Tom A
RFF Sponsor
They fiddled with the design over the years, 7 elements to 6 elements and they also decided to go alloy barrel and plastic "driver" for the aperture ring - and worst of all, removed the focussing tab on the latest version (as well as put on that collapsible hood - and, boy does it collapse easily!).
As a black and white shooter I prefer the older Summicron (Rigid version I and the DR). Build quality is second to none (well almost - Zeiss RF lenses from the 30's are better made). However, this said, for modern "look" I think lenses like the Planar 50f2 and the Nokton 50f1.5 and even the VC 50f2.5 are better as is the Hexanon 50f2. Just because a name is "legendary" does it mean that it is up to "snuff" with moderdn glass.
I would like Leica to come out with a upgraded Summicron 50f2 - using what they have learned with lenses like the 21/1.4, the 24f3.8 etc and raise the bar for a new 50mm line.
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
I'm not the nuts and bolts lens reviewer type -- I find a lens and if it fits my needs (and my camera) then I go with it.
The Nokton 35mm f/1.2 is all but welded to my M8.2. It's brassing now along with the camera.
Big but, man, I can talk pictures anywhere with this combo.
The Nokton 35mm f/1.2 is all but welded to my M8.2. It's brassing now along with the camera.
Big but, man, I can talk pictures anywhere with this combo.
LChanyungco
Well-known
I never have tried any VC glass but I do know that I prefer my current Summicron to the Hexanon 50 and pre-asph Summilux 50... to me its second only to the collapsible.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
In addition to your comments, Tom, Id like to see a 50mm Summicron ASPH. Thanks.
Svitantti
Well-known
IMHO, a spot-meter or such would be probably too big and slow for street etc., where I rangefinder cameras. I would prefer a small meter like Gossen Digisix or a Sekonic Twinmate. Of course if you prefer shooting landscapes and other slower shooting, this should be no problem.
Peter Klein
Well-known
I have old Leitz and Canon lenses, several Leica lenses from the 80s, plus several CV lenses. I find them all useful. I think more about "look" than I do about absolute resolution.
The CV 28/1.9 is a lower contrast lenses. I can see this on the histogram--the lowest few points on the graph are empty. To make this lens look similar to a Leica lens, in post-processing, I move the bottom end of the histogram down to pure black, and maybe make a steeper "S-curve." The 28/1.9 does not focus shift on the M8, which is a real advantage. But sometimes lower midtones look a bit muddy with this lens.
I have both a 1980s tabbed Summicron (current formula) and a 1960s DR. I prefer the latter for landscape, and the DR for people. The tabbed 'Cron is a little contrastier. The DR has a nice way of very slightly bleeding high-contrast edges that is technically a flaw, but often looks beautiful in practice.
I also use an old c. 1960 Jupiter-8 for people sometimes, when I want the Sonnar look. Best $30 I ever spent in photography.
The little CV 90/3.5 is just plain stellar, as is the 28/3.5. These most often go with me when travelling, as they are small and light as well as superb optically. The 28 is amazingly sharp and also contrasty. The 90 is gentler, so I might tweak its images with an S-curve to make it match the Leica 50s.
The 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH is just plain astounding. Razor sharp at all stops. It does focus shift on the M8 between f/2.8 and 5.6, so I have to remember to focus on the closest thing I want in focus rather than considering the focused-on spot in the middle of the depth of field. The CF 35/1.2 is still plenty sharp, but not quite as clinical as the Summilux. It does not focus shift (quite an accomplishment). Its two disadantages are size/weight, and a tendency to color fringe outdoors with extreme contrast edges (bright sky patches between shadowed leaves, etc. Its look is so lovely that sometimes I prefer it to the Summilux, even if the latter is objectively "better."
