Leica 5cm Lenses: Which would you recommend?

[raid]

I have always been interested in the development of Leica 5cm lenses over the past 50 years or so. The old style Elmar 5cm 3.5 seems to still have its users and supporters after all these years. I find this lens to be a nice alternative to use if you already have a more modern 50mm lens. It can be quite sharp when used at small apertures.

The Summar 5cm 2.0 has in recent years been receiving renewed interest here for portraits. It seems to have a reputation to flare in direct light. I find it to be a lovely lens. I once sold such a lens and then I bought a replacment lens a year later. I would recommend to always use a hood with it.

The Summarit is the fast 5cm 1.5 with character. You either hate its performance or you find it great. Some would say that such a lens is reserved for special light portraits. It is very well built.

The Summitar may be the most used of the last four Leica lenses mentioned here. I get this feeling from the overwhelming positive comments about the Summitar here at RFF and at PN. If a Summicron is too sharp for your needs/taste, then a Summitar may be a good choice.

The Summicron with its collapsible version may be sharper than the Summitar when used closed down. Some people swear by this lens for great B&W photography. Others find it too soft when used wide open. The rigid Summicron and the DR version of it have many followers. I am one of them. I love the rigid V1 Summicron for the look in the resulting images. It may not be as cutting sharp as later Summicron versions, but it still holds its place as one of the all time Leica classic lenses.

Which of these classic Leica 50mm lenses do you use and why?
In the presence of so many super sharp and contrasty 50mm lenses by Leica and other manufacturers, do you still for whatever reason favor a Leica classical 50mm lens for your uses?

This is not a thread about which non Leica lenses you prefer but it is about giving your opinion about the classical Leica line-up.

edited: The Summilux and the Noctilux should have been included here. They can be under "other".

 

[Bingley]

Interesting thread idea, Raid. I recently purchased a beautiful Elmar 50/2.8 LTM, probably dating from around 1957 or so. From my reading of Rogliatti, it appears this lens is identical to the v. 1 Elmar-M except for having a thread mount. I like having the extra stop (over my Elmar 50/3.5), the ergonomics are better, and I like the fact that it takes 39mm filters rather than the clamp-on variety designed for the older Elmar. Now I need to find a hood for it!

My first serious road-test of this lens was last weekend at the Sacramento Jazz Festival, and I have to say I'm impressed! It's sharp, while having lovely smooth bokeh. I've put some samples up over on my flickr.

The Elmars work very well in the bright, often harsh summer sunlight here in California. While they're best known for b&w, I've also been quite pleased w/ their performance w/ color film.

 

[Phoenix]

My favorite 50 is the pre asph 50 summilux with the detachable hood. Beautiful oof rendition and very sharp when stopped down. I have a foggy summar with lots of cleaning marks that is very lovely wide open for soft focus. the hood cost almost as much as the lens. For the price it works great for soft focus art shots.

 

[raid]

Hi Steve,
I forgot to list the Elmar 5cm 2.8 here. I love this lens. It is sharp and it is very well built. The newer Elmar-M is supposedly sharper, but I am more interested in the older Leica lenses here.

Your LTM Elmar may be harder to get than the M mount version of the older style Elmar.
Let us know how you like its performance with you.

 

[raid]

My favorite 50 is the pre asph 50 summilux with the detachable hood. Beautiful oof rendition and very sharp when stopped down. I have a foggy summar with lots of cleaning marks that is very lovely wide open for soft focus. the hood cost almost as much as the lens. For the price it works great for soft focus art shots.

I must admit that I listed the lenses that I happen to own, and I did not list the old style Summilux or the Noctilux super fast lenses. I am glad that you reminded us here about the Summilux. I guess, it would fall under "other lenses".

 

[nzeeman]

i only have summarit lens beside jupiters and industars. i can say i am very satisfied with it - it is sharp enough at f1.5 - i think about the same sharpness as my jupiter 8 at f2. i read many bad things on net abot summarit - and i was confused because photos on net looked ok to me - so when i saw this summarit with damaged filter ring i had to try it because i know i will not find cheap leica lens in near future if i dont buy that one. it went with me on trip to poland and it served really well.

 

[raid]

People are voting in the poll, but not everyone wants to say what's on their mind. The collapsible Cron is so far most widely chosen in the poll. Does the collapsibility make this lens more attractive for users?

nzeeman: Yes, the Summarit can be sharp if you get a good example of it. Vintage lenses can require adjustments with years of usage.

 

[benmacphoto]

My first lens was the collapsible Summicron "rare earth" version. Its a fantastic lens and I still use it, not as often anymore since I bought an M3 which came with a rigid Summicron. The rigid Summicron is my favorite lens. I bought a first year Summitar to try that out. The lens was in horrible shape, but I cleaned it up. It has a great vintage look to the images. So these are my favorite 50's which I still have and use.

 

[FPjohn]

Hello Raid:

The poll asks two questions - what have you used and what would you recommend.

From the list, I've used the DR, Summar, M and LTM coated f3.5 Elmar, Collapsible and I would recommend them all. The DR edges out the Elmar and Collapsible by a "bit". It is sharp without the bite of the later Summicrons.

yours
FPJ

 

[raid]

Hello Raid:

The poll asks two questions - what have you used and what would you recommend.

