any Leica lenses to date.
But should I?
So any lens purchases now are really going to be upgrades, replacements or duplicates (of focal length).
For my Leica I have (in addition to a CV35) a Zeiss Planar 50 F2. I like it.
I COULD trade it in, spend a fairly reasonable amount of money, and buy a used 50 Summicron in excellent condition. I don't own (and never have) any Leica lenses to date.
But should I?
Last edited:
Timmyjoe
Veteran
If you can afford it, then YES!!! The reason, Leica lenses render different than Voigtlander and Zeiss glass. And if you've never had the opportunity to shoot Leica glass, you might find the way it renders to be very pleasing to your eye. And the 50 Summicron is a good start.
I've always found Leica glass to render the way I sort of see the world, kind of idealistically. I find Zeiss glass renders too cold and clinical for my tastes. I find Voigtlander glass renders about 1/2 way between Zeiss and Leica. I find Leica glass renders warm and a bit less clinical.
Your mileage may vary.
Best,
-Tim
I've always found Leica glass to render the way I sort of see the world, kind of idealistically. I find Zeiss glass renders too cold and clinical for my tastes. I find Voigtlander glass renders about 1/2 way between Zeiss and Leica. I find Leica glass renders warm and a bit less clinical.
Your mileage may vary.
Best,
-Tim
Archiver
Veteran
I never liked 50mm until I bought a gently used Summicron 50 v5. It became my favorite lens for ages after. I haven't used the Zeiss Planar, so I can't make that comparison, but I like it more as a general purpose 50 than the C Sonnar 50mm f1.5.
Slumgullion
Well-known
I guess it depends on what you want...
Optically, there won't be much, if any, upgrade. The cron has less geometric distortion, but the Planar has significantly better flare resistance. They are both sharp. At the end of the day, they are very, very good lenses. Don't expect the Leica to be night-and-day-difference better...because it's not.
The main argument, is that the Leica is a Leica - if that's what you want, that's what you want. It will probably have better longterm serviceability and higher resale value vs. the Planar (which is a good enough selling point for me).
Optically, there won't be much, if any, upgrade. The cron has less geometric distortion, but the Planar has significantly better flare resistance. They are both sharp. At the end of the day, they are very, very good lenses. Don't expect the Leica to be night-and-day-difference better...because it's not.
The main argument, is that the Leica is a Leica - if that's what you want, that's what you want. It will probably have better longterm serviceability and higher resale value vs. the Planar (which is a good enough selling point for me).
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Perhaps this is a heretical notion here, but I think you should stop obsessing over equipment. Do different lenses of the same focal length and speed render somewhat differently? Yes, but...
The Planar and the Summicron are both superb lenses and offer all the performance anyone could need. Neither will hinder you in creating the images that you want to make, and the differences will be essentially indistinguishable if you're out making photos in the real world.
I've been down this route of wanting multiples of focal lengths and/or thinking a real Leica lens would make a difference. I wasted a lot of money, and learned, finally, that in reality I was dissatisfied with my abilities as a photographer and was trying to compensate by throwing equipment at the problem.
The Planar and the Summicron are both superb lenses and offer all the performance anyone could need. Neither will hinder you in creating the images that you want to make, and the differences will be essentially indistinguishable if you're out making photos in the real world.
I've been down this route of wanting multiples of focal lengths and/or thinking a real Leica lens would make a difference. I wasted a lot of money, and learned, finally, that in reality I was dissatisfied with my abilities as a photographer and was trying to compensate by throwing equipment at the problem.
ecowarrior
Established
That's a good balance of "YES" and "NO" answers so far, thank you all for replying. My suspicions are that I want it for emotional reasons rather than practical, but I also think "hell, you're in your 50s, life's too short, get what you want...." etc.
It's just something I'm pondering at the moment.
It's just something I'm pondering at the moment.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
The heart wants what the heart wants! As long as you realize that your reasons are primarily emotional, and you don't expect the Summicron to be the magic bullet for your photography, then go for it. I'd be the last one to condemn anyone for putting emotion over reason, having done so on many occasions myself!
ecowarrior
Established
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I'm afraid I cannot help much. All my experiences with 50mm glass were with a Summicron until I got hooked into Nikon RFs.
However...
