50mm Summicron v3

[dourbalistar]

Leica CL, Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 v3, ORWO N74+, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 6.5 minutes.


2020.11.21 Roll #263-05401-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[dourbalistar]

Leica CL, Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 v3, ORWO N74+, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 6.5 minutes.


2020.11.21 Roll #263-05381-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[George Mann]

When Camera 35 (one of the best and honest photo mags from the 60's and 70's) did a test comparison of this lens against it's Japanese contemporaries, it blew them all away.

A bit of an exaggeration, since the Nikkor 50mm F2 is essentially the same lens, but lacked the multiple coating layers of the later revisions when tested.


The later H.C. version (multicoated) yields virtually the same rendition of the late 70's/early 80's Summicron, which I have verified thru tests.


I find the v3 to have a slightly elevated level of sharpness, while lacking the contrast of the later Nikkor/Summicron models.

 

[dourbalistar]

A bit of an exaggeration, since the Nikkor 50mm F2 is essentially the same lens, but lacked the multiple coating layers of the later revisions when tested.

The later H.C. version (multicoated) yields virtually the same rendition of the late 70's/early 80's Summicron, which I have verified thru tests.

I find the v3 to have a slightly elevated level of sharpness, while lacking the contrast of the later Nikkor/Summicron models.

Huh? 😕 If you look at the test article that awilder cites in Post #21, the Nikkor 50/2 is not among those mentioned or compared.

And with all due respect, I don't think the Summicron v3 is "essentially the same lens" as the Nikkor 50/2. For one, they have very different designs, with the former a Mandler-designed 6/4 double-gauss, compared to the Sonnar-type Nikkor. I have the v3 and also enjoy the multi-coated Nikkor-H.C 5cm f/2 LTM. 😀

 

[dourbalistar]

Leica CL, Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 v3, ORWO N74+, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 6.5 minutes.


2020.11.21 Roll #263-05397-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[George Mann]

Huh? 😕 If you look at the test article that awilder cites in Post #21, the Nikkor 50/2 is not among those mentioned or compared.

Nope, didn't look.

And with all due respect, I don't think the Summicron v3 is "essentially the same lens" as the Nikkor 50/2. For one, they have very different designs, with the former a Mandler-designed 6/4 double-gauss, compared to the Sonnar-type Nikkor. I have the v3 and also enjoy the multi-coated Nikkor-H.C 5cm f/2 LTM. 😀

I guess I wrongly assumed that the v3 was a Sonnar as well, which led to all of this confusion to begin with.

 

[dourbalistar]

Nope, didn't look.

I guess I wrongly assumed that the v3 was a Sonnar as well, which led to all of this confusion to begin with.

Some more knowledgeable RFF members may correct me if I'm mistaken, but I'm not sure if there are any Sonnar-type Leica lenses, perhaps because the Sonnar design was originally patented by (competitor) Zeiss.

 

[George Mann]

Some more knowledgeable RFF members may correct me if I'm mistaken, but I'm not sure if there are any Sonnar-type Leica lenses, perhaps because the Sonnar design was originally patented by (competitor) Zeiss.

A very old pre-war Zeiss patent. The link below shows shows the type 3 to type 5 as having the same gaussian arrangement of 6 elements in 4 groups.


https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-summicron-comparison-table.htm


I tested the type 4 against the H.C. Auto, and found their rendering to be virtually identical between F5.6 and F11 save for the difference in coatings which produced different hues of color.

 

[Freakscene]

A very old pre-war Zeiss patent. The link below shows shows the type 3 to type 5 as having the same gaussian arrangement of 6 elements in 4 groups.


https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-summicron-comparison-table.htm


I tested the type 4 against the H.C. Auto, and found their rendering to be virtually identical between F5.6 and F11 save for the difference in coatings which produced different hues of color.

A Sonnar is a 7/3 not a 6/4. The Summicron is a 6/4 double gauss. They are not similar.

