Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Leitz Summicron 50mm/F2 M39/LTM Collapsible
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2015 3:32 pm    Post subject: Leitz Summicron 50mm/F2 M39/LTM Collapsible Reply with quote
Altough this lens was never considered to be a "bokeh monster", I nevertheless like the way it is handling the blurred background also very much.
Just added a 7mm ring between the Ricoh GXR and the Summicron. Lens shade used. F = 5.6. No flash.
JPG straight from the camera. Just resized without further sharpening (click on image to increase size).
Nothing else spectacular found during my dog walk nearby and I just wanted to try out my new "ClearViewer" received earlier today.



Last edited by tb_a on Tue Jul 04, 2017 12:34 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2015 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thomas - which 50/2 Summicron do you have?


PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2015 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stephen,

This one:



Sorry for the bad picture. Was too lazy to change lens or do anything else for a better photo. It's quick and dirty including dust on the surface of the frontlens.
It's the collapsible version from the 1950's in M39/LTM. I haven't checked the serial no. for the production year yet. However it is readable so you could do it if you like.
However, so far I didn't find any failure. I bought it used some time ago. Price was around 300 Euros from the famous LeicaShop in Vienna: http://www.leicashop.com/vintage_en/leica/leica-screw-mount-lenses/summicron-coll-2-50mm.html
Obviously the prices are a little bit higher now....

Cheers,


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes the basic versions are very different, with the Modern formula, by Mandler, beginning in the late seventies aka "type 4", which might be the most famous modern Leica lens ever:


Gold Dust by unoh7, WO on A7.mod

Now there's the APO, type 6, only 7200USD, and likely the finest 50 ever made. Smile Won't be owning one of those, myself Wink


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 5:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7,

The question is always what one would expect from a lens. I dare to say that if you see 2 images and don't know which one was taken with let's say a Summicron from the 1950's and the other one with the same from today for the price of a used car like shown on your example, you won't be able to see any difference. Only if known in advance you would say that the picture from the awful expensive lens is better. At least that is my experience from the "real world".

However, even Mandler's design wasn't earthshaking at all. Although it delivers measurable slightly better results wide open compared to lets say a Minolta or Nikon lens of the same time, the results stopped down to 5.6 are even worse than the best 50mm of that time. Even cheap lenses like the Yashinon ML lens are overall better (objectively measured by a famous German photo magazine I have on hand) at 5.6.

But who cares anyway. I will never be in the situation to be angry about that I've spent 10 times the money for a lens which will never be able to deliver pictures which are 10 times better....

Still the man (or woman) behind the camera plays a more important role at the end of the day than the quality of the lens used (if the lens is above a certain minimum standard). That is my strong belief.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hello Thomas! Thanks for the picture of your lens. I think that's quite an early one - around 1954 perhaps? Mine's the rigid one, the second version of the Summicron, made around ten years later than yours.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
I think that's quite an early one - around 1954 perhaps?


Stephen, now I've checked it. It was produced 1954. You are absolutely right.

This list may also be useful for somebody else: http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/lens-serial-numbers.htm

Cheers


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes , the front element is fragile like chalk ......


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The collapsible Summicron had a different formula than the rigid one

The first had not the great fame of the second. And perhaps it was right.

The first six elements 2/50 don't have a good reputation (like the newers have), but it is a lens with great contrast.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
Yes , the front element is fragile like chalk ......


That is what Ken Rockwell says. I cannot confirm this. My lens is totally free of any scratches and I am not the most careful photographer around and I do not use any protection filters either. Maybe you should rather avoid to clean it with sand paper.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
uhoh7,

However, even Mandler's design wasn't earthshaking at all. Although it delivers measurable slightly better results wide open compared to lets say a Minolta or Nikon lens of the same time, the results stopped down to 5.6 are even worse than the best 50mm of that time. Even cheap lenses like the Yashinon ML lens are overall better (objectively measured by a famous German photo magazine I have on hand) at 5.6.


Having used many many 50mm lenses, I would have to dispute the report of poor performance at 5.6 by type 4. I have at least 10 50s, and none is sharper at 5.6 than my 50/2: if it's a proper shot with good focus, held steady. If I was going to try and beat it from my own collection, I would use the nikkor 55/3.5.

but no matter. Your comment on the most important element being the person behind the lens, is oft put forward on forums, yet in life nearly all the greats were/are obsessed with picking exactly the right gear for their goals.

Kubrick used to test many copies of a single design just to pick the one he liked. Do most of us se the difference? Maybe not, but hard to argue with the end results.

50/2 v4 handheld at f/8:

Hot Springs by unoh7, on Flickr
the lens will do better yet with perfect conditions.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
The collapsible Summicron had a different formula than the rigid one

The first had not the great fame of the second. And perhaps it was right.

The first six elements 2/50 don't have a good reputation (like the newers have), but it is a lens with great contrast.


