leica 50mm summilux version 1 -- thoughts?

[hrryxgg]

hey there folks:

i have an M-6, and i am looking to add a lens. i currently use 28mm, but locally there is a near mint condition 50mm summilux version 1 (1959) lens for sale, around 1600$.

i do mostly travel/street shooting, so something not massive in terms of weight/size would be ideal.

i have read mixed reviews on this lens, but curious what the real experts think.

any feedback would be most welcome.

thank you very much...

 

[Ben Z]

I can't claim to be a "real expert" but I have used that lens and never really saw much of a difference compared to the later version. I have the 2nd version, which I use quite a lot. I paid a whopping $600 for it about 8 years ago. Man the prices have really gone up.

 

[Pioneer]

I have version 2, which I enjoy immensely. But I have used the first version and really can't see any difference in any of the photographs I have taken with either lens. I paid about $1200 for my Lux but maybe number 1 is becoming a collectible, hence the elevated price.

 

[peterm1]

They have risen in price quite a lot. From my recollection they were about half what they are now going for maybe a decade or so back. Which suggest they have something that users like. I have not used one personally so cannot comment directly. However, I came within a hairs breadth of buying one 10-12 years back when a guy I know had one on his M3 that he was offering for sale. But someone else had first right of refusal on it and took the offer up. Otherwise I certainly would have bought it. This era of lens is certainly beautifully made - I adore their look and feel and have owned both early Summicrons and Summarits which are made with similar quality. Optically they are said to be a bit low contrast and a little soft wide open. I dont think either attribute should disqualify them - it depends on how you propose using them. I for one like low contrast lenses on digital Ms in particular as they complement digital sensors well. The good thing is that if you buy it for your M6 and find it does not suit you , you will have no trouble selling it.

 

[ianstamatic]

The first version is supposed to be a summarit remounted, version II the formula changed.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

My summarit 50 is one of favorite lenses on my m3, despite its lower reputation.

 

[filmtwit]

The v1 is soft incomparison to the v2.
The v1 and v2 have a minimum focus of 1 meter.
The v3 is the same optics as v2, but can close focus to .7 meters.

For the price you're looking at get the v2, or save up and hold out for a v3/e46 version, it generally isn't much more then $1600 (last time I looked you could get one for about 2k).

hey there folks:

i have an M-6, and i am looking to add a lens. i currently use 28mm, but locally there is a near mint condition 50mm summilux version 1 (1959) lens for sale, around 1600$.

i do mostly travel/street shooting, so something not massive in terms of weight/size would be ideal.

i have read mixed reviews on this lens, but curious what the real experts think.

any feedback would be most welcome.

thank you very much...

 

[raid]

I recommend to consider the Summicron instead.

 

[ianstamatic]

i'd say it depends how versatile you want the lens to be.
at f4 and above i doubt anyone could tell the difference between a version I, IV or cron but opened up that 'softness' and wonderful transition to out of focus areas and rendering can be a wonderful tool, esp for portraits .. just saying

 

[f16sunshine]

$1600 is too much unless you are a collector.
There have been perfectly usable v2's for less here on the classified.
I tried a v1... if it is not exactly the summarit re-barreled it's very nearly just that.
A nice lens but....swirly oof wide open and not very sharp... a sumnarit is usually $4-600 . Why pay a $1000 premium ?

 

[hrryxgg]

great responses

great responses

thank you all so far for the feedback.

i would prefer to think that a few hundred one way or another should not be the deciding factor in my selection of a 50mm.

having said that, does anyone think this lens is a worthy selection?

thanks again

 

[kknox]

I have a V1 also. Love the lens, if it's clean and haze free it's a nice lens. For that price it should have the original good and both caps. I have found mice to be a little soft wide open, but sharpens up by 2.0

See if you can get it for about $1300.00.

 

[kknox]

It's s great lens, its the only Leica 50 I have kept along with my Zeiss Planar.

 

[ottluuk]

thank you all so far for the feedback.

i would prefer to think that a few hundred one way or another should not be the deciding factor in my selection of a 50mm.

having said that, does anyone think this lens is a worthy selection?

thanks again

There's no doubt it's a good lens but have you considered some of the alternatives, including but not limited to: Canon 50/1.5, 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 LTM, Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM, Leitz Summarit 50/1.5 (M or LTM)? These could each be had for $500 or so, depending on condition and seller's fancy.
Let's not forget that we are talking about 1950s optics here – they all (incl. the early Summilux) have their own specific weaknesses and strengths – the sum of which might be called the 'character' of a lens. With these classics, you can't objectively say that more expensive always means 'better' – a top dollar specimen will be useless to you if you don't happen to like the character.