The 'crons (35 and 50) are overrated. They're good lenses but will not make you a great photographer. In fact, they tend to have unexpected soft spots at times, especially wide open.
I like sharp images and have found that the Zeiss Biogons I have fit the bill: very sharp and contrasty. Even wide open, they're amazingly sharp. As to warmth... I don't know because I don't use color film with my rangefinders.
My two cents: you like sharp images? Keep the Zeiss Planar. You want something less sharp? Go for the Leica. You want the Leica experience? Get the 'cron.
Enjoy the weekend!
However...
The 'crons (35 and 50) are overrated. They're good lenses but will not make you a great photographer. In fact, they tend to have unexpected soft spots at times, especially wide open.
I like sharp images and have found that the Zeiss Biogons I have fit the bill: very sharp and contrasty. Even wide open, they're amazingly sharp. As to warmth... I don't know because I don't use color film with my rangefinders.
My two cents: you like sharp images? Keep the Zeiss Planar. You want something less sharp? Go for the Leica. You want the Leica experience? Get the 'cron.
Enjoy the weekend!
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I think that since the early 90s, probably $50k in photo gear has come and gone in my quest for some intangible, fueled by peer pressure, maybe a little hype, and the fact that I love shiny new metal gadgets.
I've owned Leica, Canon, Nikon, Leotax, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Komura, Pentax, Minolta, you name it in lenses, and camera marques. I got to the point where what I wanted most was time.
A few years ago, I found a Pentax MX at a thrift shop, then had Eric Hendrickson overhaul it. I slapped a 50mm f/1.4 SMC-M lens on and in spite of me owning a decent size collection of awesome film cameras and lenses (including a Leica M4 with DR 'Cron, Nikon F2 and F3 with a ton of AI and AIS glass, as well as some awesome rarities), that Pentax MX with 50mm is the one I grab usually. It's the same form factor as my first 35mm camera, a Pentax ME Super, with the same lens.
So I went round and round with multiple systems, a ton of lenses, and all sorts of gadgetry, just to come back to a manual camera nearly the same as the first one I owned.
As was stated before, just remember that your purchase of the Summicron may simply be an emotional one and one of exploration in how you like it, but if the Zeiss lens does it for you, then you may be good to go. Think about the time and the film which that lens may pay for over the aura of the Summicron.
Phil
I've owned Leica, Canon, Nikon, Leotax, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Komura, Pentax, Minolta, you name it in lenses, and camera marques. I got to the point where what I wanted most was time.
A few years ago, I found a Pentax MX at a thrift shop, then had Eric Hendrickson overhaul it. I slapped a 50mm f/1.4 SMC-M lens on and in spite of me owning a decent size collection of awesome film cameras and lenses (including a Leica M4 with DR 'Cron, Nikon F2 and F3 with a ton of AI and AIS glass, as well as some awesome rarities), that Pentax MX with 50mm is the one I grab usually. It's the same form factor as my first 35mm camera, a Pentax ME Super, with the same lens.
So I went round and round with multiple systems, a ton of lenses, and all sorts of gadgetry, just to come back to a manual camera nearly the same as the first one I owned.
As was stated before, just remember that your purchase of the Summicron may simply be an emotional one and one of exploration in how you like it, but if the Zeiss lens does it for you, then you may be good to go. Think about the time and the film which that lens may pay for over the aura of the Summicron.
Phil
ecowarrior
Established
I owned an MX for a while. And an ME Super (found that at a car boot sale for £6 fully working!). Both wonderful cameras.
Mentally I see both arguments - stick with the Planar, get the Cron.
What I am getting is that as expected nobody has really said "the Planar is garbage compared to the Cron". I knew that I guess, but that doesn't mean there isn't something tugging at me to get the Leica anyway.....
Mentally I see both arguments - stick with the Planar, get the Cron.
What I am getting is that as expected nobody has really said "the Planar is garbage compared to the Cron". I knew that I guess, but that doesn't mean there isn't something tugging at me to get the Leica anyway.....
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
It depends on which version Summicron. The Planar will out-perform versions 1 and 2 Summicrons as to sharpness. The version 3 Summicron is pretty good, but has a longer focus throw which takes some getting used to (the advantage of the v. 3 is that it’s easier to nail critical focusing wide open). But version 4 and 5 Summicrons (same lens formula) will match the Planar as to overall sharpness and best the Planar in terms of distortion and vignetting wide-open. The later Summicrons will render warmer colors compared to the Planar. Personally, I couldn’t warm up to the Planar (I’ve owned two copies over the years) due to its barrel distortion.
