collapsible Summicron 50/2 (LTM) 1957

[Sonnar2]

Hi there,

what is the common believing about the last LTM collapsible summicron (50/2), SN 1,4xx,xxx ? Should be a 1957, later developed than all Canons, Nikons, etc. f/2 lenses. Better in some respects too?
It just came with a quite unused looking Bessa R (my spare body)

It makes me curious to compare it with the 2006' collapsible Heliar 50/2.

The lens looks good, of course there are some cleaning marks (damn soft coating of these 1950's Leica lenses) but not many. How is backlight flare with this lens? How is this lens as a user?

The focussing goes quite soft, like with my Summar and Summitar, whereas the aperture goes quite hard, turning the tubus to unlock. It looks like the former user had a favorite f-/stop. Overall the lens don't look used hard. (of course this can be a bad sign too...)

What I instantly like on it is small size. Reason no.1 for me to start RF photography, and (why alone I lusted for it) this is the "last" Barnack lens made by Leica. It took them some years to come back to that size...


cheers, F.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

I have not heard of ltm Summicron's produced so late. I have heard without solid evidence that the later Summicron's 1,3xxx had better coatings but were still soft by today's standards.

The collapsible Summicron has always impressed me with how nicely it renders. It has the same flaring characteristics of lenses from the 50's, under strong backlighting or a ray of sun hitting the lens at an odd angle there will be flare. It doesn't happen often but it happens more than say a Nokton 50/1.5. Some suggest using a hood, I don't shoot often enough into the sun to notice. Then again I also bracket my shots if I have a feeling there might be flare.

I don't collapse the lens often. It's small enough for me not to notice. The f stops on my copy turns easily, easier than turning the focus.

It would be interesting to see how the Summicron holds up to the Heliar if you test them side by side.

 

[fotomeow]

I have a 1094XXX collapsible Cron 50/2 that I just bought from Sherry Krauter. Its a fine specimen with a few pieces of dust that dont seem to disrupt the image. There are soft cleanning marks, many of them seen if you shine a flashlight from behind them.

I had read from others on RFF/Cameraquest site that the lens offers low contrast with moderate to sharp resolution. It certainly is pretty low contrast compared to my 1985 Cron 50/2, and my modern Cron is much sharper too. I was expecting the collapsible to offer sharper resolution than what I've seen in my test shots on my RD-1s. I will be getting film scans tomorrow from a test roll of Tri-X on an M6.
So far, the collapsible doesnt actually flare as much as I thought it would. I mean, I've done side-by-side test shots with the modern Cron on my Epson, and the modern Cron is flaring in the same lighting situations!! (Though not as much).

The differences b/w these 2 lenses are quite distinct. Sonnar2, from the general consensus of the 2006 Heliar qualities, I would say that it is similar to my moder Cron. I would thus conjecture that the differences b/w the collapsible Cron and the Heliar are akin to those differences I have mentioned above b/w the collapsible and my 1985 Cron. But HOPEFULLY someone with the collapsible and Heliar can let us know their first hand experience.
Having noticed the low contrast and medium resolution of the collapsible 50/2, I am really liking using it outside with bright sunshine and/or in high contrast environments. I find these characteristics complement each other well. Similar for using my modern Cron, I like the way it lends its qualities to lighting/situations which are already with low contrast. I just find that using the collapsible in low contrast environments creates too much low contrast overall. And similarly, that using the modern Cron in high contrast environments creates too much high contrast overall. whew.And now I have a Summitar 50/2 on the way to compare as well!

 

[Sonnar2]

I've heard that contrast is low wide open, but resolution very good for the day. Contrast improves when stopped down. Not bad for scanning.
Not so harsh as modern lenses like the C/V Nokton.
The vintage Canon 50/1.8 is also too harsh for my taste (except you have one with the common fungus/hazing). I prefer a bit softer look, like with the 50/1.5 Canon.

Never made many pics with the Heliar (M) 50/2.0 until now. Still like my screwmount cameras more, and not doing "critical" work enough to bedispleased with the lenses...

But of course, looking for "more"... 😉

 

[RichC]

I bought a good, late copy and had it overhauled by British Leica expert Malcolm Taylor (who, incidentally, I always use and can recommend without reservation) - he returned it, saying it was in excellent condition.

I bought the lens to make my Leica M8 more compact and easier to carry in a small bag.

