Difference between single scale and dual scale Summicron-M 50mm f2

[mark_pw]

I'm looking for a Summicron-M 50mm f2 (Rigid). I realise that there are two different versions:

Single scale: - https://ebay.to/2RP0wzQ
Dual scale: - https://ebay.to/2DgwDTM

Are they optically different? Their price could be quite different in some stores.

Please help. :angel:

 

[Richard G]

The rigid and DR apparently have the same normal range optics but the DR has a close range. The close range works for film and digital but can be butchered so the normal range is available in full for digital. Otherwise the normal range is only useable out to about 3m on digital. The -M designation is incorrect for these older lenses.

 

[v0sh]

Optically, these are the same.
Richard, the links he posted imply this is not about the rigid vs. DR Summicron, but just about rigid Summicron with only ft scale vs. one with ft+m scale.

 

[Richard G]

Optically, these are the same.
Richard, the links he posted imply this is not about the rigid vs. DR Summicron, but just about rigid Summicron with only ft scale vs. one with ft+m scale.

Oops. You’re right. Sorry for being OT.

 

[peterm1]

I interpreted the question as being about the rigid and the DR Summicron too. Which it looks as if may not have been intended. But as I cannot delete a post only edit, I will leave it here. The import is the same - all versions of the version 1 Summicron were the same as each other. All versions of the version 2 were the same as each other etc. Hence it follows that the scale on the barrel does not affect the design either. Nevertheless here is my post about the rigid and the DR.......................

The story often told is that optically the Rigid and the DR are identical - in design. However because of sample to sample variation in the manufacture of lens elements Leitz always had to hand select specific elements to go with other specific elements so that final lenses were as close to overall specification as possible. This also was done for economic reasons - it minimized their need to throw away elements that were on the edge of tolerance limits. In fact I believe that Irwin Puts mentions this somewhere in his well known book on Leica glass (if my memory is working properly tonight - I have not read his book thoroughly for a few years or maybe it is in a separate article written by him).

In addition, however, it is sometimes also added / claimed that Leitz made particular efforts to select the elements that most closely matched specification for this close focus version of the lens given the additional optical demands made on them. However I have no idea if this part of the story is the photographic equivalent of an urban myth. (On the face of it, it sounds a bit like marketing hype to me but given Leitz reputation for precision it may be quite true. After all, when close focusing the depth of field can be tiny. The lens is reliant on rangefinder to accurately focus up close so having the lens closely match its theoretical design parameters is particularly important with such a demand. So maybe its not so exaggerated............)

Having said that Puts seems to make no distinction between these versions of the Summicron in the chapter on that lens.

He says this of that era's Summicron 50mm at p.42 "The earliest version for the M-series was the 50mm f/2.0 Summicron with 7 elements. This lens was the first to benefit from advanced glass research and improved computations. The design proved to be sensitive to production tolerances. Medium to high contrast in the center with fine details clearly resolved was combined with a relatively sharp drop of performance in the field and outer zones. The higher level of aberrations in the field had its negative effects on the overall image quality. At full aperture this lens is prone to flare in not very severe lighting situations. Stopped down to f/4.0 this lens performs very well with a high contrast image over most of the field and a slightly soft rendition of edges of very fine details." Bear in mind though this comment almost certainly relates to the 1953 collapsible version of the lens which is slightly different to the rigid version which followed in 1957.

An abridged version of the book from which I copied the above can be downloaded here: http://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Leica-M-Lenses-Their-Soul-and-Secrets_en.pdf

EDIT: I have just checked. In the unabridged version of the book Puts is quite specific and says "....Both the Rigid and the DR versions have identical optical design and have absolutely identical performance". Which seems definitive - no difference in theory or practice according to the authority on the subject.

 

[rulnacco]

They're not *epically* different. Image-wise, you shouldn't notice anything different at all about them, they're optically identical. I've owned both versions--my first one was a single-scale which I bought almost silly cheap because it had some haze and a sticky aperture ring. Both of which the legendary Malcolm Taylor sorted out for me.

I eventually traded it in as part of a payment on the Summicron version IV. However, I missed it so badly--yeah, the version IV *is* probably a better lens, but the Rigid just has that charisma, primarily in feel and use rather than images--that when my local second hand dealer had a beautiful dual-scale Rigid come in, I bought that from him, too.

Now don't quote me on this, because I very could possibly be wrong, but I think the earlier version was made entirely out of brass. The focusing ring on the dual-scale model is, I'm sure, aluminium. So in some ways, because of that, because it was the first Rigid version and because I kind of fancy the earlier focusing ring's looks a little better than the later one, I'd give the edge--but only by a whisker--to the aesthetics of the single-scale lens.

However, my own dual-scale lens is indeed a beauty made to the highest standard, and a joy to use.

Not only that, it may be (I've read various sources on this) that the later lenses have slightly more scratch-resistant front coatings, and may be be more commonly found with less haze than the earlier lenses. The early lenses were notorious for having very soft and easily scratched coatings, and whether it was from the lubricants used in the lens or the reaction of moisture with those coatings, haze was a frequent problem. My dual-scale is clear as spring water, and I've not seen a dual-scale (in the few samples I've looked through with a flashlight) with bad haze.

Main thing is, find one that focuses smoothly, that has a properly working aperture ring, and which is free from haze and cleaning marks/scratches. If you do that, it's going to produce great images. The differences in feel/use will be negligible, and I'd have to believe you'd be quite happy with either one.

 

[mark_pw]

They're not *epically* different. Image-wise, you shouldn't notice anything different at all about them, they're optically identical. I've owned both versions--my first one was a single-scale which I bought almost silly cheap because it had some haze and a sticky aperture ring. Both of which the legendary Malcolm Taylor sorted out for me.

I eventually traded it in as part of a payment on the Summicron version IV. However, I missed it so badly--yeah, the version IV *is* probably a better lens, but the Rigid just has that charisma, primarily in feel and use rather than images--that when my local second hand dealer had a beautiful dual-scale Rigid come in, I bought that from him, too.

Now don't quote me on this, because I very could possibly be wrong, but I think the earlier version was made entirely out of brass. The focusing ring on the dual-scale model is, I'm sure, aluminium. So in some ways, because of that, because it was the first Rigid version and because I kind of fancy the earlier focusing ring's looks a little better than the later one, I'd give the edge--but only by a whisker--to the aesthetics of the single-scale lens.

However, my own dual-scale lens is indeed a beauty made to the highest standard, and a joy to use.

Not only that, it may be (I've read various sources on this) that the later lenses have slightly more scratch-resistant front coatings, and may be be more commonly found with less haze than the earlier lenses. The early lenses were notorious for having very soft and easily scratched coatings, and whether it was from the lubricants used in the lens or the reaction of moisture with those coatings, haze was a frequent problem. My dual-scale is clear as spring water, and I've not seen a dual-scale (in the few samples I've looked through with a flashlight) with bad haze.

Main thing is, find one that focuses smoothly, that has a properly working aperture ring, and which is free from haze and cleaning marks/scratches. If you do that, it's going to produce great images. The differences in feel/use will be negligible, and I'd have to believe you'd be quite happy with either one.

Thank you. It's very helpful.

 

[NickTrop]

Difference between single scale and dual scale Summicron-M 50mm f2

Difference = 1 scale