I happily shot the 50/1.5 Nokton for available light on film. I use it less on the M8, simply because I prefer 35mm lenses on the M8. It has a wirier bokeh than my other 50s, and some people don't like how it handles out of focus highlights. But I once did a shoot-out with a friend who had a recent pre-aspheric Summilux, and neither lens came out a clear winner over the other. The Nokton is sharper over the whole frame, the Summilux is slightly sharper in the center. The Summilux is a little better controlled for veiling flare in backlight. The Summilux often has smoother bokeh, but it really depends on exact focus distance and how far away the out of focus objects are.
A great, cheap lens is the Canon 50/1.8. It renders very much like the DR/Rigid Summicrons, for a much lower price.
Some individual CV lenses are decentered, but then again, Leica QC has not been the best in recent years.
All in all, I wouldn't sweat brand identity too much. Get the lens that draws like you want your photos to appear, and you'll be fine. For the best objective optical quality at f/2 and wider, Leica has a better chance of satisfying the most picky. but there are exceptions, (such as the pre-Asph 50 Summilux vs. the CV 50/1.5 Nokton). And again, don't underestimate the value of "look" over a few lines per millimeter--the CV 35/1.2 is the best example of that.
Leica lenses are generally better built than CVs, so they might hold up longer in heavy, hard use. Then again, 1960s and earlier Canon and Nikkor lenses have harder coatings, so they may last longer than used Leitz lenses in that respect.
Alfred Eisenstadt was once asked how he tested lenses. He replied that he bought a lens and shot with it for a while. If he liked it, he kept it. If he didn't, he sold it. Great advice. Today you can narrow things down before purchase by looking at a lot of pictures, to see if the lens suits your particular kind of photography (flickr is great for that, they have "groups" devoted to particular lenses).
I find that Erwin Puts' lens eveluations are very good. But you have to remember that hs is looking at things from a technical viewpoint of optical quality. If you are concerned with wide-open performance, his advice is perfect. If you shoot at middle apertures, the differences he cites may be more subtle than most of us will see shooting hand-held.
Focus shift is an issue with the M8, not really with film, unless you have a Noctilux.
--Peter
The CV 28/1.9 is a lower contrast lenses. I can see this on the histogram--the lowest few points on the graph are empty. To make this lens look similar to a Leica lens, in post-processing, I move the bottom end of the histogram down to pure black, and maybe make a steeper "S-curve." The 28/1.9 does not focus shift on the M8, which is a real advantage. But sometimes lower midtones look a bit muddy with this lens.
I have both a 1980s tabbed Summicron (current formula) and a 1960s DR. I prefer the latter for landscape, and the DR for people. The tabbed 'Cron is a little contrastier. The DR has a nice way of very slightly bleeding high-contrast edges that is technically a flaw, but often looks beautiful in practice.
I also use an old c. 1960 Jupiter-8 for people sometimes, when I want the Sonnar look. Best $30 I ever spent in photography.
The little CV 90/3.5 is just plain stellar, as is the 28/3.5. These most often go with me when travelling, as they are small and light as well as superb optically. The 28 is amazingly sharp and also contrasty. The 90 is gentler, so I might tweak its images with an S-curve to make it match the Leica 50s.
The 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH is just plain astounding. Razor sharp at all stops. It does focus shift on the M8 between f/2.8 and 5.6, so I have to remember to focus on the closest thing I want in focus rather than considering the focused-on spot in the middle of the depth of field. The CF 35/1.2 is still plenty sharp, but not quite as clinical as the Summilux. It does not focus shift (quite an accomplishment). Its two disadantages are size/weight, and a tendency to color fringe outdoors with extreme contrast edges (bright sky patches between shadowed leaves, etc. Its look is so lovely that sometimes I prefer it to the Summilux, even if the latter is objectively "better."
I happily shot the 50/1.5 Nokton for available light on film. I use it less on the M8, simply because I prefer 35mm lenses on the M8. It has a wirier bokeh than my other 50s, and some people don't like how it handles out of focus highlights. But I once did a shoot-out with a friend who had a recent pre-aspheric Summilux, and neither lens came out a clear winner over the other. The Nokton is sharper over the whole frame, the Summilux is slightly sharper in the center. The Summilux is a little better controlled for veiling flare in backlight. The Summilux often has smoother bokeh, but it really depends on exact focus distance and how far away the out of focus objects are.