Here you see a good comparison between the technical specifications of the different versions:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-summicron-comparison-table.htm

Although I do not always share his views and findings, Ken did at least some research on those lenses and presented them quite good on his site.

However, I am quite satisfied with my series 1 Summicron 50mm and don't really care about findings from other people anyway. Luckily it was not really expensive too (far cheaper than my CV 50/1.5). There are a lot lenses around (even in my collection) which are crap compared to this oldtimer lens. That's what I know for sure. Even my Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm/F3.5 from the approximately same production time is like a bad joke in direct comparison. But I will do a direct comparison test anyway in the foreseeable future to check the quality of all my 50mm lenses presently on hand. I am already curious how the oldtimers in general will do against some newer and also new lenses in this class. Wink


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
coming back to bokeh of the rigid:

mine is in my age, built in 56 and it is much smother than i am, thus is prefer it for bokeh (front and back) over a Jupiter or a Zeiss
sharpness isn´t better than its competition



PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:


Having used many many 50mm lenses, I would have to dispute the report of poor performance at 5.6 by type 4. I have at least 10 50s, and none is sharper at 5.6 than my 50/2: if it's a proper shot with good focus, held steady. If I was going to try and beat it from my own collection, I would use the nikkor 55/3.5.
but no matter. Your comment on the most important element being the person behind the lens, is oft put forward on forums, yet in life nearly all the greats were/are obsessed with picking exactly the right gear for their goals.


My point was that there is hardly any measurable difference. However if you measure them scientifically, then obviously there have been better ones as stated before. Nevertheless, I know myself that the Summicrons deliver very good quality all together and the subjective impression of a picture is anyhow something totally different compared to any measurement from a technical laboratory. Also the personal preferences play a very important role in this case. That can easily be seen on how different people tweak their monitors to suit best their needs.
So, in general I am with you and yes, Leica lenses deliver usually very good quality and have a state of the art quality control to avoid bad ones within same production series. That is also very important and not generally the case within the lens production industry.
Finally, I've never spoken about a "poor" performance. That is something totally different. Wink
The best lens cannot help you, as long as you do not know how to do it right. That will never change. This is what I've meant when I referred to the role of the person behind the camera.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
56 DIN wrote:
coming back to bokeh of the rigid:

mine is in my age, built in 56 and it is much smother than i am, thus is prefer it for bokeh (front and back) over a Jupiter or a Zeiss
sharpness isn't better than its competition


There is barely any visible difference in bokeh between the collapsible and the rigid one. I like it also very much.
In sharpness you may be right with your statement, that the Summicron may not be better than the competition but it delivers much more contrast than a Zeiss or even a Russian Zeiss clone like a Jupiter from that period, which delivers automatically a somehow "sharper" picture. At least that is my impression and I have most of these lenses.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't care to get drawn into discussions about which lens is sharper or blunter than another, irrespective of make. But what I am absolutley sure of is that back in the 1960s and 70s if you shot Kodachrome slides with different lenses under exactly similar conditions (and with correct similar exposures) you could pick out the then-current 50 Summicrons and Summiluxes from the others. It wasn't necessarily that they were sharper or had more contrast, but they had - for lack of a better word - a vibrance that none of the Japanese lenses produced. I don't know why, but Kodachrome demonstrated it better than any other slide film. Neither do I know why it's harder to see these subtleties with dgital media . . . or perhaps my now failing eyesight is responsible.

And before anyone thinks I'm trying to start a fight, I'm not saying they were 'better' - just distinctively different.


PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
I don't care to get drawn into discussions about which lens is sharper or blunter than another, irrespective of make. But what I am absolutley sure of is that back in the 1960s and 70s if you shot Kodachrome slides with different lenses under exactly similar conditions (and with correct similar exposures) you could pick out the then-current 50 Summicrons and Summiluxes from the others. It wasn't necessarily that they were sharper or had more contrast, but they had - for lack of a better word - a vibrance that none of the Japanese lenses produced. I don't know why, but Kodachrome demonstrated it better than any other slide film. Neither do I know why it's harder to see these subtleties with dgital media . . . or perhaps my now failing eyesight is responsible.
And before anyone thinks I'm trying to start a fight, I'm not saying they were 'better' - just distinctively different.


