50 'Lux or 'Cron?

[mike kim]

I decided to sell one of my two Rolleiflex to finance a Leica, since I want to have a 35mm camera other than a Canon SLR. Although I wanted to use 35 and 50 lens since I'm interested in street photography, I cannot find a decent priced Leica other than a M3 around here (I live in Argentina) so I thought I could use just the 50 for a while (a la HCB).

I found two M3s at $900 (with a 50 summilux) and $850 (with a 50 summicron) in very good conditions. Both are great deals, I believe. The problem is, I've never seen these lenses and I'm not sure if there's a big difference in size. And if it's worth having a bigger and heavier lens for an extra stop. Does anyone have a photo of both lenses side by side? Which lens would you recommend?

 

[ferider]

If that lux is relatively clean, the M3 + Lux for US 900 is an incredible deal.
You can basically resell the lens and get the camera for free.

For the cron, it depends which version it is.

I've played with somebody elses lux and it's a great lens. Very, very nice
OOF behavior. Personally, like Wes, I like my Canon 50/1.4.

BTW, used M2 bodies here in the US are very similarly priced to M3 bodies.

Best,

Roland.

 

[Mike Richards]

I have both the Cron and Lux (both pre-asph). First, be careful about the condition of the lenses. Some of the older ones have a fungus problem or other scratches on the glass. I got stung on one of those.

I seldom use the f1.4 aperture on the Lux. I like to use high speed film in low light situations, and if there's not enough light to get a good image at f2, there's usually not enough light to focus all that accurately for a f1.4 shot. And with the restricted DOF at f1/4, you need to focus very accurately. So my second comment is a practical one. The Lux is generally worth the extra $50, all things being equal. But if there are other quality differences between your choices, the Cron will handle practically everything you want to do.

My third comment -- 35 vs 50. I tend to agree that the 35mm is the my "standard" or "all-around" lens for the Leica. I leave one on my M6TTL all the time, and seldom need anything else. But if you get an M3, you don't have 35mm framelines, and will need a 35mm with goggles. For what you want to do, a 50mm will most likely do very well, and be your lens of choice with the M3. Once you get used to it, the M3/50mm can do everything you want for street and general shooting. So, I'd get the M3/50mm combo and give it a good try.

 

[Meleica]

A used lux ( 2nd ver ) runs $ 900, a used Summicron ( ver 4 ) runs $ 750. The Cron is sharper + higher contrast, the lux has better bokeh, is faster, and many claim a nicer 3-D look.. Depends on your needs

Dan

 

[35mmdelux]

If that lux is relatively clean, the M3 + Lux for US 900 is an incredible deal.
You can basically resell the lens and get the camera for free.

For the cron, it depends which version it is.

I've played with somebody elses lux and it's a great lens. Very, very nice
OOF behavior. Personally, like Wes, I like my Canon 50/1.4.

BTW, used M2 bodies here in the US are very similarly priced to M3 bodies.

Best,

Roland.

Right on!

If its the latest 50 Summicron okay. If not, then get the Summilux. The Summilux is excellent lens, especially for the your price. Yes its noticeably larger than the Cron, but the f/1.4 is sweet. opening up shooting opportunities.

I've owned many 50s but the latest is the best. The others nothing to write home about.

Regards - Paul

 

[JNewell]

I've owned four different Summicrons: collapsible, DR, 69-79 and the post-79. Yes, there are definitely differences, but I don't think there's a bad lens in the bunch, and in real life you probably won't see the differences unless you've been hired to do the next photo for the display at Grand Central Station.

I also own a pre-ASPH Summilux. Honestly, though I think the comment above about more "3D" rendering, at least at more open apertures, is correct, once you get to f/5.6 or so you are unlikely to be able to tell the difference...the differences vs. the Summicrons really only become obvious at short distances, where the Cron is somewhat better, and more open apertures.

The Summilux is bigger than the Crons, of course - but the Summilux is very, very compact for an f1.4 50mm lens. It's smaller than most or maybe any SLR 50/1.4.

If it is helpful I may be able to post a comparative picture tonight. Unless you are looking at either the collapsible Cron or the Elmar-M (which you aren't), I don't think I'd make a decision based on size alone.

