What's better than a 50mm Summicron?

[aton]

The 2,8/50 Elmar.
I sold my Summicron some years ago and i never regret it. The Elmar is a fantastic lens with some kind of special visual touch... and is very much more resistant to the flare produced by indirect lights.

 

[Artorius]

A 35mm f/2 Summicron

A 35mm f/2 Summicron

This is the only lens I find better, and I have used a lot of leica glass.

 

[maddoc]

40mm M-Rokkor CLE... 🙂

 

[javimm]

Well, I have a Canadian Cron. I don't know if there's anything better, but I'm sure that the qualities of this lens is fantastic in all aperture settings. Tonality, sharpness, signature, size... it has it all. 0.7 m minimum focus distance instead of 1 m too (it's important for me).

Can't get any better than that. Probably different or faster, but surely not better.

 

[Ronald_H]

It's a question that's impossible to answer.

Let's just say I am deliriously happy with my 1963 DR Summicron. Subjectively it is the best lens I have ever used. But that doesn't say too much as the best lenses I am used to are quite ordinary Nikon AF primes.

Maybe I perceive the 'con as better because I do a lot of dim light shooting and it is better at f2 than my Nikon 50mm f1.4 AF. Or maybe mirror slap is an issue... I just like it a lot.

 

[Harry Lime]

I wouldn't worry about it. The Cron is one of the best lenses around.
Go out and take pictures.

 

[PMCC]

What's better than a 50mm Summicron?

Two 50mm Summicrons? (pace, Abbott & Costello)

 

[Tom A]

There is far too much worrying about which is the best lens! Modern lenses are spectacularly good compared to older lenses. Computer analysis, modern glass making and the complex coating used on lenses made in the last 10-15 years have raised lens technology to a level we could only have dreamed about in the 60's and 70's!
The differences today are more in the esthetics. How does the lens "draw" -i.e translate a 3D view into 2D. What are the out of focus areas like? What is the construction like? How does it fit the operators hand and camera? How does it render color?
Things like MTF curves and resolution charts only tell part of the story. You can see factors like fall-off, vignetting etc - but that does not give the whole picture (excuse the pun).
As with any tool, they more you use it, the more proficient you become in using it well.
I have 50 mm lenses of various manufacturing - some old, some new. The difference between my 1930 Hektor 50 mm f2.5 and my 50/1.4 Summilux Asph is visible - but that does not mean that the Hektor is "useless" - far from it. It has a certain look to it that I occasionally like.
I like the Summicron 50f2, particularly the DR - but also my version I's and IV's. In black and white the difference has more to do with contrast than absolute resolution. I don't like the version V - not because of poor performance, but the hood is stupid and collapses too easily and it does not have a focussing tab.
Which one do I use the most? The ZM C Sonnar 50f1.5! I just like how it renders the world in black/white and as for focus shifts - I haven't seen any that could be blamed on the lens! This does not mean that my Summicrons,VC's, Planar's etc does not get a regular work out - but if I am going somewhere where dragging the whole lens cabinet along would be inconvinient (i.e. outside of our home) - the C Sonnar is the one that comes along as my 50 mm.

 

[Allen Quinn]

What's better than my 50mm Summicron?? My Aprilia of course. It's faster...

 

[Tom A]

This is with a 79 year old Hektor 50mm f2.5! Looks fine to me - and yes, a 50f1.4 Asph would have resolved a bit more, put probably "blown" the details in the chrome parts due to higher contrast! Kodak's XX/EK 5222 @ 250 iso, developed in D96 ( a variation of D76 for movie stock). Leica IIIf Red Dial and a scruffy one at that!

 

[Todd.Hanz]

"What's better than a 50mm Summicron?"

...a 50 Lux

Todd

 

[lytton]

Zeiss Planar T* 2.0/45 is the best I've ever shot...

Zeiss Planar T* 2.0/45 is the best I've ever shot...

The Carl Zeiss Planar T* 2.0/45 for the CONTAX G mount is the best standard focal length lens I've ever shot with. I'd even compare it to the Zeiss Planar T* 2.8/80 CFi for Hassy mount. The clarity and color rendition are stunning. Micro contrast is outstanding. I've yet to shoot the ZM 50 1.5 or 2.0 but if they are anything like the G45 then you've found lens nirvanna. Factor in the price diiference and there is no comparison.

-Lytton

 

[momus1]

The Planar may have SLIGHTLY better MTF ratings, but the Summi is a better lens. I've owned them both and it isn't even close. You may have heard this before, but nothing beats Leica glass. It's a different lens signature. People who know nothing about photography always prefer my Leica prints over photos from other lenses.

You can only tell so much about a how a lens images from online low-rez scans and MTF charts. Seeing a print is the clincher.

 

[ferider]

What's better than a 50mm Summicron?