Still, I'd keep the planar over the earlier Summicrons.
Still, I'd keep the planar over the earlier Summicrons.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Another point is that you're looking at a difference in nuance, within the last bleeding edge 1% of lens performance.
Back when I was in undergrad, I was in a particularly vulnerable state as were all of us photojournalism students. I think it was just before I graduated that I got a "new" (unused) Helios 103 directly from Ukraine, I took it apart, cleaned it, recentered all the elements, adjusted for focus, and lubed it up.
Then I put it on a Leica M9.
I did a shot-for-shot test of both real world and exciting brick walls between the Helios and a friend's V5 Summicron.
The ONLY photos which could be differentiated as the Helios were those shot wide open, as the bokeh was just not as smooth. From f/2.8 to 11 the images were virtually identical, and a few folks liked the way the Helios rendered more than the Summicron.
I'll try to find those images and see if I can start a new thread (maybe there's an old thread with these images too) but the fact that a ~$12 lens was 95% good enough really irked some folks here and especially over in the LUG.
Phil
Back when I was in undergrad, I was in a particularly vulnerable state as were all of us photojournalism students. I think it was just before I graduated that I got a "new" (unused) Helios 103 directly from Ukraine, I took it apart, cleaned it, recentered all the elements, adjusted for focus, and lubed it up.
Then I put it on a Leica M9.
I did a shot-for-shot test of both real world and exciting brick walls between the Helios and a friend's V5 Summicron.
The ONLY photos which could be differentiated as the Helios were those shot wide open, as the bokeh was just not as smooth. From f/2.8 to 11 the images were virtually identical, and a few folks liked the way the Helios rendered more than the Summicron.
I'll try to find those images and see if I can start a new thread (maybe there's an old thread with these images too) but the fact that a ~$12 lens was 95% good enough really irked some folks here and especially over in the LUG.
Phil
Archiver
Veteran
Funny that you mention this. Dad gave me his Pentax ME some years ago - its only lens was the SMC M 50mm f1.4. As a kit, it's beautifully compact and fun to use, and the images are lovely. I've been testing that 50 on the SL2S in the past few days and was a bit disturbed to find that it creates images that are close to the Summicron 50 when stopped down to f2. Like, what?? It might even be better than the vaunted Minolta PG Rokkor 50mm f1.4.
shawn
Veteran
Which camera are you primarily shooting with? If it is the ZF and you are considering Leica I'd throw a wrench in the works and suggest Leica R lenses. You can get an E55 Summicron-R 50mm for around the cost of the Planar, less if it is 2 cam which doesn't matter if you aren't use R bodies. With patience, you can find an E55 Summilux-R for around the price of Summicron-M, maybe a little less.
You can use them on the M240 as well but mainly with the EVF and the huge shutter lag that brings. The 21mm Super-Angulon-R works well on the M240 scale focusing though.
ecowarrior
Established
This would be for the M240, although I have adapted both to use on my Nikon (actually the Z6II that I had prior to the ZF, but same thing).
ecowarrior
Established
This was going to be something I was going to look into - as I did wonder about older vs newer Summicrons. I suspect the one I'm looking into is older - possibly a v3. Not sure.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
I do like the "vintage" look produced by the early Summicrons, but vintage means you're getting some character - especially at the wider apertures. I've only owned one v3 Summicron in my lifetime. I couldn't get into it because of its long focus throw. But I believe it produces more of a "modern" look than vintage.
Richard G
Veteran
Perhaps the most important thing I've learnt here is that it is not about the glass. The Leica body limited controls and ergonomics, including not even using the storied rangefinder is what it is all about. And so here I learnt about non-Leica lenses. Quelle horreur.
I have one Voigtlander lens a 25, tiny and with a neat screw on hood, but it flares; and five Zeiss lenses, along with several Leica lenses.
The 50 C Sonnar bowled me over, and still does. So much cheaper and more interesting than a Summilux. (I had a version 2 for a time, stolen.) Only with that lens was I introduced to something that I didn't know of much and had little interest in, the character of lenses. Now I do appreciate it, this occasionally makes a difference to me, but the ergonomics of f2.8 and slower lenses are much more important to me for ease of carry, and then being inclined to carry the camera at all.
