I'm curious to find out what other differences there are between the 50/2 DR Summicron and the rigid Summicron aside from the closer focusing and "eye" mount on the DR based on your knowledge and experiences. According to Stephen Gandy, some people think it's sharper than the rigid version and was even rated the sharpest lens ever tested by Modern Photography. Is it worth it to pay more for this lens version if you really don't need the closer focusing feature?

-- Ron Gregorio (gregorio@ksc.th.com), November 06, 2000

Answers

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/scronhist.html

http://www.lhsa.org/moremus.htm

http://www.lhsa.org/finalmus.htm

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), November 06, 2000.

Ron, it is a very good lens and definately better than the collapsibile 50mm Summicron I had before it. MY DR had some coating problems inside that required a lot of work to repair, which is common on 40 year old Leica lenses. The current formula is supposed to be even better, is more compact, and focuses to .7 meters without the eyes, and is more flare resistant for sure. (The DR goes only to 1 meter) It doesn't have the same feel to the construction and isn't finshed as nicely as the older DR However.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), November 06, 2000.

Ron,

Hope this doesn't sound condescending, but in the interest of accuracy, especially if you are researching... the DR Summicron is also RIGID. This was the narrative designation to differentiate the collapsible Summicron.

The Dual Range cosmetically looks like the Summicron of that day with the addition of the detachable eyes to take it into the close-up range. Close-up is a comparative term for rangefinders, since SLRs can easily get closer. Also, back in the day, the M3 rangefinder and Summicrons of like vintage only went to 40 inches, so it was a good selling point to "brag" about close focusing capability. My new Summicron goes to 27 inches on my M6, so progress has rendered the feature moot.

I have seen some good work with the DR Summicron from photographers that worked in the '60's. The biggest thing that would dissuade me now is the fact that all of the reports I have read mention the softness of both the glass and coatings of the time. Any potential sharpness advantage could be eliminated by some veiling flare, or contrast reduced by micro-scratches.

I have used and tested (un-scientifically) all of the Summicrons since 1954 and I would use the Black 1969-1979 or the 1980- to present (cosmetically changed but optically identical) without reservations. I would seriously test the chrome lenses, but a good example can deliver great results.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), November 06, 2000.

Thanks for the links and the answers everyone. They're actually very informative. I asked because the local second-hand shop here is selling a 50/2 DR Summicron w/ eyes attached to an M3. I was thinking whether this set would be better than a second-hand M6 and a black 50/2 rigid Summicron (non-DR) in another shop. The M3 and DR Summicron cost more than the M6 set and both sets are in good condition. I guess I'd go for the M6 and black 50/2 Summicron.

-- Ron Gregorio (gregorio@ksc.th.com), November 06, 2000.

Ron, I have both the collapsible 50 and the Summicron-M. The latter is not the current version, it's the one with the focusing tab. I am hard pressed to see a difference in sharpness between them. Small architectural details look about the same when comparing at the same aperture. I limited my test to f2, 2.8, 4, and 5.6, so as to keep the shutter speeds high with Velvia and Technical Pan. Now, when it comes to contrast, the M is contrastier. Shadows are darker, not filled with diffused stray light. So, I guess the question is, if I can barely tell the oldest from the latest, how much difference can there be between the oldest and the second-oldest?

Just something to ponder . . .

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@juno.com), November 12, 2000.