x-ray
Veteran
I've owned each of the three variations of formula in the 50mm summicron. Unfortunately i've never owned two versions at the same time. What visual differences in the image would I see if I shot the same scene with all three. How would a high contrast scene at night with street lights in the shot look on each. I would guess under normal daylight front lighting there would be very little difference.
I've spent the day in the darkroom printing vintage negs shot with my 1st and 2nd version 50 summicron. They're beautiful negs and many were shot under terrible conditions. The most impressive results were of a KKK cross burning where the flaming cross was against a totally black sky. There was no major flare when exposing for the hoded freeks behind the cross. A little burning resolved any exposure differences. I don't think my current 3rd version would have handled it any better. See my gallery for the shot. Are the newerlenses more hype than performance. I printed some images that had extreme contrast and were shot with my truaty old 90mm elmarit from the 60's. Same results, no major flare with beautiful tones and sharpness. Is the major difference mostly BS?
Thanks!
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...500&ppuser=2450
I've spent the day in the darkroom printing vintage negs shot with my 1st and 2nd version 50 summicron. They're beautiful negs and many were shot under terrible conditions. The most impressive results were of a KKK cross burning where the flaming cross was against a totally black sky. There was no major flare when exposing for the hoded freeks behind the cross. A little burning resolved any exposure differences. I don't think my current 3rd version would have handled it any better. See my gallery for the shot. Are the newerlenses more hype than performance. I printed some images that had extreme contrast and were shot with my truaty old 90mm elmarit from the 60's. Same results, no major flare with beautiful tones and sharpness. Is the major difference mostly BS?
Thanks!
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...500&ppuser=2450
Last edited:
Ergo
Observer
yup,mostly bs
just take pic
just take pic
Ben Z
Veteran
Well, I currently own a Collapsible Cron (LTM), type 1 Rigid, type 3 (1969-78) and used to own (at the same time as these) a current-optical-style one. The collapsible has a little less conrast at 2 to 5.6 than the others, the type-1 rigid has a little less contrast at 2 and 2.8 than the 2 newer types and it can wash-out from flare more easily. No one could ever see any difference whatsoever between the type 3 and latest versions in any kind of shot, so I sold the late version because I got more money for it. I don't doubt that differences do exist between these 2 versions, as reported by intrepid lens testers and supported by the MTF charts, but like I said, they didn't have any significance in practical usage of these lenses. So I wouldn't go so far as to call it BS but I would just say, different people have different priorities. Which is not the same thing as saying different people have different standards, that being the typical put-down some of those intrepid lens testers use against people whose basic interest in lenses is taking pictures with them.
That said, since I picked up a mid-80s Summilux I haven't used any of my Crons. OF course that brings up a new discussion between the lens testers and the shooters, the comparison between the previous and ASPH Summilux, and whether the difference is worth nearly $2000. It never ends :bang:
That said, since I picked up a mid-80s Summilux I haven't used any of my Crons. OF course that brings up a new discussion between the lens testers and the shooters, the comparison between the previous and ASPH Summilux, and whether the difference is worth nearly $2000. It never ends :bang:
x-ray
Veteran
I'm not a tester and really like the older generation of lenses. There's more to life than MTF curves. In fact I really don't know how to read them and don't care.
I can't say that I've felt any of the 50 summicrons that I've owned have fallen short in performance and feel confident in all of them. I made a living with my original rigid version and DR for years and then bought the type 2 and loved it. I felt the type 2 had a little edge on flare control over the original but have no real comparison. I had a collapsible but never shot much with it. It came on a mint IIIG that I bought for investment and sold.
I've been debating a faster 50 since I do mainly available darkness shooting with the M. To me this is where the M excells. My biggest concern is not sharpness but how prone to excessive flare a lens is. I had a Nikkor 15 3.5 that was terrible. If there was a point source in the shot the lens would produce aperature patterns all over the image. The 35mm 1st version summilux that I used for many years produced excellent images except in high contrast environments with a strong light source in the picture. I would produce secondary images that were very strong. This rendered the image totally unusable.
How does your original version 50 summilux handle point light sources wide open? Any idea about the new summilux 50?
Thanks
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...500&ppuser=2450
I can't say that I've felt any of the 50 summicrons that I've owned have fallen short in performance and feel confident in all of them. I made a living with my original rigid version and DR for years and then bought the type 2 and loved it. I felt the type 2 had a little edge on flare control over the original but have no real comparison. I had a collapsible but never shot much with it. It came on a mint IIIG that I bought for investment and sold.
I've been debating a faster 50 since I do mainly available darkness shooting with the M. To me this is where the M excells. My biggest concern is not sharpness but how prone to excessive flare a lens is. I had a Nikkor 15 3.5 that was terrible. If there was a point source in the shot the lens would produce aperature patterns all over the image. The 35mm 1st version summilux that I used for many years produced excellent images except in high contrast environments with a strong light source in the picture. I would produce secondary images that were very strong. This rendered the image totally unusable.
How does your original version 50 summilux handle point light sources wide open? Any idea about the new summilux 50?
Thanks
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...500&ppuser=2450