Colour transmission comes down to a lot more than coatings.

Marty

 

[dourbalistar]

I tested the type 4 against the H.C. Auto, and found their rendering to be virtually identical between F5.6 and F11 save for the difference in coatings which produced different hues of color.

I'm sorry, what do those two lenses have to do with this thread again? You've compared the type 4 with a SLR lens? 😕

 

[lukx]

Yeah, some confusion here it seems. I think George Mann was talking about the Nikkor 50mm HC Auto SLR lens all along, which of course is not a Sonnar lens, while dourbalistar was thinking of the 5cm HC rangefinder lens, which of course IS a Sonnar. First level of confusion.

Then, George meant to say that he has tested his SLR Nikkor against the Summicron V4, and argues that both were essentially the same.

Lastly, looking at KR's page, he derives that the V3 is essentially the same as the V4, since they have a 6/4 design, respectively. But the point is moot, because the V3 is still unique in the design of its elements, as stated by KR as well. There is more to lens design than no. of elements and groups.

So there's that...

 

[George Mann]

A Sonnar is a 7/3 not a 6/4. The Summicron is a 6/4 double gauss. They are not similar.

OK. But I did correctly state that it was a gaussian type.

Colour transmission comes down to a lot more than coatings.

In this case, it was the only difference that we could detect.

 

[George Mann]

Then, George meant to say that he has tested his SLR Nikkor against the Summicron V4, and argues that both were essentially the same.

But hopefully I won't add any more confusion when I state that the actual Leitz lens tested was the R equivalent of the type 4/5.

 

[dourbalistar]

But hopefully I won't add any more confusion when I state that the actual Leitz lens tested was the R equivalent of the type 4/5.

Well, if you've compared two SLR lenses, then that discussion and comparison would probably be more relevant in the SLRs - the unRF subforum. This thread is about the M-mount 50mm Summicron v3, and is in the Leica M Film Cameras subforum. 😉

 

[George Mann]

Well, if you've compared two SLR lenses, then that discussion and comparison would probably be more relevant in the SLRs - the unRF subforum. This thread is about the M-mount 50mm Summicron v3, and is in the Leica M Film Cameras subforum. 😉

I came to this thread from the new posts list. Do to the lousy layout/formatting of this site, I rarely bother to scroll over to see which group that the post originated from (not at all cellphone friendly).

 

[dourbalistar]

I came to this thread from the new posts list. Do to the lousy layout/formatting of this site, I rarely bother to scroll over to see which group that the post originated from (not at all cellphone friendly).

So are you saying that you post responses to threads without bothering to check what the relevant topic is...? 😕

 

[George Mann]

So are you saying that you post responses to threads without bothering to check what the relevant topic is...? 😕

I could clearly see what the topic was, but not the subforum it was posted in. It's not worth going to pieces over, so I am through here.

 

[dourbalistar]

Back to the topic at hand... 😉

Leica M5, Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 v3, Ultrafine eXtreme 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes.


2020.07.17 Roll #253-05254-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[lukx]

I quite like the out of focus areas the V3 renders. Well behaved in my opinion, maybe because of the 10-bladed aperture that stays round at any given setting, not star shaped like earlier models, or more geometric due to fewer blades (later models). Or maybe it's due to not being optimized for maximum sharpness (although I find it to be plenty sharp).

 

[dourbalistar]

I quite like the out of focus areas the V3 renders. Well behaved in my opinion, maybe because of the 10-bladed aperture that stays round at any given setting, not star shaped like earlier models, or more geometric due to fewer blades (later models). Or maybe it's due to not being optimized for maximum sharpness (although I find it to be plenty sharp).

I agree with the out of focus areas, I also find it to be very smooth and pleasing. 🙂 There are some lenses that are otherwise excellent but have fewer aperture blades, which can result in non-round, geometric bokeh when stopped down. The Zeiss Planar T* 80mm f/2.8 CF for Hasselblad V is one example.