Another Summicron recommendation thread

[Redseele]

I already have the summicron 40mm, which I use as a 35 replacement. So I don't really want to add another 40.

About the Elmar. That sounds interesting, but I think I do need the f2. Out of curiosity. Which version of the Elmar are you guys talking about? The newer or the old??

I'm thinking that version 3 might be a good choice. But what does it mean that it has less resolution? Is it that it is sharper and shows more details than my collapsible or my 40mm Summicron?

Btw, I didn't know that the it was so difficult to find a rigid without problems. Also, I've thought about a rigid for a long time but I'm always wondering how big a jump it would be from my collapsible that's almost mint and CLAd.

Thank you all for your opinions so far.

 

[teddy]

I'm thinking that version 3 might be a good choice. But what does it mean that it has less resolution?

The lenses with the highest resolution out of these is the Summicron 50/2 Rigid and the DR, and the Type 4 and 5.

I wouldn't worry about the resolution statement although it is true.

Just get the Type 3 Summicron, you can't go wrong with any Summicron. As far as colour goes, you will have the best of both worlds, colour and black and white.

 

[Brian Legge]

So given the goals - slightly vintage look, good for color, single lens, not massive - what about a Zeiss 50 Sonnar? That would give you all the speed you need as well as a less clinical look while preserving the modern coating for color film.

Its a wider lens but not as long as the VC 50/1.5 (and I have to say as a lover of compact lenses, its a decent compromise if you want speed and modern quality). Film can be slightly less sensitive to focus shift compared to a digital camera so that may be less of an issue for you. And in practice, I've missed very few shots using other sonnars (Jupiter 3, Nikon 50/1.4, Zeiss 50/1.5 Contax mount, etc).

Note that I suggest this without having used the Sonnar. 😉

 

[f16sunshine]

^^^^
Nice idea Brian
Actually , that is the next lens I'm going to try for b&w film.

 

[jazzwave]

+1 for Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar, beautiful signature for portrait and B/W.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113584

~ron~

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Where is only one version of Elmar-m 50 as I know of. The rest is Elmar. Correct me if I wrong.
2.8 is not a problem for bw on film or digital. Both have ISO1200-1600. I use x2 contrast filter for bright day light, switching to x1 contrast filter if it is dull and protection clean filter for indoors. All on one roll of film. Not only it is enough for 2.8, but for my CV CS 25/4. Where is no quality loss with HP5+ at 1200.

Here is the scan of two prints from HP5+ @1200 with Elmar-M 50.

Canada made time Cron is good choice as well, due to more good condition copies availible. They are just difficult to find at thier real price.
I paid $700 for flawless Elmar-m 50 and at this price level no v3-4 Crons are available.

 

[ColColt]

I had bought a Zeiss 50 f2 Planar lens as I couldn't find a suitable Summicron DR lens I wads looking for. I finally found a great one, had Youxin Ye to eliminate some slight haze and dis a test comparing those two. for a 1957 lens vs a modern Zeiss lens can you tell a dime's worth of difference? Both were shot with the same aperture and on a tripod.

Rod0012Zeissa by David Fincher, on Flickr
Rod0011DRa by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[TRIago]

The Rigid is a good lens at f/4, f/5.6 and maybe on f/8, but on smaller apertures it is flat and dull.

Most Rigid Summicrons suffer from haze. Having them cleaned does not bring back their quality from before they got hazy.

The Elmar-M is a much better lens that preserves "something" of the Leitz look of decades ago. Less distortion too.

Not sure about this. Maybe you never tried a Rigid cron.
Or maybe the one(s) you tried was not in good condition.

In the center, my Rigid is sharper at F2 than my 35mm Cron Asph.
(my 35 cron asph just came back from wetzlar with my M9. Lens and camera calibrated, as good as it gets)
Colors are awesome too. I used to have an Elmar-M 50 2.8.
There's no way I'd give up my Rigid for that again.

In fact, I've tried almost all leica 50's (including lux asph) and I keep my rigid no matter what. (never tried 50 cron apo, tho)

I shoot both on M9 and film M's. Just love the rigid.

 

[iaeaix]

Here are two examples of the Collapsible and the DR Summicron with over exposure with negatives.

Leica IIIF, Leitz Summicron 50/2 Collapsible (1951), Leitz SL Filter,
Kodak Ultramax 400 @ ISO200

Leica M3, Summicron 50/2 DR, AGFA Vista Plus 200 @ ISO 100

Summcron 50/2 DR and over exposure

Colour intensifies as you overexpose, but I have chosen to control the saturation. The Collapsible is certainly more low contrast. Unfortunately I don't have an example of the Type 3 Summicron with me, the closest would be the Type 1 Summicron R below:

Leicaflex SL, Summicron R 50/2 (Version1), Fuji Xtra 200 @ 100 ISO

splendid colors, may I ask what scanner you used for these?

