50mm Summicron Type 3? Why the bad rap?

[dow]

Hi All,

So I'm researching which Summicron I'm going to (eventually) buy - and I was wondering why the black type 3 with the reversible hood seems to be the one that gets the least amount of love.

I like the lens as it reminds me ergonomically of my old (stolen! still bitter!) Leicaflex Summicron. The market seems to place nice examples complete with caps and hood around $750.

Any thoughts on this particular iteration of the summicron would be greatly appreciated. I searched the forum with Google to no avail - but if Im tilling plowed ground with this question just drop me a link and I'll be on my merry way.

In case I've got the number wrong - here's a pic of the lens I'm thinking of.


Thanks in advance as always,

Dow

 

[Hubert Dinky]

The third version supposedly sacrificed some high resolution in favor of increased contrast.

Personally, I think it is an excellent lens and I doubt anyone could tell the difference in actual use.

 

[PatrickONeill]

its not the rigid & its not the most current formula. the odd man out.

[QUOTE="antiquecameras.net]Many refer to this model as the Summicron Third version ( or sometimes as Rigid II ). Change to a six element design in 5 groups. The design emphasis on this lens was for higher contrast with slightly less resolution. This was the opposite of the previous versions. Vignetting 1.8 stops. This lens is the least popular of all the versions, but for probably no good reason. Since the later version provides performance improvements, and the previous versions feature medium contrast and high resolution ( ideal for B&W shooters ), this version is the "odd man out" of Summicrons. Close focus to .7 meter. Serial #'s 2,269,251-2,915,800. E39 Filter. [/QUOTE]

I was going to buy one, but was sold before I could get to it. ended up with a 35mm cron.

I may still get one yet. I'd love a DR, but with the passing of time, a clean example is harder and harder to find.

 

[rover]

I don't think it gets a bad rap at all. It is the middle child syndrom perhaps...

But bad rap implies that there is something wrong with it, which I don't recall reading anywhere.

 

[dow]

Thanks for the quick replies! Sherry Krauter tells me that the DR is the sharpest of the lot, but I can't mount it on my R3a (I know wrong forum) so I'm looking at the others. With the type III it seems you could either think of it as "striking a balance" or as be a "compromise".

 

[dow]

Maybe "Bad Rap" was the wrong way to put it - better said it's the Jan Brady of Summicrons? I've read it described as "least desirable" so maybe it's a collector and not a user thing.

 

[PatrickONeill]

Thanks for the quick replies! Sherry Krauter tells me that the DR is the sharpest of the lot, but I can't mount it on my R3a (I know wrong forum) so I'm looking at the others. With the type III it seems you could either think of it as "striking a balance" or as be a "compromise".

You can mount the "rigid" version of this lens on the bessa (can he?). its the same optical formula as the DR but without the close up cams.

 

[dow]

Patrick-

I've heard the same thing about the rigid vs. the DR - so why do some think the DR is better? I've heard the best rigids were picked to make into DR, but it was just hearsay. I know this sort of things is really splitting hairs - 50mm Summicron has its reputation for a reason - but I'm a sucker for the subtleties.

 

[rover]

Patrick-

I've heard the same thing about the rigid vs. the DR - so why do some think the DR is better? I've heard the best rigids were picked to make into DR, but it was just hearsay. I know this sort of things is really splitting hairs - 50mm Summicron has its reputation for a reason - but I'm a sucker for the subtleties.

It is built like a tank.

I sold mine and kept the Rigid. Ergonomically the DR was a bit hefty for me and the Rigid seems just right.

Imagewise, my copies were equal.

 

[ferider]

Per Lager rigid and DR are the same lens.

Optics were picked for the DR according to measured focal length (for accurate close focus with the eyes), not quality.

Some additional side trivia, if anybody cares: rigid/DR are the first Mandler design, as well as the first computer-optimized Leitz lens (Using a Zuse Z4 ?). 🙂

To the OP, the v3 (or rigid II) is a great lens, IMO optimized for micro-contrast and color film.

A good DR/rigidI is "sharper" in the center, but since less contrasty might not appear so when compared to the v3. Also the v3 sure has higher corner resolution wide open.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[wjlapier]

I asked about the v3 cron not too long ago. Some nice images in this thread to convince me to make the purchase.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99745

 

[raid]

Any 50mm Summicron starting with rigid/DR is excellent. Let's not debate this fact.

 

[dow]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not questioning the quality of the lens per se (much less looking for a debate) - it's just in my reading around the web the type three seems to get the "middle child" treatment and I was curious why. Thanks for those images - the color rendition is drop-dead gorgeous to my eye.