Despite being a fan of older lenses (my two favourite lenses are the 35mm and 50mm Summilux pre-asphericals), this lens was a serious disappointment. So much so that I flogged it vowed never to buy a lens made/designed prior to the mid-1960s ever again!

So, what was it like?

It was reasonably sharp at medium apertures, f/4 - f/8. Within this range, it had medium contrast with a pleasant tonality. It performed best at f/5.6. The image quality in this range was nothing to write it home about - compared with every other lens I've used (1960s/1970s Leicas, modern Voigtlanders, modern Canons - including the cheap 18-55mm "kit lens") it was noticeably less sharp and had lower contrast, especially at the edges.

That said, it was what I'd expected, and it was "good enough".

Outside of this range, the image quality fell apart. At f/16 it was very soft. At f/2, it was a disaster - not only very soft, but flare was excessive - veiling flare, halos around pale-coloured objects. And bear in mind I have the Summilux 35mm pre-aspherical, which also flares a lot at f/1.4 - somehow, flare from the Summilux can look attractive, but that from the Summicron is simply ugly and intusive (I think there's simply too much of it).

I could have lived with the above, but the killer was flare. Even at small apertures it was very susceptible to flare, even though I always used a hood and made sure that light sources were outside the frame. The standard hood for the collapsible Summicron/Summitar is the "barn door" - perhaps using this huge monstrosity would have tamed the flare (I was using something smaller, as the "barn door" defeats my pocketability aim!):

I think the root cause of the lens's problems is poor coating. At the time the lens was designed, lens coating technology was in its infancy, and huge strides were made in the late 1950s and 1960s. I suspect modern coatings would improve the usability of this lens massively.

Anyway, as I said, I sold it: despite my best efforts, it managed to completely ruin otherwise decent shots on several occasions - even though my Leica M8 has an LCD screen, veiling flare is not easy to see on the screen in bright daylight.

The Heliar will blow the collapsible Summicron out of the water in every single way.

PS: I tried an Elmar 50mm f/2.8 (not the modern one) for a month or so, and if you want a small, collapsible lens for a reasonable price, this performed much better than the Summicron at all apertures, and was much less susceptible to flare (I used a small hood, and can't recall any problems with flare. I believe they were made in both LTM and bayonet mounts. Here's an example from the Elmar (taken at f/8) - with the Summicron, there would have been serious veiling flare, but instead the little flare there is actually adds to the photograph, creating mood:

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Some comparison shots for a 13x Coll. Summicron, Nikkor 5cm f2, and 5cm f2 Sonnar wide-open.

http://ziforums.com/album.php?albumid=203

I think the story goes that Zeiss patented vacuum-deposit hard coatings in the 1930s, and Leica used a different method for their lenses.

 

[Sonnar2]

Rich, this is a detailed and non-eiphemized report, thanks for that.
From your last picture: this is exactly what I (at least) expect on flare reduction (on film too) from my "standard use 50mm": structures left in dark areas.
I have pictures of this kind made with my Canon Sonnar, which seem to have good coatings for the day, but has just 6 glass-air-surfaces (exactly like the Elmar). The coll. Summicron has 12!
This makes me think about a comparison with the Summitar which has 4 surfaces less....

 

[Sonnar2]

I think the story goes that Zeiss patented vacuum-deposit hard coatings in the 1930s, and Leica used a different method for their lenses.

After 1945 German prewar patents were free to use by any foreign manufacturer, but domestic ones had to stick to it, which handicapped them in addition. Tronnier jr. wrote me that Voigtländer and Schneider had to pay to KODAK USA to use their coating technique, which initially came from Carl Zeiss Jena... maybe this was the case for Leica too... probably all West German companies would have preferred paying Kodak than Carl Zeiss Jena in the communist part of the country.. :bang:

My Summicron example has the purple coating which looks a bit more like today than the one of my coated Summitar. So it maybe do better than the rest.

 

[SamStewart]

i've been wondering this for a while, if you dont uncollapse the cron will that effect the image? sometimes i dont take the time to pull out the lens and i'm just hoping it's not screwing anything up

 

[Sonnar2]

This will be the final boke test, because NOTHING will be in focus... 😉

 

[Sonnar2]

backlite with the coll. Summicron /LTM, on Kodak Ektar 100.
Not too bad for a 53 year old lens, AFAIK.
It's one of the sharpest 50mm's (RF) I have, sharper than my coll. Classic Heliar 50/2.0 (M)

and just one converted to B&W and some contrast added (original on Ektar 100, wide open contrast very low):