johndan
Member
I traded in equipment to a major camera shop in exchange for some used Leica gear, including an M3 and a lens. Our agreement included a Summicron 50mm f/2 rigid lens. When I received the box, it contained the collapsible rather than rigid version of the lens.
How significant are the differences between the two versions of this lens? I've done some research and know that that the collapsible has some issues when it's wide open compared to the rigid but there's conflicting opinion on whether those issues are major or just barely detectable.
The prices for the two also appear to differ, on the used market, by a hundred or more dollars. So I'm trying to decide whether I should return the collapsible version and wait for a rigid lens? (They currently show none in stock on their website.) Or are the differences minor enough that I'd be better off asking for store credit to purchase film or some filters?
I did most of my background research on these lenses at RFF (thanks, btw), so I'd value any advice on how to deal with this situation.
Thanks,
- Johndan
How significant are the differences between the two versions of this lens? I've done some research and know that that the collapsible has some issues when it's wide open compared to the rigid but there's conflicting opinion on whether those issues are major or just barely detectable.
The prices for the two also appear to differ, on the used market, by a hundred or more dollars. So I'm trying to decide whether I should return the collapsible version and wait for a rigid lens? (They currently show none in stock on their website.) Or are the differences minor enough that I'd be better off asking for store credit to purchase film or some filters?
I did most of my background research on these lenses at RFF (thanks, btw), so I'd value any advice on how to deal with this situation.
Thanks,
- Johndan
I would either return the Collapsible or ask for a partial refund. If the collapsible is in really good condition, you would be hard pressed to find much of a difference in performance: but it is there. Difference in price is easier to see: $100 to $150 more for the Rigid, easily.
Relative value is entirely dependent on condition, and sometimes depending on serial (some earlier ones have radioactive glass.) I've seen nice collapsibles go for $250ish, and super nice ones for $600+.
Even at F2, my "Super-Nice" late collapsible Summicron is sharp enough to induce aliasing artifacts on the M8.
johndan
Member
Thanks to everyone for the good advice. I'll contact the seller to discuss either returning the lens or receive a refund (or credit for additional equipment.)
- Johndan
- Johndan
Ronald M
Veteran
Rigid is the better lens with more contrast. My coll was very soft wide open and got very contrasty & sharp closed to 8.
My photos color saturation really popped when I got a DR & Rigid. Still they are not perfect lenses. The area of sharp focus at 2.0 is confined to a central area of perhaps 12mm. At around 4.5 it fills the frame.
Later generations have even more contrast and are sharper in the very corners at 2.0.
Still it is a nice lens and many pros traded the DR/Rigids for the 1969 model and when they found how much contrast it had, they went back.
In my opinion, the DR/Rigids were the best 50`s all around. Same optical formula, just that many that turned out to be 52.9 mm actual went into DR mounts. See that the last 4 digits of the serial match the scribed number onto the black ring inside the focus mount. Actual focals were fitted to matching focus mounts to get perfect focus. They are not interchangeable.
You need to unscrew the lens head. If never done, this can take some force. Do not twist the diaphragm ring.
There was an original version of the Rigid with a narrow scalloped focus ring that was closer to the original collapsible explaining why some same they are close.
Hold out for the Rigid which is what you ordered.
My photos color saturation really popped when I got a DR & Rigid. Still they are not perfect lenses. The area of sharp focus at 2.0 is confined to a central area of perhaps 12mm. At around 4.5 it fills the frame.
Later generations have even more contrast and are sharper in the very corners at 2.0.
Still it is a nice lens and many pros traded the DR/Rigids for the 1969 model and when they found how much contrast it had, they went back.
In my opinion, the DR/Rigids were the best 50`s all around. Same optical formula, just that many that turned out to be 52.9 mm actual went into DR mounts. See that the last 4 digits of the serial match the scribed number onto the black ring inside the focus mount. Actual focals were fitted to matching focus mounts to get perfect focus. They are not interchangeable.
You need to unscrew the lens head. If never done, this can take some force. Do not twist the diaphragm ring.
There was an original version of the Rigid with a narrow scalloped focus ring that was closer to the original collapsible explaining why some same they are close.
Hold out for the Rigid which is what you ordered.
ferider
Veteran
If there is a Leica cult lens, it is the rigid or DR Summicron.
First Mandler design & first Leitz computer-aided lens design. When clean, much higher center resolution than the collapsible, less flare and more contrast.
I had both, I kept the DR.
First Mandler design & first Leitz computer-aided lens design. When clean, much higher center resolution than the collapsible, less flare and more contrast.
I had both, I kept the DR.