50 Summicron (Type II) comparison photos?

[Rafael]

Owing to the lamentable state of my scanning skills, I find it very difficult to compare photographs that I have taken with my 50 Summicron (Type II) with online photographs taken with other 50mm lenses. So I would be very grateful to anyone who could post photographs taken with a Type II Summicron together with photographs taken with a Type IV Summicron, a Planar ZM, a pre-asph Summilux, and/or an ASPH Summilux (all 50mm obviously). Alternatively, I would be very happy if someone could point me to a site where I could view any or all of these comparisons. Thanks in advance.

 

[x-ray]

Let me offer a suggestion. Forget about any differences, any will be very slight. Of these lenses the only one that I haven't owned and shot extensively is the pre asph summilux and have a ZM that I received last week but have only shot a half dozen rolls with it. I do know any one of these will do an excellent job. In the 60's I shot with the rigid and then the DR version and then moved to the V2. The only real difference other then the mount was a very slight decrease in flare. Nothing most would notice. The pre asph I can't answer but the asph is the best high speed 50 I have used in M mount. My tabbed 50 which is optically the same as the v4 was not big improvement over the v2. Slightly less flare but inferior mount. I felt it suffered from more flare than most modern lenses like my asph summilux and now the ZM planar. The p[lanar is a stong runner for the best of the 50's overall. I still havent had a chance to run it through the paces all the way but I shot under very strong flare conditions in the same place and conditions I shot in the week before with my asph 50. The ZM appears to be equally as good as the asph in flare and is a very crisp lens under terrible conditions. I just ran the negs earlier and will print some tonight or tomorrow. My first observations tell me it is equal to the asph summilux under these conditions. I shot a roll with the ZM last Friday at f2 and was extremely pleased with the edge to edge sharpness at close range and at a distance. I feel the asph summilux to perform relatively the same at full aperture and stopped down. I'm much more impresses with the ZM vs the summicron. My picks would be the ZM planar or 50 summilux asph depending on budget and need. Personally I like the lack of focusing tab on the ZM and lile the 1/3 stop clicks of the ZM. The summilux asph has a cam intenally that switches back from close to distance settings of the elements since it has floating elements. There is a slight bit of play in the asph focusing system that might bother some people. My overall picks, ZM planar or asph summilux depending on need and budget and then the v2 summicron because of better construction and excellent performance, V4 summicron and then finally the old version non asph summilux. In short any will do the trick very well and you can't go wrong with any of the above.

Give some thought to the CV Nokton 50. It's priced right and a better performer than the old non asph and built like a tank.

 

[Rafael]

Thank you very much for your opinions Don. I certainly appreciate them. If at all possible, however, I would still like to see some images that would allow me to compare the looks produced by these other lenses with that produced by a Type II Summicron.

 

[venchka]

Where any of these lenses included in Raid's recent mega 50 lens tests? It seems like he covered most if not all the bases.

Unlike Don, I've only owned one Leica 50mm lens: A 1961 DR Summicron. It does everything I could hope for from a camera lens. My only hope is that I can grow as a photographer to take proper advantage of this lens.

Goo luck.

 

[Rafael]

Hi Wayne,

No, although I found them to be very instructive, Raid's tests were mostly of more classic 50mm lenses. And while I am very grateful for any comments based on experience with these lenses (especially comparative comments from people like Don who have used many or most of them), I would still like to do some comparisons myself. As I have no way of trying out these lenses myself, I'm looking for someone who can post photographs taken with the Type II Summicron and at least one of the other 50mm lenses that I mentioned in my first post. I am hoping that I will be better able to compare the behaviours of these different lenses by looking at photographs that were taken and scanned by the same person. I may be on an impossible quest here. But I am still hopeful...

 

[x-ray]

The only test that would be meaningful would be all lenses shooting the same shots under the same conditions and then printed and direct viewing of prints. A variety of conditions would be necessary showing a variety of conditions and particularly the extremes. The extremes are what seperate good lenses from the not so good in my view. Most lenses perform comperably stopped down a couple of stops and under average light. Slight changes in subject and shooting conditions can give the same lens a totally different appearance from shot to shot. Bokeh for example is aperture dependant, distance, lighting (whether direct or diffuse) and subject dependant(whether specular highlihts or not).

The internet just doesn't have the quality to show fine detail and information in a neg or print. JPG compression robs too much information. Only the finest scanners can capture the full information which requires a very good scanner tech.


Good luck!

DD