From the list, I've used the DR, Summar, M and LTM coated f3.5 Elmar, Collapsible and I would recommend them all. The DR edges out the Elmar and Collapsible by a "bit". It is sharp without the bite of the later Summicrons.

yours
FPJ

Hi John,

Thanks for addressing these two questions here.

I have used everyone of the listed lenses except the DR. No clue whether this lens is actually any different from the rigid Cron. Some rumors exist that Leica people handpicked the DR examples, but some say this because of the need for certain focal lengths for the DR.

 

[Nando]

Somehow, I ended up with all the lenses you listed except for the Rigid Summicron.



(The 50 Elmar is not in the photo - I actually have two of them. And neither is the col. Summicron)

Personally, I like the 50 Summitar the best out of all of the old Leitz glass. Not so much for its performance, but the look it gives. After the Summitar, I prefer the 50 Elmar. It always gives nice tones and its sharp even at f3.5. The low-speed of the Elmar doesn't bother me much as I usually shoot it with Tri-X rated at 1600.

The DR Summicron has this melting bokeh - sometimes I like it and sometimes I don't. When I first got the DR, I actually preferred my (ex) J3 Brianov over it but I'm slowly getting used to the DR. I do find it the highest resolving of all my old Leitz fifties and the build quality is better than anything I've ever from Leica. Even the build quality of my 50 Summilux-ASPH is not as nice! The more I use the DR, the more I'm getting to like it. I always thought that the DR and Rigid were basically the same except for the DR's close-focusing capabilities.

Lately, I've been curious about the 50f2.5 Hektor.

 

[raid]

Good to see you here, Nando. So you also believe that somehow the DR is better resolving than the rigid Summicron. It seems that DR users like to believe in the superiority of their DR! I have never used a DR, and I cannot comment on this mystery. It is interesting that quite a few people like the old Elmar.
Do you compensate in the developing process when you expose the ASA400 film at 1600?

Who else believes that the DR is somehow a sharper lens than the rigid Summicron? I know that some people believe that the two lenses are basically identical optically other than the close focus capability of the DR.

 

[Vics]

I use the Collapsible and DR 'crons. The collapsible is a great walking around lens, compact and very light weight. Wide open it is, as you say, quite soft, but I love it for portraits of children. The DR I use as my default portrait lens. Up close and wide open I think it's great! Stop them down, and I can't tell the difference.
Vic

 

[raid]

Vic,

Do you also use 50mm lenses that are more modern than the DR? I am just curious whether people use the older lenses occasionally while they use modern lenses more often or is it that people use vintage lenses only.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

The poll is titled "Which of these lenses have you used or are you still using?" but the thread is titled "Which would you recommend?"

I'm not sure if you mean one over the other, or both.

I recommend any of them, depending on what your photograph's look is that you're after.

I wouldn't recommend a lens just because I've used it. Perhaps if I sold them 😀 But I'd only recommend them if I knew what they want out of the lens.

My twopence.

 

[raid]

I recommend any of them, depending on what your photograph's look is that you're after.

Hi Gabriel,

I meant to ask both questions. Users of such lenses are also the most qualified to comment on whether the would recommend any of these lenses or not.

I have no negative feelings about any of the listed lenses.
So collecting input on the lenses and about the specific usages would be very useful.

 

[Bingley]

I have no experience w/ the non-Elmar lenses in your poll, Raid, and not enough experience w/ my new (to me) 50/2.8 (although early results are promising), but I would certainly recommend the Elmar 50/3.5 to anyone who is looking for a compact, lower contrast lens. Although this lens is usually associated w/ street or portrait photography, it does well w/ landscapes too. Mine is coated, and does pretty well w/ color as well as b&w. OK, so here are a few pics:

You could also have a lot of fun w/ this lens indoors, w/ Tri-X @ 1200 or Neopan 1600.

 

[raid]

Steve,
Each of the three posted images look excellent. The lens is sharp indeed and it allows you to manage high contrast scenes well. The last image is beautifully composed.

 

[Nando]

Good to see you here, Nando. So you also believe that somehow the DR is better resolving than the rigid Summicron. It seems that DR users like to believe in the superiority of their DR! I have never used a DR, and I cannot comment on this mystery. It is interesting that quite a few people like the old Elmar.
Do you compensate in the developing process when you expose the ASA400 film at 1600?

Who else believes that the DR is somehow a sharper lens than the rigid Summicron? I know that some people believe that the two lenses are basically identical optically other than the close focus capability of the DR.

Hi Raid,

What I meant to say that the DR was the highest resolving out of my classic fifties. I never tried a Rigid Summicron but I always thought it was basically the same as the DR. If you want a really high resolving classic lens, I'd recommend the 35f2.8 Summaron!

I develop Tri-X at 1600 in Rodinal 1:100 semi-stand. Here's a shot of my friend taken with the 50 Elmar wide-open and Tri-X at 1600:

 

[ampguy]

same here

same here

only downside is it's larger and heaver than some 50's for a carry everywhere 50. I have a '66 black one, weighs a lot and is longer than many 50's, but worth it.

My favorite 50 is the pre asph 50 summilux with the detachable hood. Beautiful oof rendition and very sharp when stopped down. I have a foggy summar with lots of cleaning marks that is very lovely wide open for soft focus. the hood cost almost as much as the lens. For the price it works great for soft focus art shots.