Flickr searches are a good way to familiarize yourself with how a certain lens draws. When checking out the old 1950s glass, don't forget to compare them with the modern (v. IV-V) Summicrons, ZM Planar and CV Nokton 50/1.5.

BTW you didn't mention what 28mm you use. If it's a modern lens, say the v.4 or aspherical Elmarit and you like it – well, forget about the oldies then 🙂

 

[Erik van Straten]

The difference between the two concern the optical faults 'coma' and 'distortion'. These faults are related to one another. V2 doesn't have coma, but pays for that with quite a lot of barrel distortion. V1 is free from distortion, but shows quite a lot of coma, wich means softness and unsharpness in the corners of the image.
Personally I hate distortion, so I stopped using the v2. When viewed on a computer monitor the distortion is really bad. For some reason on a print it is less disturbing.

Maybe that's why the v1 fetches formidable prices nowadays: no distortion.

for all shots: Leica M, Summilux 50mm f/1.4, Tmax100/400-2TMY, Adox MCC 110.

V2:
(the barrel distortion is clearly seen on the doors left and right)

V1:

V1:

Erik.

 

[Flat Twin]

I have a pre-series version 1 lens, its actually the 73rd 50mm Summilux made. When I purchased it (from Johan) it was in a poor state with fungus attacking the rear element and general haze/dust issues. I sent it to Malcolm Taylor who spent six months working on it. He removed the fungus and re-coated the offending lens surface and cleaned and serviced it. He returned a beautiful lens to me both optically and cosmetically as the outside appearance was always very clean.

The shot below is with the M9 at f2.8 (I think) and I love the way the lens renders and "draws" the image. I agree with Eric above^^^ the distortion on the version 2 lens is very distracting and a distinct turn off for me. For this reason I sold my version 2 and am now thoroughly enjoying my version 1 lens. I have just developed two rolls of HP5 that I shot with it so I'll post some more examples of film rendering when I get a minute.

 

[Flat Twin]

Here's another of my little boy, again at f2.8 I think... I love the subtle contrast for black and white work. Another irritant of the Version 2 lens for me was always the overpowering contrast for my liking with black and white... Its very much personal taste though I guess... Regards, Simon

 

[YYV_146]

Sold my CLA'd V2 for less than $1100. It did have a small mark on one of the inner elements...IMO if you aren't a collector, you can find a V2 copy for much less than $1400.

The V2 is a more contrasty and sharp lens.

 

[sebastel]

i used to own (and use) a v.2, and now i have a v.1.

as for the v.1 versus summarit - they are not the same. while they both show a similar arrangement of lenses, the glasses are different (source: marco cavina). so, the v.1 can't possibly be only a new mount for the summarit.

as i did not own the lenses at the same time, it's hard for me to provide a comparison. while i think they are different, the differences in look are not as big as some comments make believe. to me, the v.1 offers a much more evenly distributed look over the full format, even into the corners. coma is visible fully open. at f/2 mostly gone, and at f/2.8 no longer visible (to me). mostly due to this, the contrast is lower wide open.

another difference i believe to have observed is, that the v.1 shows remarkable little color related faults (CA).

i'll keep my v.1!
if i need "sharp", i'll use a summicron, or close the aperture a bit more.

cheers,
s.

 

[nanthor]

I have the V1 now and have had 2 V2's in the past and from what I can see the V1 is better than the summarit, it is hard to coax the swirl bokeh out of it but the summarit is known for it. Also, I believe the V1 is just as sharp or better than the V2 in the center but near the corners the V2 is sharper so overall the V2 is probably sharper. I like my lenses sharp in the center and it's OK with me if they tail off a little in the corners. There are plenty of slower lenses that are sharp throughout the field. I certainly like the V1 just as much as I liked my V2's when I had them. I do believe the price you quoted is a bit high unless the lens is truly mint and you keep it that way. Mine was a few hundred less and will be when I go to sell it (I'm very fickle).
I do agree with others that the V1 is good for what it does, if looking for a sharper overall look, then there's the Summicron.

 

[hrryxgg]

not to throw a wrench into this discussion, but a 1958 prototype version 1 has come to me, mint condition, for about 2400.

does anyone have comments on this lens?

thank you!