A 50 similar to the Summilux 35 pre-asph?

[Jerevan]

Is there any lens that has a similar "look" as the Summilux 35 pre-asph, but in the 50 mm focal range? The early Summilux 50?

 

[Steve Hoffman]

Yeah, the 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH.

This a trick question?

 

[MCTuomey]

Zeiss C-Sonnar 50 f/1.5

I have both the C-Sonnar and the pre-ASPH 'Lux 50 and think of the Zeiss as a very nice alternative to the 'Lux. Image-wise, similar bokeh and dimensionality, and price-wise less expensive.

 

[Jerevan]

Oh yeah - I specialize in trick questions, Steve! 😉

No, it is an honest question - I would like something a bit more narrow and I love the pre-asph 35 look, low-contrast for B/W.

 

[Steve Hoffman]

Oh yeah - I specialize in trick questions, Steve! 😉

No, it is an honest question - I would like something a bit more narrow and I love the pre-asph 35 look, low-contrast for B/W.

Well, I would suggest then the chrome late 1950's-early '60s 50 f2.8 Elmar. Is it fast enough for you? Prob. not. The dual-range Summicron from 1969 (they sold it with the M2-R as a set) is a beautiful 50.

Or, best bet, go with my first suggestion up above. Thomas Pastorello wrote the below in 2004. I agree with him totally:

"I believe the old non-ASPH Summilux-M 50mm (late version III 46 filter) IS the best lens Leica (or for that matter anyone) ever made. In addition to its two main attributes of near absolute freedom from flare and a signature bokeh (blur) of subtle beauty, it is characterized by an artistic balance of high resolution and realistic contrast -- even wide open. It is perfectly balanced on the M body, such that hand-holding is easy at 1/4 -- which makes it very fast indeed at f1.4 (more so than the less well balanced and holdable Noctilux at f1.0)."

 

[Jerevan]

Sometimes I wish I had not sold the Summicron DR. Maybe the idea of the Elmar is not such a bad one - I like the screwmount 50/3.5, but I would prefer something slightly less fiddly. I will look at the Summilux 50 v III suggestion too.

I like the idea of the Sonnar, but I've read too many comments about lenses falling apart and focus shift. Maybe I should stop reading stuff and try a few lenses and see what's what instead! 😀

 

[ferider]

The 35/1.4 preasph is very rectilinear and has lots of character wide open that cleans out at f2.

There is no Leica 50 that is similar, well, maybe the early Summarit or 50/1.2 Noctilux.

A lens very, very similar in the 50s, and having matching speed is the Canon 50/1.2 LTM.

Roland.

 

[Rob-F]

I'll add to the list the 50mm f/1.5 Summarit. In its first version it was the Xenon, with a rich history that includes Leitz, Schneider, and Taylor, Taylor and Hobson. Lots of character. It has a 15 (by my count) bladed diaphragm that stays perfectly round at all apertures.

 

[MCTuomey]

Sometimes I wish I had not sold the Summicron DR. Maybe the idea of the Elmar is not such a bad one - I like the screwmount 50/3.5, but I would prefer something slightly less fiddly. I will look at the Summilux 50 v III suggestion too.

I like the idea of the Sonnar, but I've read too many comments about lenses falling apart and focus shift. Maybe I should stop reading stuff and try a few lenses and see what's what instead! 😀

Focus shift is a Sonnar fact, lenses falling apart is an exaggeration though I've had three ZMs that needed service, all early ones. Didn't stop me, nor did rumors of Voigtlander failures for that matter. Which reminds me to mention the Nokton 50 f/1.5 as an option. I believe it was designed to image similarly to the early summiluxes. Fast, sharp, and lower contrast. Nice price too. The Canon 50 f/1.5 is another really fine portrait 50, but hard to find in good shape. Rob's summarit suggestion, I second it. I had a fine one, sold it, regretted it ever since. Turn a face toward a streetlight at night, point a wide open summarit at it, and you'll get radiation-grade glow.