 

[awilder]

The Summilux optically hasn't changed since the late 60's, so optically you probably have a 2nd version unless it's chrome and if so, it's the first version if the ser. # is below 165xxxx. The 2nd version will produce great images with sharper foreground sharpness compared to all Summicrons due to inherent curvature of field. If the Summicron is the black Wetzlar version or earlier chrome version, images will be sharper across the frame due to the flatter field and have similar contrast to the Summilux. It's unlikely at that price the Summicron is the earlier tabbed or current version which is the sharpest due to the very high contrast compared to all previous 50's.

 

[peter_n]

I've owned two current Summicrons and didn't like either, the lens is cool and painfully sharp. Now I have a rigid Summicron that I like and a pre-ASPH Summilux that I like even better. I would buy the Summilux, it really does render quite beautifully.

 

[awilder]

Here's a shameless plug of what I was referring to regarding image difference of Summilux and Summicron: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42310

 

[mike kim]

Thanks for the replies everyone! Every bit of info has been useful, and I'll go for the Summilux. I'll see the camera tomorrow so I'll keep you updated in case I finally buy it. Thanks again.

 

[35mmdelux]

Besides the 50 /1.4 pre-asph, the other 50 I really like is the 50/2.8 Elmar-M. Fabulous lens at any price. Fortunately they don't cost a whole lot.

Good luck -

 

[rich815]

Besides the 50 /1.4 pre-asph, the other 50 I really like is the 50/2.8 Elmar-M. Fabulous lens at any price. Fortunately they don't cost a whole lot.

Good luck -

I agree it's a great lens. I had the previous to current version and really liked the look. However, I found 2.8 too slow too often and also really disliked that the aperture turning made the focus turn too. Loved the look the lens gave, hated the ergonomics. When it comes the RF photography, at least for me, the latter is almost as important as the former. I need BOTH to really be in my RF zone when I'm shooting. Closest I've found for this so far is the 50/2 DR or the 50/1.4 post-ASPH Summilux. Just wish the DR was little lighter and the throw a little shorter.

 

[vrgard]

I agree it's a great lens. I had the previous to current version and really liked the look. However, I found 2.8 too slow too often and also really disliked that the aperture turning made the focus turn too. Loved the look the lens gave, hated the ergonomics. When it comes the RF photography, at least for me, the latter is almost as important as the former. I need BOTH to really be in my RF zone when I'm shooting. Closest I've found for this so far is the 50/2 DR or the 50/1.4 post-ASPH Summilux. Just wish the DR was little lighter and the throw a little shorter.

I, too, have the previous version of the 50/2.8 Elmar lens and really like it. Ergonomically I, too, prefer the rigid Summicron. But the smaller size of the Elmar makes it that much easier to carry around so I've been using the Elmar more than the Cron. Yes, it's a bit more fiddly, but I guess the luddite in me resonates with that. 😛

-Randy

 

[mike kim]

I have both the Cron and Lux (both pre-asph). First, be careful about the condition of the lenses. Some of the older ones have a fungus problem or other scratches on the glass. I got stung on one of those.

Bummer, the lens had a horrible fungus (although the camera was in a nice user condition) so I declined the offer. And the other M3 has been taken already. I'm looking for an M again. 🙄
I found another M3 with a Summicron 50, Leitz lens hood and leicameter, but for $1500... It's in EXC condition by the way, both camera and lens. Is it a good price?

By the way, I've considered buying from the US, so if anyone knows of a good deal... of either M3/2/4...

 

[awilder]

$1500 is OK but no real bargin. However, keep in mind the camera might need a CLA and check the lens for internal haze and coating marks if a DR or rigid chrome version. This would add a few hundred to your net purchase price.

 

[MCTuomey]

Besides the 50 /1.4 pre-asph, the other 50 I really like is the 50/2.8 Elmar-M. Fabulous lens at any price. Fortunately they don't cost a whole lot.

Good luck -

Owned several 50's and ended keeping two: the summilux and the elmar. The former is wonderful for faces and, stopped down, for everything else. As Peter says, it renders beautifully. The latter is my all-around lens, pretty much welded to my M4.

If I could only have one camera and one lens for everything, it'd be the M4 + Elmar ...

Mike

 

[TJV]

I've owned the first collapsable Summicron and Elmar's, a black Wetzlar Summicron from about '69 and a brand new Summicron. Obviously, the new 'cron is the shaprpest but it's also arguably the most clinical. Despite this it's my personal favourite. It just feels right and I love the photo's I've taken with it. After that, I loved my vintage Elmar more than I could ever love a lens and remain free to walk in public. I had to give it up for regretable reasons.

I've never used a new or old 50 Summilux but I like the focus tab and weight when I've "played" with a friends.