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 Canada Summicron-R 2/50 (II) Picture heavy
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:26 pm    Post subject: Leitz Canada Summicron-R 2/50 (II) Picture heavy Reply with quote
Leitz Canada Summicron-R 2/50 (II) 1977

Not much to say......... User friendly and loads of fun !

























Last edited by Mir on Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:05 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like Dog


PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great pics. Some are excellent.

Leica colors. Leica sharpness. Leica contrast.

I return to Cron R 50.

Lovely.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks !


PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't know why the cron R 50 has few thread in the forum, and few members posterior in them.

I lost something about, I think, and don't know what.

It's relatively cheap and very good lens.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Macro tests using Leitz Wetzlar extension tubes 14134 (25mm) or 14134 + 14135 (50mm)
Using unchanged camera settings from previous work - inappropriate for the test (10Mp, Fine Jpeg only)

Still, the test is conclusive !












PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Beautiful pictures & a good photographer! Like 1 small


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lovely series, showing what this great lens can do when in capable hands.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
I don't know why the cron R 50 has few thread in the forum, and few members posterior in them.

I lost something about, I think, and don't know what.

It's relatively cheap and very good lens.


There are some here who say: "Leica R, nothing special"

Not me. Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:

There are some here who say: "Leica R, nothing special"

Not me. Smile


Like 1


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
WOW, thiose are great shots showing the capability of this lens - and its user of course!! Wink
("those" should be simply ignored - your results speak for themselves...)


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I always wondered what is the relation between the R (II) and the legendary M v4 50/2?

Mr Puts:

"Summicron-M (IV, 1979 Both lenses are identical in design and (almost) in performance. The small differences can be attributed to the mount that is dedicated to the use of an automatic diaphragm in the R-version and a rangefinder coupling in the M-version."

"The R version at full aperture has somewhat lower contrast over the whole image field than its M-version. One should however not overestimate these differences. I made careful comparisons with both lenses and saw a fractional difference when shooting in normal day light situations. When taking pictures in twilight and similar low contrast environments the difference may be of more importance. At 1:5.6 the situation is reversed. Now the R-version has the higher contrast and gives a truly outstanding performance on axis (up to an image height of 9mm). The outer zonal areas have a somewhat lower performance as one looks at the very fine textural details. The M-version has a somewhat more even performance over the whole image field, but with a lower overall contrast. Both lenses offer sparkling clarity of extremely fine details, but if one wishes to differentiate the R version has a slightly flatter definition in the field. Stopped down to 1:5.6 the R-version shows that typical dip in performance in the outer zones, that many Leitz lenses of these generations share. R- and M-version deliver outstanding performance at a close-up distance of 1 meter, when stopped down a bit. This phenomenon does show, as so often, that many classical legends, are no longer valid."

Worthy of note the V4 M version is a lens which works very well with a stock Sony A7 (unlike the 50 Lux ASPH), and I'd expect the R might be better yet.

The M version 4 can be found as low as 900, and this lens, it's appears, between 200-300 USD, unless I'm seeing the wrong version.

But the M has one very ver luxurious feature: it's tiny. Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you gentleman !


uhoh7 wrote:
I always wondered what is the relation between the R (II) and the legendary M v4 50/2?


I also wondered...... so i asked a knowledgeable man, a user of high end gear.....to no avail....

I two eventually stumbled on Mr Puts' words : "identical in design"
It was enough for me and i figured that if there was going to be some differences between the two versions,
most people or at least I, was not going to see it....

Paid $386 usd shipped and taxed..... i ended up spending for caps and extension rings, but that's just me...

unfortunately it's not as tiny as the M version... but it is a fine lens, and i'm a proud owner !


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mir wrote:
Thank you gentleman !


uhoh7 wrote:
I always wondered what is the relation between the R (II) and the legendary M v4 50/2?


I also wondered...... so i asked a knowledgeable man, a user of high end gear.....to no avail....

I two eventually stumbled on Mr Puts' words : "identical in design"
It was enough for me and i figured that if there was going to be some differences between the two versions,
most people or at least I, was not going to see it....

Paid $386 usd shipped and taxed..... i ended up spending for caps and extension rings, but that's just me...

unfortunately it's not as tiny as the M version... but it is a fine lens, and i'm a proud owner !


For good reason Smile

I swapped a pre-asph 50 Summilux straight across for my tiny 80's German v4 Cron. Back when the Nex-5 was my body.

In the last 2 years I have often pined for a 50 lux ASPH, which Puts says is as sharp across the frame wide open as the pre-asph is at 5.6 (and it's not a bad lens, by any means)!

But recently I learned, again from Erwin, that our lenses (because it must apply to this one as well) are superior to the LUX ASPH in one regard: close up, at all apertures from f/2. This shocked me.

You fairly often hear people remark about the lens (ours):"oh it's soft wide open, but then it gets real sharp".

What I have finally realized is that, wide open the lens gets sharper as you approach MFD. Past 25ft mine not that great at f/2, but close up it is fantastic.

This is a pre halloween shot taken shortly after I got an M9, and my background makes the bokeh look alot worse than usual, but I think it makes Puts point:


L1006791 by unoh7, 50 cron wide open

Here is an 80's Mandler design, which just smokes at infinity F/8 for landscape, yet it is still one of the sharpest close-up 50s ever.

Another great lesson Erwin recently taught me with a single sentence: HCB shot nearly his entire portfolio at f/8 Smile


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good lens. Nothing special.