A great, cheap lens is the Canon 50/1.8. It renders very much like the DR/Rigid Summicrons, for a much lower price.
Some individual CV lenses are decentered, but then again, Leica QC has not been the best in recent years.
All in all, I wouldn't sweat brand identity too much. Get the lens that draws like you want your photos to appear, and you'll be fine. For the best objective optical quality at f/2 and wider, Leica has a better chance of satisfying the most picky. but there are exceptions, (such as the pre-Asph 50 Summilux vs. the CV 50/1.5 Nokton). And again, don't underestimate the value of "look" over a few lines per millimeter--the CV 35/1.2 is the best example of that.
Leica lenses are generally better built than CVs, so they might hold up longer in heavy, hard use. Then again, 1960s and earlier Canon and Nikkor lenses have harder coatings, so they may last longer than used Leitz lenses in that respect.
Alfred Eisenstadt was once asked how he tested lenses. He replied that he bought a lens and shot with it for a while. If he liked it, he kept it. If he didn't, he sold it. Great advice. Today you can narrow things down before purchase by looking at a lot of pictures, to see if the lens suits your particular kind of photography (flickr is great for that, they have "groups" devoted to particular lenses).
I find that Erwin Puts' lens eveluations are very good. But you have to remember that hs is looking at things from a technical viewpoint of optical quality. If you are concerned with wide-open performance, his advice is perfect. If you shoot at middle apertures, the differences he cites may be more subtle than most of us will see shooting hand-held.
Focus shift is an issue with the M8, not really with film, unless you have a Noctilux.
--Peter
Last edited:
Lilserenity
Well-known
If you shoot mostly at f/4 or above then the chances are slim that you will notice but then I'm going on my eyesight. I've yet to walk into a gallery and know which lens any photo was taken with from looking at it. The only thing evident might be the focal length perhaps.
If you primarily shoot wider open say from f/2.8 and wider, you might notice it but you'd have to look hard and likely have to have something to compare it to to know what the difference is. Put it this way, if you had never seen a Leitz photo before, and took a photo with a CV 50mm f/1.5 ior 35mm f/1.7 I don't think you'd suddenly announce, "That's definitely CV bokeh!"
I've used a couple of Leitz lenses, namely a Summicron 50mm ASPH, Summicron 35mm ASPH and my own Summar 50mm and they are great lenses. Are they better built, for what many people are going to do with an M, I think all things considered the CVs will hold up well. I treat my cameras tough and recently completed walking 160 miles with an M2 and Voigtlander Ultron 35mm (my favourite 35mm ever) and there were a few issues where the back screws began to work their way free after about 130 miles dangling from my neck which then required some adjustment of the lens but nothing too serious. It's worth noting since I bought the lens in January this year I have probably walked a good 350-400 miles with it around my neck so it's not had it easy.
In good bright daylight it's worth noting that with an M your top shutter speed is 1/1000, now with ISO 100/125 film you're looking at 1/1000 for f/4 in my experience so you're pushing into territory that most people myself included won't be able to really tell what you shot the photo on, it'll either be a good photo because it's good, or a bad photo because it's bad regardless of the lens you've used.
IMHO, I would suggest looking at the CV glass and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. The way some absolute Leica envagelists talk sometimes is almost as if all CV glass is as tepid as a 1970s 70-210mm zoom lens made by some no-name Japanese outfit
As time goes by, try out some Leica glass and see what you think when you can afford it. No one can dispute it's excellent but you can still get excellent results with a lens costing somewhat less.
