The Great 50's

[Rico]

... So I'm curious to hear your thoughts on why you think the short-throw focus is wrong and why the 15-blade aperture is preferrable.

Short throw has an inescapable effect on the barrel markings for distance and, consequently, on the depth-of-field scale. If full range of focus is achieved in a quarter turn, then the distance scale is similarly compressed. DOF scales on some modern lens are a joke, especially above 35mm (135 frame). Old-timers like me grew up without rangefinding aids or (SLR) DOF preview and actually focus by scale with regularity. 🙂 Delay related to long throw is much reduced by anticipatory focussing - easy when you can feel the tab.

Circular apertures are prettier when the lens flares in strong light. Even better than 15 aperture blades would be a plate with circular hole that drops into the optical path. This was the new-fangled technology used by great-granddad and his field camera. The only recent camera with "Waterhouse stops" was the Minolta TC-1: P&S, wide angle, expensive, awesome!

 

[rxmd]

By the way, how can I remove the "Summar wanted" under my avatar?

User CP, "Edit Profile" on the left. There is a "Custom User Title" option with a "Reset" box next to it. Check "Reset" (or enter a new custom user title). Click "Save changes" at the bottom. That should do it.

Philipp

 

[vrgard]

Short throw has an inescapable effect on the barrel markings for distance and, consequently, on the depth-of-field scale. If full range of focus is achieved in a quarter turn, then the distance scale is similarly compressed. DOF scales on some modern lens are a joke, especially above 35mm (135 frame). Old-timers like me grew up without rangefinding aids or (SLR) DOF preview and actually focus by scale with regularity. 🙂 Delay related to long throw is much reduced by anticipatory focussing - easy when you can feel the tab.

Circular apertures are prettier when the lens flares in strong light. Even better than 15 aperture blades would be a plate with circular hole that drops into the optical path. This was the new-fangled technology used by great-granddad and his field camera. The only recent camera with "Waterhouse stops" was the Minolta TC-1: P&S, wide angle, expensive, awesome!

Just wanted to say thanks, Rico, for responding to my request to share your thoughts! Makes sense and much appreciated.

Best,
Randy

 

[raid]

Thanks

Thanks

User CP, "Edit Profile" on the left. There is a "Custom User Title" option with a "Reset" box next to it. Check "Reset" (or enter a new custom user title). Click "Save changes" at the bottom. That should do it.

Philipp

Philipp: Thanks. I changed my profile.

Raid

 

[venchka]

From way out in left field...

From way out in left field...

...and totally off the Leitz theme.

I was just out using a very special camera and lens just before the heavens opened and dumped yet more rain on the East Texas Rain Forest. My father's Konica I with 50mm Hexar 1:3.5. It may be old and slow but it ain't too shabby. I'm sure there were others before the Konica I, but surely this is one of the early, great, fixed lens rangefinder cameras.

And now for something completely different. You can't talk about Great 50s without mention of Canon's 50mm 1:1.4 S.S.C. lens. I put off buying one for 30+ years. I finally bought one last year for $50, about the middle of the going rate. In my uneducated, non-technical opinion, this is a fantastic, very versatile lens. Even if you had to spend another $50-$100 for a body to attach it to, this is one lens everyone should own.

I am also fortunate to own the Nikkor 50/1.4 and the 51.9mm 🙂 Dual Range Summicron. I may not have the greatest number of 50mm lenses, but I love them all.

 

[raid]

Wayne: I just emptied a roll of film from my Konica I. As for the Canon 50/1.4 SSC, it is the same as the non-SSC labeled 50/1.4. Both are excellent. I did not forget my non-Leitz 50's, but wanted to"focus" on the Leitz line of 50s.

Raid

 

[venchka]

As you wish. I guess I'll have to go to my room without any supper. Grinning.

 

[raid]

Wayne: Have your supper!

 

[thomasw_]

I am always in awe when I hold a 50mm lens by Leitz. Such lenses are usually very well made and they often have their own optical characteristics that set them apart from other 50mm lenses.