 

[Jerevan]

Thanks gentlemen for all the good suggestions! 🙂

What about the Summitar? I guess they are also hard to find in decent shape?

 

[ferider]

Thanks gentlemen for all the good suggestions! 🙂

What about the Summitar? I guess they are also hard to find in decent shape?

The Summitar will be a great match, Jerevan, just a bit slow. And can not be collapsed on a digital M. If you get a hazy one, it's easy to clean yourself.

 

[raid]

There are two versions of the Summitar. One has more blades than the other.

 

[Jerevan]

I don't do much available darkness - I shoot 99% day-time. I am more after the "look" rather than the speed, so f/2 is good.

 

[rscheffler]

Of the 50s I've tried, which doesn't include the Summitar, I'd go with a Sonnar from the 50s-60s. Either a Zeiss-Opton or one from Canon or Nikon. The Nikon is very glowy wide open and contrast improves dramatically at f/2. The ZM is way more refined, IMO, and color quality feels a lot cleaner than the old glass. The Canon 50/1.4 LTM might be another consideration.

 

[nobbylon]

I know this may sound crazy but here's what I'd do. The 35 pre asph summilux has that particular look to it's images at 1.4. At all other apertures it looks like a summicron. Some call it glow, some character, personally I disliked it however if that is what you like then do as I did with a 50 elmar collapsible. The lens in question had an etched front element due to oil vapour so I polished it with toothpaste! The resulting lens took shots that matched my 35 1.4 wide open but this time at all apertures! For a match at other apertures grab a v3 summicron.

 

[Emile de Leon]

I have the Summitar and Noct f1...both are a good match to the pre 35 1.4..

 

[leicapixie]

The 35/1.4 preasph is very rectilinear and has lots of character wide open that cleans out at f2.

There is no Leica 50 that is similar, well, maybe the early Summarit or 50/1.2 Noctilux.

A lens very, very similar in the 50s, and having matching speed is the Canon 50/1.2 LTM.

Roland.

The special character,"lots" made me sell mine real fast!
I bought the 35mm Summicron, Goggles version again, as i used it on M3.

The Canon 1.2 specially calibrated with the adapter, was a great lens till a friend used it on a few assignments.
It was ruined.
It had no special character except soft look..
I knew it was soft focus till stopped down about 3 stops..
Sold it to a user who needed my whole mount, his corroded.
Knew he really needed it!
I think we settled on $20.😀

 

[thompsonks]

One of the 'special features' of the 35 pre-asph Summilux, besides its wide-open softness, is its proneness to big arcs of flare when there's a light source just outside the frame. I'd rather have a 35 that didn't do that, and then I'd get a 50 to match my 'better' 35.

Re: 50 pre-a Lux and Sonnar: Both suffer focus shift, but Sonnr more than Lux. Wide open, the Sonnar has better bokeh – Lux tends to create double/parallel lines (that go away @ f2).

Kirk

 

[maddoc]

The 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH was my first Leica lens (bought 8 years ago) and since then I have owned and used the 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH (E46, vs3), Noctilux 50/1.0 (vs3), Summarit (LTM version), Summitar (two of them, both coated), Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 (S-mount, with Amedeo adapter), 50mm Planar, 50mm Elmar (3.5 LTM, red-scale), Elmar 50mm (2.8, M-mount), Elmar-M (50mm M-mount), Summar (un-coated).

Oout of those lenses, the Summar and Noctilux are closest in rendering (BW film), the Noctilux is almost a perfect match to the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH but without the Summilux typical pronounced comatic aberrations.

 

[Jerevan]

Gabor,

your list is ... well ... mouth-watering! 🙂 I do have a Summar languishing in the cupboard, so maybe I can send it off (very stiff focus and it needs the felt replaced in the mount since it "falls out" when leaned forward) to see what's what.