 

[aldobonnard]

The last summicron is better balanced than the version 3, though version 3 remains unsurpassed even now for centre performance, version 4 is undoubtedly better in the far field for 40lp/mm. Version 3 itself is miles better than versions 2 and 1, there cannot be any discussion looking at the curves and figures (for those who like me have the Leica reference books and can check the data).
I could personnally conduct some comparison of versions 3 and 4 on the same day, obviously doing exactly same pictures. I could not tell the difference for a scan at 3000dpi. Comparisons were done between f/4 and F/8, in day light, where supposedly the version 4 has the edge. Version 4 surely has the edge, no argument, but I just could not see it with a 13MPix scan. Any version 3 or version 4 would challenge the user enough, as they would perform above most film's resolution power.

 

[aldobonnard]

...and by the way, I have kept the version 3 only ;-)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not questioning the quality of the lens per se (much less looking for a debate) - it's just in my reading around the web the type three seems to get the "middle child" treatment and I was curious why. Thanks for those images - the color rendition is drop-dead gorgeous to my eye.

The clue is in the words 'reading around the web'. Pig-iggerant non-users regurgitating 'received wisdom' from self-appointed gurus, and pixel peepers who shoot only test charts/brick walls/picket fences/coffee cups/cats.

Believe them, and you'll believe anything.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dow]

Yikes! That's a tad harsh...

I asked because not because I "believed" this as gospel but rather because I wondered about why it was perceived this way by some. This forum is such a cordial and generous place I didn't think it would hurt to ask...

Otherwise thanks to everyone for all the feedback. This place always exceeds my expectations.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Generally, as high-end lens design and coating technology has progressed there has been an arc of improvement from, say, the Sumitar through the current Summicron. By "improvement" I mean sharper, higher contrast, less flare and better controlled aberrations wide open. Not everyone thinks those qualities are the end-all be-all, but at the end of the day, I think it is probably easier to degrade an image from a sharp lens than sharpen an image from a flare-prone, pock-marked, coating damaged holy horror of an unsharp lens. Of course, this is just me. Then there are those for whom the tactile experience of handling the lens is a factor. A rigid Summircon or a DR is a brass beast that scoffs at its puny "value engineered" cousins in the Coliseum and destroys them in the high impact head-to-head lens crash tests you have probably read so much about on the web.

Seriously, though: everyone has their own "ranking" of these lenses. I have a recently cleaned rigid Summicron and a recently cleaned DR Summicron and you know what? They are just not as sharp wide open when shot into the light as a v.3 Summicron from the 1980s. Just Ain't. And it isn't surprising -- there are 35 years of non-stop improvements in coating and coating technology between those versions of the lenses. OTOH, ask me which lens I'd use to photograph my mother? Got to be the older lenses . . . they have a look I love for certain projects. BTW, I'm one of the nutters that likes the look of an 80's v.3 Summicron over the current model. Why? Right balance of qualities for the pictures I like to make.

The nice thing about these lenses is that they hold their value decently, so if you buy one and it isn't to your liking, you can usually sell it for close to what you bought it for and try the next flavor. Or, if you are truly insane (like me) you just keep buying lenses until you've got a lot of looks to choose from. Incidentally, the 80's v.3 Summicron and the current ZM Planar seem about even to me. The sharpest ones I own: the Summilux Asph and the 50 Heliar . . .but for a variety of reasons, these are not always the lenses I reach for first.

 

[J. Borger]

IN practical use there is a big difference between the v3 and the v4.
The v3 has a much longer focus-throw, which gives more precision but is not as fast to focus as v4.
The v3 has a bit more vintage look than the v4.

 

[Rob-F]

I like the version in question for its very good all-around optical performance and high contrast, together with the extended DOF scale that makes it easy to determine my DOF. It was designed at a time when Leitz decided that contrast was more important than ultimate sharpness for creating the subjective impression of sharpness. Ultimate sharpness is more important, perhaps, for aerial reconnaissance work. For pictorial photography, Leitz decided that contrast trumps resolution.

A similar decision was made in reducing the number of elements in the 35mm Summicron from 8 to 6. This, too, was a contrast-enhancing move. Sharpness may have suffered a tiny bit, but they may have gotten the best of both when they later increased to seven elements in the version IV. I suppose they must have decided they had gone too far in going from 8 to 6 elements, and settled on 7 as the happy medium: contrasty enough and sharp enough.

Edit: I want to make it clear that the version of the 50mm I'm talking about here is the 11817, produced from 1969 to 1979. The versions as I count them are; Version I, the collapsible Summicron; version II, both the Dual-Range and the "Rigid" as they were the same optically. Version III, the 11817. Version IV, the 11819 tabbed lens "Tabbicron." The one after that, with the collapsible built-in hood and no tab, I still think of as version IV as I believe there was no optical change from the Tabbicron.