My version 4 Canadian 50 Summicron I've had for forty years is perfect in terms of size and ergonomics, the focus tab (bear claw) and the reversible hood with cap. It flared once in late afternoon sun high above the sea. The black and white negatives from it on Ilford FP4 and the Kodachromes were all wonderful. I did take that for granted. But in your position I'd be happy with the Planar. No doubt you've looked at the 50 Planar thread here. (see link below) Wonderful shots. My ZM 21 4.5 is likely better than the Leica equivalent, except for purple fringing, and the 35 2.8 is a gem, and the ZM 25 2.8 is the sharpest lens I have. I love the Zeiss colours of these lenses and the four I've mentioned have their own characters as well. It's possible you'd be disappointed with Leica's colours out of a 50 Summicron. My Summicron 35 is not better than my Zeiss 35 and with digital we don't need f2 and f1.4 lenses. I do have the DR Summicron 50 which has many great qualities, lightness not being one of them. Somehow red roses are captured best with that, even after indifferent scanning.
If you are more into photography than into lenses you can be happy you're not missing much at all sticking with the 50 Planar. I enjoy riling Leica insiders who notice me in the street with the wrong gear, a silver lens on a black body, or once, the M5, hanging vertically with the 25 Zeiss finder and the little Voigtlander 25 lens cap. But the Zeiss lenses are handsome machinery with their bayonet hoods, the C Sonnar perfect on the M5 or M9, and the ZM 25 too, not a small lens. Aperture for aperture (as in pound for pound) Leica is smaller than Zeiss.
PS The Crazy about the 50 Planar thread:
I have one Voigtlander lens a 25, tiny and with a neat screw on hood, but it flares; and five Zeiss lenses, along with several Leica lenses.
The 50 C Sonnar bowled me over, and still does. So much cheaper and more interesting than a Summilux. (I had a version 2 for a time, stolen.) Only with that lens was I introduced to something that I didn't know of much and had little interest in, the character of lenses. Now I do appreciate it, this occasionally makes a difference to me, but the ergonomics of f2.8 and slower lenses are much more important to me for ease of carry, and then being inclined to carry the camera at all.
My version 4 Canadian 50 Summicron I've had for forty years is perfect in terms of size and ergonomics, the focus tab (bear claw) and the reversible hood with cap. It flared once in late afternoon sun high above the sea. The black and white negatives from it on Ilford FP4 and the Kodachromes were all wonderful. I did take that for granted. But in your position I'd be happy with the Planar. No doubt you've looked at the 50 Planar thread here. (see link below) Wonderful shots. My ZM 21 4.5 is likely better than the Leica equivalent, except for purple fringing, and the 35 2.8 is a gem, and the ZM 25 2.8 is the sharpest lens I have. I love the Zeiss colours of these lenses and the four I've mentioned have their own characters as well. It's possible you'd be disappointed with Leica's colours out of a 50 Summicron. My Summicron 35 is not better than my Zeiss 35 and with digital we don't need f2 and f1.4 lenses. I do have the DR Summicron 50 which has many great qualities, lightness not being one of them. Somehow red roses are captured best with that, even after indifferent scanning.
If you are more into photography than into lenses you can be happy you're not missing much at all sticking with the 50 Planar. I enjoy riling Leica insiders who notice me in the street with the wrong gear, a silver lens on a black body, or once, the M5, hanging vertically with the 25 Zeiss finder and the little Voigtlander 25 lens cap. But the Zeiss lenses are handsome machinery with their bayonet hoods, the C Sonnar perfect on the M5 or M9, and the ZM 25 too, not a small lens. Aperture for aperture (as in pound for pound) Leica is smaller than Zeiss.
PS The Crazy about the 50 Planar thread:
Last edited:
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
All my Leica naysaying aside, I still want some US Navy photographer to throw my Leica M4 (with DR Summicron attached, and a roll of XX 5222 loaded and advanced to frame 1) in the Pacific Ocean just after I'm buried at sea. I took that camera to Iraq and it's coming with on my eternal mission as well, if I have any say in it. I do love the DR Summicron, I just grab the Pentax MX more often.
Phil
Phil