I'd recommend the CV 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar, 35mm f/1.7 Ultron (decently fast, good wide open, superb from f/2.8), the 28mm f/3.5 Skopar if you want something wider, or the 50mm f/1.5 Nokton. They're very good lenses, well made, but none of them too big to make your neck ache block out too much of the viewfinder:
Three CV Ultron 35mm examples:
1. Kodachrome 64, probably f/8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/3523342666/in/set-72157618590943732/
2. Superia 800, most likely f/2.8 or f/4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/3682064721/
3. Tri-X, f/4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/3441113468/
Good luck and most of all, ENJOY!
Vicky
If you primarily shoot wider open say from f/2.8 and wider, you might notice it but you'd have to look hard and likely have to have something to compare it to to know what the difference is. Put it this way, if you had never seen a Leitz photo before, and took a photo with a CV 50mm f/1.5 ior 35mm f/1.7 I don't think you'd suddenly announce, "That's definitely CV bokeh!"
I've used a couple of Leitz lenses, namely a Summicron 50mm ASPH, Summicron 35mm ASPH and my own Summar 50mm and they are great lenses. Are they better built, for what many people are going to do with an M, I think all things considered the CVs will hold up well. I treat my cameras tough and recently completed walking 160 miles with an M2 and Voigtlander Ultron 35mm (my favourite 35mm ever) and there were a few issues where the back screws began to work their way free after about 130 miles dangling from my neck which then required some adjustment of the lens but nothing too serious. It's worth noting since I bought the lens in January this year I have probably walked a good 350-400 miles with it around my neck so it's not had it easy.
In good bright daylight it's worth noting that with an M your top shutter speed is 1/1000, now with ISO 100/125 film you're looking at 1/1000 for f/4 in my experience so you're pushing into territory that most people myself included won't be able to really tell what you shot the photo on, it'll either be a good photo because it's good, or a bad photo because it's bad regardless of the lens you've used.
IMHO, I would suggest looking at the CV glass and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. The way some absolute Leica envagelists talk sometimes is almost as if all CV glass is as tepid as a 1970s 70-210mm zoom lens made by some no-name Japanese outfit
As time goes by, try out some Leica glass and see what you think when you can afford it. No one can dispute it's excellent but you can still get excellent results with a lens costing somewhat less.
I'd recommend the CV 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar, 35mm f/1.7 Ultron (decently fast, good wide open, superb from f/2.8), the 28mm f/3.5 Skopar if you want something wider, or the 50mm f/1.5 Nokton. They're very good lenses, well made, but none of them too big to make your neck ache block out too much of the viewfinder:
Three CV Ultron 35mm examples:
1. Kodachrome 64, probably f/8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/3523342666/in/set-72157618590943732/
2. Superia 800, most likely f/2.8 or f/4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/3682064721/
3. Tri-X, f/4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/3441113468/
Good luck and most of all, ENJOY!
Vicky
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
My two CV lenses, an Apo Lanthar and an Ultron 35, give satisfactory results. However, by all accounts they will not hold up well to wear: and, as Vicky has discovered, crucial screws can work loose on the Ultron. The standards of construction of the several old Leitz and Canon lenses I have had were unimpeachable. I opted for CV lenses because Canon and Nikon RF lenses are no longer made and because Leica lenses are too expensive for me.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yes. The current 50 Summicron, which is optically identical to the tabbed version (11819) before it, has several plane surfaces. Erwin Puts pointed out that the presence of plane surfaces means that the lens is not as highly corrected as it could have been--it is only corrected enough to meet a certain standard, or design goal. So we have yet to see the ultimate that could be achieved with the 50 Cron.
That's not to say that we would all like the images from such a highly corrected lens. Some of us might, while others might find it too clinical. We'll never know unless they build it!
Gipsy
Member
I have not seen any photographers on this forum who are better photographers than the Voightlander are lenses. If you can not tell the story with the camera around your neck all the fancy expensive photo equipment in the world will not make any difference.
Chris101
summicronia
I will vouch for that. I had to disassemble mine and add a dab of enamel paint to keep the screws deep inside the lens (3 layers down) from working loose!