Which 50mm lens?

OK, a couple thoughts from CT

Frank is right, all 50 Summicrons are excellent, as is the 50 Hex pointed out by Matt.

The Rigid 50 Summicron though is the specific target of the moment, so first stop, the book of Gandy....

"50/2 Summicron Many variations, so it can get confusing. Many consider the 50 Summicron best of all 50 mm lenses, by any manufacturer. It's the standard that other 50's are judged by.

First version 1954-1957 Collapsible chrome. A good lens, but not as good as the later lenses. EXTREMELY likely to be found with lens scratches. It has a VERY soft front coating. Likely to be encountered fogged from original owner, see Fogging. Not collapsible on M5 or CL due to meter constrictions. 7 elements, focused to 40"
Second version 1956-68 Rigid chrome, although a few were made in black by special order. Aesthetically a very handsome lens, sought after by shooters and collectors. This lens was tested to have the highest resolution (at the expense of some contrast) of any 50 Summicron several years ago by a Japanese photography magazine. Again, very prone to front lens scratches. For many years thought to be the same optical formula as the collapsible, recently it has been confirmed to be slightly different. Likely to be encountered fogged from original owner, see Fogging. 7 elements, focused to 40"
Third version 1956-1968 Dual Range Summicron, chrome. This is a special close focusing version of # 2 above. The 50/2 Duel Range Summicron had the highest tested resolution of any lens ever tested by the great and sadly departed American photography magazine, Modern Photography. It has the closest RF coupled focusing of any M lens. 7 elements. Most "experts" say the optical formula is the same as the rigid, but many experienced DR users claim they get different results and so believe they must be different formulas. With a flat platform for the "eyes" on the top of it's focusing barrel, the DR is not as pleasing aesthetically as the rigid. Nevertheless, the DR is very sought after by shooters. Again, very prone to front lens scratches and also fogging if bought from the original owner, see Fogging. for Pics
The 50/2 DR will probably work fine on the M6, but you must remember to mount and dismount the lens focused at infinity. When focused near it's closest regular focusing distance, the lens will be difficult to mount OR unmount. I have reports of the DR not functioning in close up range on a M6. I am frankly unsure if these reports are due to variations with the bodies and the DR, or are the result of user error. More research will till. It seems prudent to try a DR on your M6 before you buy it.

Howard Cummer in Hong Kong reports difficulty using a 2nd series DR in close-up range on a M6 .85 # 2296539. While he could mount the lens, if it was not focused at it's closest regular focusing distance, the close up range was inoperative due to some sort of internal body restrictions. Whether this is true of all late M6's in general, or of just the .85 model is not clear at this time. In any case, it's a good idea to try it out to be sure on your own body/lens combination.

The 50/2 DR will NOT work on a Minolta CLE in my experience. Although the lens will mount, it will bind with the body just slightly from the infinity marking.

The DR lens has two focusing ranges, thus the brilliant name "Dual Range." The DR can ONLY be mounted on the camera without it's "eyes." The "eyes" are a detachable viewfinder which clips onto the top of the lens and in front of the camera's rangefinder/viewfinder. They look pretty much like the viewer built into the 135/2.8 or the M3 versions of the 35/2 and 2.8. Once mounted, the closer focusing range is attained by turning the lens to it's closest normal focusing point. Then attach the "eyes" which clip onto the lens. ONLY at this focus point can the eyes be attached and the closest focusing range attained. THEN pull the focusing barrel out slightly, and the lens barrel can be swung over farther to the left, to get into the close focusing range. It sounds more complicated than it really is in practice.

It is worth noting that many experienced used find the DR Summicron not only their favorite 50, but their favorite lens, period. It has a combination of higher resolution and lower contrast and superb out of focus images.

The Earlier version of the DR focuses to 19" and is marked in either feet or meters, but not both. It is also marked in reproduction rations from 1:15 to 1:.75. The "eyes" for these have the "condenser" trademark, inside of which is "E.
Leitz Wetzlar."

The Later version of the DR focuses to 20" and is marked in BOTH feet and meters, without the repro ratios. The "eyes" for this version are marked "Leitz Wetzlar" without the condenser trademark. The second version also has wider and deeper knurling on the focusing ring than the previous version. I have noticed a "warmer" color of lens coating on these later DR's, but am not sure if it extends to ALL of this variety. The lens head and glass appears to be identical to the earlier version and to the rigid version, at least from the outside. The second version also has a smaller ball bearing mount for the eyes, which means the later eyes will not fit the earlier lenses, though the older eyes will fit the later lenses.