I'll stand by that. The v1 I had was indeed nothing special. A good sharp lens with medium to high contrast.

Superior to a Pancolar MC 1.8/50 or a Rollei Planar 1.8/50?

No. No sharper and often less contrast and saturation.

There are a lot of very good 50mm lenses so to be considering as something special with such strong competition a lens has to have something really outstanding about it.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Good lens. Nothing special.

I'll stand by that. The v1 I had was indeed nothing special. A good sharp lens with medium to high contrast.

Superior to a Pancolar MC 1.8/50 or a Rollei Planar 1.8/50?

No. No sharper and often less contrast and saturation.

There are a lot of very good 50mm lenses so to be considering as something special with such strong competition a lens has to have something really outstanding about it.


Hi Ian.

My cron R V2 is by far more constrast and sharp than all my pancolar 1,8/50.

The cron at 5,6 has a punch in sharpness that has not the pancolar at 5,6. The contrast is more strong in the cron.

The pancolar has more contrast and resolution power than the oreston/pentacon 1,8/50, but less than the flektogon 2,4/35.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Good lens. Nothing special.
I'll stand by that.


You are consistently oblivious, I give you that. LOL As to "Standing by" your previous smear of the whole R series: Science is about adjusting ones views as evidence supports other conclusions. Since the best evidence is always changing, it's impossible not to be "wrong" frequently. Personally I delight in it, because nobody ever learned a thing being "right". But human nature tends to stubbornness, and even Einstein became irrelevant when he could not adjust his views in the face of clear evidence as quantum theory evolved.

I'm amazed you actually owned a v1, though that's not the subject here. You bought a leitz lens? Seriously?

If true what comes to mind is this: Ian does not believe in spending money on lenses. It must have been very cheap. If so, what was the condition?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Good lens. Nothing special.

I'll stand by that. The v1 I had was indeed nothing special. A good sharp lens with medium to high contrast.

Superior to a Pancolar MC 1.8/50 or a Rollei Planar 1.8/50?

No. No sharper and often less contrast and saturation.

There are a lot of very good 50mm lenses so to be considering as something special with such strong competition a lens has to have something really outstanding about it.


Hi Ian.

My cron R V2 is by far more constrast and sharp than all my pancolar 1,8/50.

The cron at 5,6 has a punch in sharpness that has not the pancolar at 5,6. The contrast is more strong in the cron.

The pancolar has more contrast and resolution power than the oreston/pentacon 1,8/50, but less than the flektogon 2,4/35.


Interesting, cheers.

I know that the v1 cron I had was a very sharp lens, not sure what year it was but the coating was a pale blue, maybe it was single coated? Anyways, I found it less contrasty overall than my MC 50s, closer to a single coated Xenon 1.9/50 in overall contrast.

My favourite of my Pancolars is the last one in Pentacon B mount labelled Prakticar. Don't know if the optics are changed from the M42 MC version but I think the coatings are different, they are a deeper, more intense blue/purple on the B mount one and that lens does have slightly more contrast than my MC M42 one.

I liked the Cron 2/50 but didn't keep it more than a few months because I didn't prefer it over my favoured 50s andcould make a nice profit on it.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote




PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Out of curiosity I went over my old test report from the early 1980's about those fifties from that time (comparison of 17 different fifties in similar league).

It turned out that this specific Summicron version is absolutely no. 1 in terms of contrast at F5.6 equally across the full frame really from edge to edge. That's really the measured outstanding characteristic of this lens. No other lens managed that. Else it was only one of the best but never in first place.

Maybe this is of interest for you as well.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Was there a revision in coating between the v1 I had and the later version?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 3:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Was there a revision in coating between the v1 I had and the later version?


I don't know but it would make sense. Erwin Puts only mentioned that the optical design is almost identical to the Summicron-M Version IV. Unlike to other manufacturers Leitz doesn't say very much about their coatings. According Puts the performance of the M version is slightly better fully open but this behavior reverses as from F5.6, i.e. from that on the R version is ahead both in terms of contrast across the frame. He mentions also the outstanding performance for close-ups (apprx. 1m distance) of both versions as an rather unlike characteristic for such lenses. So the R version may be a real bargain compared to the selling price of the M sibling.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I know that the v1 cron I had was a very sharp lens, not sure what year it was but the coating was a pale blue, maybe it was single coated? Anyways, I found it less contrasty overall than my MC 50s, closer to a single coated Xenon 1.9/50 in overall contrast.


Cheers Ian,
probably it was something wrong with your Cron. I have the version I too and it looks enough contrasty and sharp to me (or I'm not so exigent?...).
I have chosen it vs version II on purpose, even It's supposed to be not as sharp as the version II, and not because it was cheaper - I just liked more how it renders in the OOF zones. And the sharpness looks O.K. to me.

The following pic is out-of-the-camera jpg (24 MPX, APSC), in a shadow zone (and, probably, just a bit underexposed - easy to compensate in PS). Is the contrast not enough? It looks just O.K. to me for a shadow zone.



And the 100% detail:



And this one is in good ligth, at f/2.8 (if I remember well):



And the outlined 100% details:




PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can see why you like it dan, very fine results.

The one I had was a bit less contrasty, it was closer in contrast to my single coated Xenon 1.9/50 than my multicoated HFT Planar 1.8/50.

Maybe a thorough cleaning would have improved the contrast, but I wouldn't have said the lens needing cleaning from looking at the glass at the time.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1