I like the fact that there is a historical sequencing to the 50mm lenses that I own right now. I have just a portion of the 50mm types that Leitz has produced over the years. In fact, I seem to have the "vintage basics" and none of the modern 50mm lenses.


1. Elmar 50/3.5 uncoated
2. Summar 50/2
3. Summitar 50/2
4. Summarit 50/1.5
5. Collapsible Summicron 50/2
6. Rigid Summicron 50/2 first version


I have read about the "magic" of the Aspheric Summicron [edited: I goofed here; it is the 35mm lens], and of course, I have had the chance to try out the amazing 50mm/1.0 Noctilux. Some people here claim that the 50mm/2 DR is the sharpest of all [vintage?] 50mm lenses by Leitz. Is this a myth?

Some people now claim that the new Elmar 50mm/2.8 "has it all." Does it really?

The contrast factor may be important here; do I have any high contrast lens ? Do I even want one?


What is truely missing from my set? I mean, is there a 50mm lens [just one] that I really need to add to the above to make my set more complete?
I am not in the buying mood or even mode, but I wonder.

There are many Leitz 50mm users here, so I hope to get a good feeling for what each type of 50mm lens is offering. I know that we have every other month or so a new thread on 50mm lenses here, but I felt that more information is benefitial to all of us.

Raid

I think a vintage lens you'd love raid is a clean summarit 50/1.5. Do you have one?

 

[raid]

Thomas,

This is a good question indeed. Do I have a clean Summarit or not?
I have a Summarit that does not behave well.
Maybe it is then not an optically perfect Summarit.
Is there hope to repair/clean it?
Only DAG or Sherry Krauter may know.

Raid

 

[ian_w]

I think you all pretty much have it right. I've posted a couple of times before about the 50 elmar-M and I don't think it has it all, but it certainly fits the way I photograph.

It would be great if it was a stop or two faster, but I like the small size. I'd like it have more aperture blades as six just doesn't seem enough, but haven't found the flare shape to be objectionable as I have only seen it when it was close to wide open. It isn't as sharp/contrasty as the summicron wide open, but I appreciate that as I don't like the steely edge the 'cron can have on black and white emulsion. The out of focus areas can't be as completely blurred as it's a slower lens.

However, for me, and I dare say a few other users, it's as close to perfect as I have found. The lastest edition summicron I have sits idle in the dry box, which is close to criminal, and I can't bring myself to use the SLR I have as the images don't compare well. I love the look this lens produces with FP4+. The truth is that everyone will have their favourite lens. Doesn't make me right, or you wrong.

Ian

 

[raid]

Hi Ian,

You are right here; we all have our own preferences when it comes to the 50mm lens that we view as "best" ... for our needs. I like the look from the rigid first version Summicron. I don't have any more modern 50mm lens from Leitz. The max aperture of 2.0 is important to me. I can still use 1/15~1/30 indoors for most situations with ASA200 film. The 2.8 aperture of the Elmar would be too slow for me if this lens were my main lens. I can see the benefits from having a sharp 1.4 50mm lens like the Summilux. My fast lens is the Canon 50/1.2.


Raid

 

[dll927]

These discussions of 50mm Leitz lenses sound like wine snobs debating why the '78 is better than the '79, but neither beats the '62, which was long ago sold out.

Mine is a Summicron f/2, and I assume it's pre-asph, since I bought it in 1983. It's the one with the little finger control on it, something I really like. Infact, I wish my 35 and 90 had it, too. BTW, it does take pictures.

 

[raid]

These discussions of 50mm Leitz lenses sound like wine snobs debating why the '78 is better than the '79, but neither beats the '62, which was long ago sold out.

Mine is a Summicron f/2, and I assume it's pre-asph, since I bought it in 1983. It's the one with the little finger control on it, something I really like. Infact, I wish my 35 and 90 had it, too. BTW, it does take pictures.

I would not label you as a wine snob; why not just enjoy the talk ....