Sent from my DMC-CM1 using Tapatalk

 

[teddy]

splendid colors, may I ask what scanner you used for these?

Sent from my DMC-CM1 using Tapatalk

Sure, I use an old humble Epson Perfection 3171. I use Adobe Lightroom and sometimes, Photoshop to adjust colour. It has taken me a couple of years to create colour settings that I'm pleased with. Photos are scanned for maximum of 8x10 which is the enough for my printing needs. Glad you like the colour. Have a nice day!

 

[pechelman]

I think I might have a decent to above average copy of a rigid, no idea since I've ever only seen mine, but I'm not sure I'd ever classify it as "flat and dull". When I was considering the rigid purchase, I was also considering the Elmar and Elmar-M. With the later, specifically, I found it seemed to accentuate the mid-tones, which I think may be one reason Erik van Straten enjoys it so much, especially with his taste\interpretation of scenes (lots and lots of middle gray).

Back to the rigid, I would however classify it as "medium contrast" and maybe trending slightly to a pastel color palette, especially in the out of focus areas. With those two in combination, and especially if one were to have a hazy copy, I could see how one might be disappointed.

Nevertheless, here's a few from my copy taken over the past few weeks;

 

[teddy]

Back to the rigid, I would however classify it as "medium contrast" and maybe trending slightly to a pastel color palette, especially in the out of focus areas.

Good description of some of the Rigid/DR image charateristics, and a thumbs up on these amazing photos - makes me want to go out and shoot with mine. I have a minty 50/2 Summicron DR with perfect glass. I find it to have mid to high contrast.

 

[Redseele]

I ended up getting a Summicron 50 v3. This lens is AMAZING and I love its rendition. It does exactly what I wanted it for: to be a replacement for both my Zeiss Planar and my Summicron Collapsible, so that I can use it for both color and have that beautiful (but not clinical) black and white rendition.

After a couple of weeks of use, I really don't see how it supposedly is a lower resolution lens. Here's a picture I took with my M9.

I'm so happy with it that I'm now selling (in the classified section) both my Collapsible and the Planar (and well, the M9 too) 😀

Untitled by , on Flickr

 

[Redseele]

And here is a black and white one, again on the M9:

[/url]Moments by Mahler_seele, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[teddy]

And here is a black and white one, again on the M9:

[/url]Moments by Mahler_seele, on Flickr[/IMG]

Awesome lens. No real need for that extra .3% of resolution fron anything else unless you print massive photos, even then... Lovely shots from your new Summicron!

 

[fer_fdi]

I had bought a Zeiss 50 f2 Planar lens as I couldn't find a suitable Summicron DR lens I wads looking for. I finally found a great one, had Youxin Ye to eliminate some slight haze and dis a test comparing those two. for a 1957 lens vs a modern Zeiss lens can you tell a dime's worth of difference? Both were shot with the same aperture and on a tripod.

I see the difference, in the first picture the subject pops out notably, it is the Planar I guess.
The difference is in character but I guess it may be expressed in resolution, micro-contrast, tone distribution, etc

redseele that color photo with the Summicron 50 III and M9 is beautiful!

 

[ianstamatic]

this shot would look good whatever lens you used.
nice.

 

[agoglanian]

I can chime in from the other end of the spectrum, I owned and was quite happy with a ZM Planar, it's really a wonderful lens for the price point, but I did wind up selling it to buy a v5 Summicron (from our own jonmanjiro) largely out of curiosity but also for future plans of having a set of summicrons.

In the end I found little differences between the two lenses, the Planar has more of a punchy look due to the T* coatings (at least that's my theory) and it also has cooler colors, though not at all unpleasant.

The Summicron is plenty sharp across the frame and has some intangible difference that seems to give off some extra dimension and warmth to the images.

I would be very keen on trying the Summilux but I am quite happy with my Summicron, plus it's the perfect size on M bodies.

 

[Bingley]

Here's a recent photo taken with a Summicron 50 v. III, on CineStill 800T with a 51b filter:

Sleigh pull by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[pepeguitarra]

Have you consider the Nikkor SC 50mm f1.4?

Have you consider the Nikkor SC 50mm f1.4?


Nikkor 50mm f1.4 LTM by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Nikkor 50mm f1.4 LTM by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


The cat who thinks it is a goat by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr