Better than Summicron?

T

Tejasican

Well-known
Local time
1:13 PM
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
203
Location
Texas
View My Gallery
It was stated in another thread that there are better lenses than Summicrons. Better, of course, of always subjective. The things I have come to like about my Summicron-R 50mm is the color rendition, the finer separation of similar color tones, the smooth transitions to the OOF areas, and the draw of the OOF areas.

For me the separation of tone in my Nikon 1.4 AIS and Zuiko 1.4 do not come very close but the Zuiko does draw much like the Summicron otherwise. Ergonomically, I really like the Zuikos. At f/2 I can honestly say that there is not a huge single difference- the differences are subtle, but when making side by side prints seem to be cumulative. That said, I would love to shoot a Zuiko 50mm f/2 macro and compare it against my Summicron.

So, do you consider some lens better than the Summicron (SLR lenses in particular) and if so, in what way? Please feel free to toss out opinions on any focal length.
 
The Leica M Summicron lenses are pretty nice. I have two and I can't complain about their performance in any way.

But I have to say Grapejohnson is right. I have a old SMC screwed onto my Spotmatic, and lo: the thing is quite acceptable.
 
I don't know that they are objectively better but I agree that the SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 is superb. I don't think the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 is sharp enough wide open to be called better (although its certainly an excellent lens) but the old 50mm f2 probably is. Its a lovely lens. In fact come to think of it technically if we are going to say any lens does compare we should be limiting the comparisons to 50mm f2 lenses not the 1.4 lenses listed above.
 
It's unfair to compare your Summicron R against contemporary 50/1.4 lenses - much like the Summilux R, they were optimized differently. Any 50/1.4 lens will be better than your Summicron .... At f1.4.

Compare it against similar 6 element designs, like the OM Zuiko 50/1.8 or Nikkor 50/1.8. The Nikkor in particular is an amazing performer.

You then might not find much difference except size and price (and half stop speed improvement).

Roland.
 
These comparisons are always difficult to collect useful information from.
Any lens is better than a sum micron if it's the lens that gets you the shot.
OK there is that. As far as just plain pure fidelity The ZF planers are damn wicked.
Try the ZF Macro Planar f2/50mm and see what you think.
Is it better? I don't mean to sound snarky I just don't know what "better" is anymore.
I like Grape Johnsons SMC Takumar as well. I use mine in the M42 version.
 
Agree. "Better" can mean almost anything. For some, a lens with lots of character (lens aberrations) is best if that's the result desired.
 
FrankS said:
Agree. "Better" can mean almost anything. For some, a lens with lots of character (lens aberrations) is best if that's the result desired.
Click to expand...

I agree. There is no such thing as better. It is a matter of taste/opinion. What I may like others don't.
 
Is this a consideration of images on a computer monitor or exhibition prints hanging on a wall?

The Summicrons as a family are, IMHO, the tour de force, except for the Summicron ASPH/APO versions or for that matter, the Summilux ASPH/APO family.

Of course, YMMV, and it cannot go without saying, your best may be completely different from my best and both different from that of the next person.

EDIT: I think FrankS, Rover & I are on the same page even, perhaps, we are saying the same thing with different words.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love the Summicron, and it is certainly a magnificent lens. But there are others that are as good, and perhaps even better. A few that immediately jump to mind are:
1. ZM Makro Planar 50/2
2. Pentax Super Takumar 50/1.4
3. Minolta MC PF Rokkor 50/2

I am personally very, very fond of the ZM Planar 50/2 and do feel it is the equivalent of the Summicron in performance, but it does not equal the build quality of the Summicron so I would defer to the Summicron.

I am also very, very partial to the old, Zeiss Contaflex Planar 50/2, and the Contax Sonnar 50/2. I feel that, for their day, these two were the finest lenses available. However, when compared to more modern glass, I can't honestly say they retain this status. They are still very, very good.

Finally, there are issues of cost and those issues related to digital sensors vs film. I do not believe that lenses that are best for film are necessarily best for the digital sensor, and vice versa. I haven't tried to make any judgements about these two issues.
 
Definitely it is subjective as stated in the OP. I find it superior, somewhat on a monitor and definitely in print compared to other lenses I have, but that is as it delivers a particular set of qualities that I happen to value more than some other set of qualities.
 