Fourth version 1969-1979 Black lens with no "50" on barrel, No focusing lock or lever. Generally reputed to be a notch below either of the Summicron versions before or after it. 6 elements. This and later versions focused to 28, the closest focusing RF coupled 50 after the DR."
Fifth version 1980-95 Black lens with "50" on barrel, reintroduced focusing lever, without built in hood. In my opinion this is a better choice in terms of handling than the built in hood version which followed it. I am a fan of both the focusing lever and the larger attachable hood. Nice lightweight lens at only 195 grams 6 elements, recomputed. Earlier lenses are Made in Canada, later Made in Germany.
Sixth version 1995-date Black or chrome lens with "50" on barrel and built in hood. No focusing lever. Same optical design as previous version. Weighs more at 240 grams in black. The chrome version weighs much more at 333 grams, so I would avoid it. Same optical formula as previous version.
In December 2001, Leica announced 500 50/2 Titanium lenses would be made to match their newly introduced limited edition .72 M6 TTL Titanium body."

Now, I think Stephens warnings about coating damage and haze need to be kept in mind when shopping, but there are lots of very good Rigid Summicrons out there, and I paid less than $300 for mine and it is crystal clear.

Now to the late great KB Camera site. The web site is partially down, but if you poke around.....

http://www.kbcamera.com/summicron50m.htm

That is a great page.

Now, there are many many great 50mm lenses out there. But for the M3, in my eyes it doesn't get better than a Rigid Summicron.

m3j2.jpg
 
I have the Dual Range Summicron and it is wonderful - better than the normal Rigid Summicron? Some say yes, some say no...I can't say I've noticed any difference.

I had both, they are very very similar in image quality, if there was a difference it was due to the individual samples I owned and not the optical formula. I sold the DR as I thought the Rigid was easier to use. The DR is perhaps the best built lens in the history of photography though, it is a tank.
 
Try not to get confused about version numbers with the summicrons. What Rover and Gandy call the fifth version others call the third version. That's why I refer to attributes like "tabbed Canadian" to describe them. In General any serial number from the tabbed Canadian on will have the same optical formula.
 
I really like my Elmar-M (current). Makes beautiful pictures, even at night, despite it's 'lack' of speed.

It's relatively inexpensive too, for a current M lens.
 
Re rigid and dual range Summicrons, these are the same optical formula. If you unscrew the lens unit from the mount there is a little figure etched on the lens unit with a code for measured focal length. The selection of lens units for the DR was to a higher tolerance than the rigid because of the need for more accuracy at the closer distances so the rigid may have a focal length up to 51.5mm and the units closest to 50mm went in the DR.
 
HI AGain,
What about ones made in Canada? ARe they better/worse? Any difference? I thought that German made would be better, but than again - I don't know.
Thanks
 
No difference (based only on internet reading, not personal experience.) If there is a greater desire for one or the other it is due to collectors and the degree of rarity.

In your list of 35mm equipment, you list a 50mm Summarit collapsable as your favourite. Do you mean Summitar? If not, please tell me more about this lens.
 
FrankS, - sorry - it was supposted to say Summitar. - I corrected it. Speaking of Summarit - any comments on that lens? It's fast but what I could find says its not too sharp, but at one place I found some photos that look plenty sharp to me. So, any experience there anyone?
Thanks
 
One more question if I may - what about the Summicron 40mm? It's for the CL I guess. WIll it work ok on M3? I know I have no frames for it. How good is it?
Thanks
 
It's a great value in lenses. I recently tested a 40 Rokkor against a 40 Summicron, and of the 2 lenses I tested, the Rokkor was better. I'm not saying that all Rokkors are better than all Summicron 40's, but that was the case with the 2 lenses I tested.
 
Krosya said:
One more question if I may - what about the Summicron 40mm? It's for the CL I guess. WIll it work ok on M3? I know I have no frames for it. How good is it?
Very good lens. The Rokkor versions are also good, possibly even better, and they have standard filter threads. The entire M3 viewfinder approximates the 40mm field of view.

Richard
 
There are 2 versions, the earlier CL version which I THINK is single coated like he Summicron 40, and the later CLE version which IS multicoated.
 
Back
Top Bottom