Summicron 50/2 - Too slow?

[Krosya]

Hi all,
I had this thought here (and it doesn't happen very often ;0 ) - why is Leica Summicron 50/2 is that slow? I mean, its not THAT slow at f/2, but compared to some other lenses, like Canon/Nikon LTM that offer 1.9, 1.8, 1.5 speed, it is kind of slow. I wonder why didn't they make something in between cron and lux? Or did they and I don't know about it? Or a different version of Summicron maybe - they keep changing it - from collapsable to current - what is it - 5-6 lenses and yet, all are 50/2. Couldn't they try 1.8? After all if Canon could do it - I'm sure Leica could too.
Any thoughts on this?

 

[pvdhaar]

I think Leica has a well thought out lens line when it comes to 50mm. You've basically got four choices, all separated by exactly one stop (Elmar, Cron, Lux, Nocti).. What more could you want?

 

[pvdhaar]

Upon second thought, I know what you want, and it's not much different from what I'd want..

You'd want a Summicron that's actually 1.8 for the price of a 50mm Nikon AFD ($100 or so)...

 

[Avotius]

no complaints here, plenty in the leica line to choose from, anyone who wanted szpeed always got the summilux, anyone who wanted more for the noctilux, for everyone else there are the elmar and summicron, in my perfect world lenses would be 0.1 (which subatomic particle is in focus?)

 

[Huck Finn]

The current 50/2 Summicron was measured at f/1.9 by Popular Photography when it was reviewed about 10 years ago. Leca could legitimately call it 50/1.9 if it wanted to. What would be the point? Is there really any significant difference between f/2 & f/1.9?

It's well known that the published specs are an approximation & are often rounded off to the nearest standard aperture or focal length. Leica has had the good sense to maintain that practice. IMO calling a lens 1.9 or 1.8 rather then f/2 is a marketing ploy designed to boost sales. Often these stated specs aren't even true. (I can't comment on the accuracy of either of the Canon of Nikon lenses you referenced.)

 

[Joe Mondello]

2.8 is considered "fast" in the world of SLR zoom lenses. I don't find my 50 'cron 1.9 er 2.0 to be a slow lens at all on an RF body.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

I can only compare the R-Summicron with the Canon EF 50/1.8 - not very much in favour of the Canon, though.
The Summicron can be used wide open with very good results, whereas the Canon needed to be stopped down to achieve acceptable results.

On my Rangefinder, I did not find 2.0 too slow, yet.

Best regards,
Uwe

 

[Pherdinand]

Why f/2 and not f/1.8? Quick answer: because these marketing tricks are used only on the SLR market, where competition is high.
Longer answer: Because probably the people buying (NEW!! not second-hand)Leitz glass can either afford the f/1.4 version (a full stop faster) OR they are crazy about the bokeh and the sharpness edge etcetera of a slower lens; but certainly, cannot be fooled by the marketing people saying f/1.8 is so much faster and better than f/2.
It's just a third stop faster. And many f/1.8 lenses are in fact f/1.9-ish or slower due to the transmittance and benevolent rounding-up of numbers.

Really...think about it. You shoot tri-x at 400. If you really really need the extra third stop what do you do?
I underexpose it with a third stop and happily continue using the f/2 lens.

You can see something similar done by CV. The 28/1.9 lens was reported not to really be f/1.9...more like f/2. But doesn't f/1.9 SOUND a bit better?🙂

Of course Leitz could make a series of Summiddle ASPH 50mm f/1.8 lenses, and sell them 63% more expensive than the Summicrons. Would you buy it over the Summicron?

FInally, but not at least: going to f/1.7-f/1.8 from f/2 at least in the SLR world means an extra lens element. Thus extra size and weight besides the cost. Going to f/1.4 means 2 extra lens elements or a new design.

 

[Huck Finn]

I can only compare the R-Summicron with the Canon EF 50/1.8 - not very much in favour of the Canon, though.
The Summicron can be used wide open with very good results, whereas the Canon needed to be stopped down to achieve acceptable results.

On my Rangefinder, I did not find 2.0 too slow, yet.

Best regards,
Uwe

Excellent point, Uwe. The 50/2 Summicron was by far the best lens tested by Photodo (www.photodo.com) wide open at f/2 of anything close to that max aperture (or 1.8, 1.9, etc.). The M-Hexanon 50/2 was the only 50 mm lens that was close at this aperture. All the others had a major drop off in performance when shot wide open. (This only incudes lenses manufactured up to 2000. None after that date, so CV & ZM lenses not included.)

 

[Pherdinand]

By the way, this is how lenses are designed, or WERE designed at least, in many cases:
The marketing etc say there's a possible market for a new lens of xxx focal length in xxx format. Say 50mm for 35mm format.They decide on an approximate aperture value, say f/2, and on an approximate budget too, like, "for the masses". Then the engineers are consulted and if all seems reasonable, they continue by picking a general design suitable for the angle of view and the desired aperture of such a lens (or invent a new one) and start tinkering with the parameters. Elements, groups, glass types, sphericity of surfaces, etc. They optimize some numbers related to optical aberrations until they end up at some reasonable quality (and size etc)that fits the budget. The final aperture value is NOT a fixed parameter; it will unevitably shift around by some percentage in favour of the design parameters.