My Summicron 50 is one of the early collapsing types. It has a strong character that I think is the best. I'm looking forward to spending time getting to know it even better.
 
Especially after seeing Helen's fine offering, I am reminded that often it isn't the lens or the camera, it is the eye.

😉
 
JSU said:
Especially after seeing Helen's fine offering, I am reminded that often it isn't the lens or the camera, it is the eye.

😉
Click to expand...

+1

It is very hard to argue with Helen's excellent work, and her tool is the Summicron. But I suspect she is capable of that with far worse glass than a Summicron.
 
JSU said:
Especially after seeing Helen's fine offering, I am reminded that often it isn't the lens or the camera, it is the eye.

😉
Click to expand...

Pioneer said:
+1

It is very hard to argue with Helen's excellent work, and her tool is the Summicron. But I suspect she is capable of that with far worse glass than a Summicron.
Click to expand...

Awhhhh, Thanks very Much Indeed
You 'Two' made my night special, having had a dreadul weekend
I can now go to Bed with a Smile on my face and a Twinkle in my Eye

Cheers - xo - H
 
no f1.4 SLR lenses, that's for sure.

these lenses ALL have field curvature. some of them better than others. the E60 Summilux-R is pretty good, as are the Sigma and Zeiss 50 (well, assuming you don't actually count performance at f1.4 for the last).

I certainly haven't seen one of these, or an f1.2 lens, that is in the same league as a 6/4 double gauss f2 max aperture design lens.

if you want to do better, you depart from the formula. Leica and Zeiss already make these designs as good as they can be be made -5% that better production might get out of them.

the ZM Planar and the 50 Summicron v4/5 are equally good, not equivalent. Each company made their own set of compromises; Zeiss took higher global contrast and field flatness and Leica took better on-axis performance and a longer transition to OoF.

there aren't many f2 or faster 50mm lenses that significantly deviate from the 6/4 formula. I happen to own 2; the Zeiss 50 Makro-Planar and the Olympus 50/2 auto-macro. neither is small and neither is quite perfect. The Makro-Planar IS a bit better. If any lens is better than the v4 summicron design in all ways, well then the 50MP is it. as long as we're ignoring size and weight. The OM 50/2 definitely carries more detail at f2 but the lower frequencies have a bit less contrast; hard to call that objectively better than the summicron.

I've owned both the earliest and the latest Zuiko 50/1.4, and two different copies of the 50/1.8 MiJ, a Contax 50/1.7, a Rokkor 58/1.2, a ZM Planar and a DR Cron. The only lens which really legitimately belongs in this conversation is the ZM Planar. the DR cron is a great lens but it's simply not good enough at f2.

the best overall 50 I've ever used by a small but significant margin is the 50MP. the Zuiko comes in second and is the last lens I would part with:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

if you like your lens and you think it's better than a Summicron more power to you. I however, would sell every 50 I owned in a heartbeat if it put a significantly better 50 in my hands. I left Leica to use the 50MP, I would not accept a 50/1.4 SMC Takumar as a substitute. I realize it's a nice lens, and I like it myself, but it ain't a summicron killer IMO.
 
The pentax is all right, one of the best SLR f1.4s.

I'd vote for the 50mm makro-planar, simply an amazing lens in all regards. At 50mm the Summilux ASPH and new Voigtlander 50 1.5 comes to mind. Both may be as sharp as the original summicron at f2, and have slightly smoother bokeh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

boojum
M240 - M262, really? Does the M262 have better color science?
Replies
14
Views
487
wlewisiii
W
K
50mm lens for the Leica CL (film)
Replies
13
Views
413
splitimageview
splitimageview
C
LTM Collapsible 50mm f/2 Summicron vs. 50mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar vs. 50mm f/1.5 Nokton?
Replies
17
Views
1K
shawn
S
aoresteen
Voigtlander 50mm f/1.0 For Nikon SP?
Replies
7
Views
402
former member
F
AusDLK
Wobbly Canon LTM 50mm f/1.4 Lens
Replies
12
Views
842
AusDLK
AusDLK
Back
Top Bottom