A 50mm Elmar-M. 🙂

 

[lytton]

People who know nothing about photography always prefer my Leica prints over photos from other lenses."

I could not have said it better myself! People who know nothing about music prefer Brittney Spears. People who know nothing about cuisine always prefer TGI Fridays. People who know nothing about cologne always prefer Brut 88. People who know nothing about wine prefer Avalon Cabernet. People who know nothing about fashion always prefer Ed Hardy. I could go on, but you get the point.

As for tangible numbers that are based on scientific facts like MTF charts... who cares? They're just numbers, right?

 

[jja]

No doubt, the last 50mm Summicron is a great lens--it's sharp, high contrast, and handles well. Of the two samples I owned, however, the lens displayed a mild tendency to flare at unexpected moments. If you search here and photo.net, you will find other users reporting similar experiences.

Of the several rf 50's I've owned, I'd rank them thus:

Summilux Asph.--sharp, high contrast, great close-up performance, high speed
Summilux pre-asph (last version)--all around performer, sharp enough, beautiful bokeh
Elmar-M--razor sharp, unique look (hard to quantify, but v. distinctive)
M-Hexanon--all around performer, sharp, consistent results, resistant to flare
Summicron--benchmark for sharpness and contrast, handles well
Nikkor F1.4 in LTM--amazing tonality, great bokeh, excellent up close
Summicron Collapsible--great tonality, unique look
J8--everyone should try one!

Wish I had the time to try them all. I wouldn't mind shooting the Zeiss Sonnar and Planar, but for now I'm pretty settled with the 50's I have.

 

[Tim Gray]

The Nikon 1.4 is kind of fun. It gets pretty hazy at f/1.4, and can get a weird ring-type flare. Stopped down some, it's sharp as hell. It's fun for a different look as Tom said; my biggest problem with it is the ergonomics - modern CV, ZM, and Leica lenses just have aperture and focus rings that are easier to use for me.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Over the years I've had the folowing 50's:1.4 Nikkor, D.R. Summicron, 1969 vintage Summicron, 1.8 Yashinon, 2.5 Hektor (uncoated), 1.8 Canon (chrome), plus a single cam Summicron for Leicaflex and several 50's in Pentax thread, including a 1.8 Yashinon, 1.9 Vivitar, 2.8 Tessar, 2 Biotar (58mm). Factor in the tonal difference of various generations of assorted Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Adox, Perutz, Ferrania, etc. films souped in an assortment of developers. I doubt that even our official lens tester Raid could go through my negatives and match them up with the lenses used.

Comparing prints, even straight unmanipulated 8x10's, you have the variables of the characteristic (H&D) curve of the various papers, whether they were printed on a diffusion enlarger or a condensor enlarger, whether it was a single condensor (some Dursts and perhaps others), double condensor, or triple, as in some 6x6cm Omegas which use a third condensor for 35mm.

We also have to consider the enlarging lens, four element or six, or a cheapy three element, and how it was coated. A 1961 El Nikkor isn't the same as a current version.

A scanned negative doesn't print like a wet printed negative.

I bring up all of these things because I'm pretty sure that some of us might be making our choice of this lens over that one based on variables in our work flow that have nothing at all to do with which taking lens was chosen.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

What's better than a Summicron?
Two Summicrons. Summicronae? Summicroni?

Just go take some pictures. A picture with a Pentax 50/1.7 is better than no picture with a Summicron sitting in a closet. It is my experience that while there are real differences between lenses that sloppy technique can easily trump the qualities we claim to care about in a lens. To murder Pogo's famous phrase: "We have met the weakest link in the photographic chain and it is us."

[Edit - Sorry: maybe this will be more helpful. I have always thought of lens design as a set of balances and tradeoffs bounded by cost. In my experience the Summicron sits at a nice sweet spot where sharpness, color rendition, bokeh, and control of the common lens aberrations are well balanced. You can go for a lens that faster, but less balanced for abberation, like a Canon 50/0.95 or a Noctilux, if that is what you are looking for. Or you can go for a lens that is vastly cheaper or measurably sharper or well-corrected for macro work . . . all at the expense of other qualities that lens designers strive to balance and/or control. Unless you are NASA or the NSA and are not bounded by cost, you chose the best balance of qualities for the application you have in mind.]

Ben Marks

 

[marke]

We also have to consider the enlarging lens, four element or six, or a cheapy three element, and how it was coated. A 1961 El Nikkor isn't the same as a current version.

Al, I'm not sure which lens I have. How can I tell? And how do these lenses differ in image quality?

Thanks.

BTW, I didn't forget the film I've been planning to send you. My mother-in-law had a stroke this past week. Along with that and juggling work, choir rehearsals, getting my spring photo show together...I just haven't been able to get to the post office. 🙁 I even have 7 rolls of Kodachrome waiting to get sent to Dwaynes. Thank you for being patient.