Stephen,
I don't think that anybody will start a fight. There are only minor subjectively different opinions on the final impression of a made picture and the influence of different lenses on that. Wink
I was never a Kodachrome fan as I preferred the Fujichrome which delivered in my opinion slightly lesser grainy pictures but I still remember the discussions between the Kodak and the Fuji fans because of the slightly different colors.
Leica lenses have always been somehow a controversial theme and that will obviously never change. However, I think we can agree that these lenses are generally of high quality and some people like them more than others. I tend to like them but I am not willing to pay every price for a lens.
Finally I am able to distinguish even on digital a good from a bad lens or in other words a lens which I like more than another. I like my old Summicron and it's good enough for me that I'm not even thinking of getting an improved version or even a present day one which would be far beyond my budgetary possibilities anyway and I doubt generally that lenses in the region of several thousand Euros made in Germany are that much better to see that automatically in the final picture, compared to a excellent lens of the other traditional producers e.g. from Japan. Although that may be different on let's say a "Fujichrome Velvia 50 Professional" slide, which has a much higher resolution than any existing digital sensor presently in existence. This is still another league.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I shot this one at 2.8 the other night with my v4:


Live Whitebark Pines by unoh7, M9 50/2


PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
I shot this one at 2.8 the other night with my v4:
M9 50/2


Thanks for sharing this picture.

Well, some time passed since I've started this thread and I have to admit that I've changed my opinion at least slightly since.

I've done some testing on my own and also have seen a couple of pictures from others as well.

I tend to the conclusion that the best performance with RF lenses is obviously only achievable by either the Leica M9 (or later model) or even my "poor man's Leica", the Ricoh GXR-M. As those cameras have been specifically and exclusively developed for the use with RF lenses. So as a matter of fact (at least for me) it's not only the lens performance but the combination of the lens and the camera/sensor used.

I also thought more than once about the purchasing of the M9 for that reason. However, that might on the other hand increase the challenge for the lenses as well to deliver nice and sharp pictures from edge to edge.

So I am still struggling with myself whether any upgrade would make sense for me at all. All I know up to now is that the Sony A7-series is obviously not the way to go as this might create even more troubles with several RF lenses I already own, particularly my Voigtländer UWA's which seem to challenge even the M9.

So my conclusion for the foreseeable future is that I'm still more than happy to use my RF lenses either on my Ricoh or on film. I still consider film (such as e.g. Fujifilm Velvia 50) as the medium to achieve the ultimate quality (if required) when a capable scanner (like e.g. my Minolta Dimage Scan 5400) is used in combination for the production of digital pictures or prints, though it's a rather cumbersome process.

However, the likelihood for me is bigger to migrate to the M9 instead of purchasing any newer variant of the Summicron for even more money. That's rather sure, at least for the time being. Wink

P.S.: My situation may be slightly different as I own several camera and lens systems in parallel, particularly already a FF DSLR incl. a rather complete set of primes.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The rendering reminds me most of the old Schneider Xenon 1.9/50.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's another fast shot, but closer:

Tom by unoh7, on Flickr

According to our hero, Puts, the asph LUX has eclipsed this lens in every aspect except.......close up!

Thomas, well you have the best APS-C M platform, that's for sure.

I would encourage you to consider both M9 and even the M8, which is an unbelievable camera, with quite a bit less crop than your Rioch. The M9 loves most RF lenses, although the CV 21/4 is slightly dicey, but a good copy comes in pretty strong at f/11. I've seen some stellar architecture work with that combo.

Prices are falling under 3K. The sensor is now backed for the life of the camera, any owner. M9 is very tough, and the most film-like digital camera ever made in use and output, many agree.

I see M8s now around 1200USD, which is an outright steal. Same price as M6. The M8 has the thinnest cover glass of all, and the slight crop makes many lenses, like the CV 15, and elmarit 28 v3, really shine.

I did everything I could to avoid an M9, LOL, but thanks to Sony's crazy choices, I have one, and while it took me some time to adapt, now I prefer it to anything I 've ever used. Your Rioch would remain an excellent backup body---I use the A7.mod.

Bottomline is shooting these wonderful RF lenses, from all eras, full frame with good performance, is a delight for people like us.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@uhoh7,

Thanks for your encouraging comment.

Bottom line is that I would have to sell at least something from my present collection in order to finance the M9 or even downsize any other collection outside the photographic stuff. I'm a poor retiree already. Wink

Actually this wouldn't be a problem. I am rather sure that this would be manageable quite easily. However, I still hate the idea to give something away from my beloved collections. Collectors syndrome.....

However, I am not in a hurry and will see. Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Autumn colors:



PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:26 pm    Post subject: Nikon D600 and Summicron 50/2 R (first version, 1967?) Reply with quote
Nikon D600 and Summicron 50/2 (first version, 1967?)



PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Nikon D600 and Summicron 50/2 R (first version, 1967?) Reply with quote
cellotone wrote:
Nikon D600 and Summicron 50/2 (first version, 1967?)


Thanks for sharing. Your lens is most probably the Summicron-R which is overall a little bit better than my Summicron-M, at least according Erwin Puts.
However, the rendering seems to be quite comparable. Puts mentions in his report that the R shows better contrast than the M version from the same production period. So actually these are two different lenses.
I only have M39/LTM and Leica-M lenses from Leitz for the use on my Ricoh GXR-M.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2