I apologize in advance for being a bit ignorant since I am a new Leica M user. I recently purchased a chrome M6TTL for my travel photography. I have also purchased a used 90/2.8 Elmarit. I am going on a long trip to Vietnam and Thailand this summer, so I would like to get a 35 and 50 before the trip. For a low light lens, I have decided to take the plunge for the 35/1.4 ASPH. However, I am unsure which 50 to go for. I like the idea of having the extra stop with the 50/1.4 Summilux, but I'm not sure I can afford another super-expensive lens. I have noticed that I can save a lot of money by going used, but is there a quality difference between the older and newer lenses (most specifically, with the 50/2 or 50/1.4)? I am referring to quality that you can really see, not subtle MTF graph differences. From what everyone says, the newer 50/2 Summicron is amazing; would there be a quality drop-off if I purchased on older (maybe from the 60's or 70's) 50/1.4? I also like the idea of buying old chrome lenses for travelling - they don't look new and shiny to potential thieves, and I don't have to worry about a few more scratches on the barrel. Too bad the ASPH lenses are so recent. Then again, should I just go with a used chrome 35/1.4 non-ASPH? I have seen little info on these lenses, so any info would be much appreciated.

Sorry for another lens A vs. lens B question, but I couldn't find an answer in any of the other threads. Thanks for all of your past and future advice.

-- Ryan Greene (ryantex307@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001

Answers

Ryan - I've been somewhat disappointed with the 50 Summilux - it doesn't compare to the 35 Summilux ASPH at all re: handling or image quality. As long as you are getting the 35 ASPH Summilux anyway, I would go with the 50 Summicron instead. OR...do without the 50 altogether for this trip, and stick with just the 35 & 90. I'm not sure that rushing out to get a 50 for this trip is worth the risk of settling for a lens before you need it or know what you want. However, if you feel you need it, any 50 Summicron made in the last 20 years will serve you very well. Only depends on whether you want a built-in or clip-on shade, and whether you want the focusing tab or not. Older 50 Summicrons with the clip-on shade and focusing tab are great deals and perform as well as the current built-in-shade, tabless version. I like both types.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), March 21, 2001.

You've made a compelling case for getting the older lenses. I think you should just do it.

On the other hand, if it would make you feel better to "split the difference", I'd personnally opt for the new 50mm Summicron and get an older 35 f1.5. Just my opinion.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), March 21, 2001.

And again, another opinion...

Since you've asked specifically about the old vs new 35 and 50, and indicated an interest in low-light capability, my answer is as follows: I think your decision to get the 35 asph 'lux is a good one. While the non-asph is a very good lens, the asph is sharper at f1.4, 2 and 2.8, which is where you'll be shooting in low light - plus it is less flare-prone. As for the 50, any of the 'crons made in the last 30 years or so are excellent. I have no personal experience with the 50 Summilux, but I've heard it does not perform nearly as well as the 'cron - regardless, I'm not sure it would be worth the extra expense for an extra stop if you already have the excellent 35 'lux asph for low-light.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 21, 2001.

My recommendation is the 35/1.4 ASPH you're already considering (it's a lens you will probably own for your whole life), along with a used 50 Summicron - either the current version with the retractable shade or the previous version with the detachable hood and focussing tab. They're optically identical, and I like the ergonomics of the earlier model.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), March 21, 2001.

I have travelled extensively in Thailand, and my outfit for such a journey would be the Tri-Elmar and a 135. (Since you have a 90, take that). There's either light enough for f4 or dark enough you need flash. Some 800-speed print film is fine for the "nightlife" in the cities even with the TRI-Elmar. As a fast lens I'm sold on the 35/1.4 ASPH. It's 3 stops over the Tri-Elmar, and I can handhold it 1 stop over a 50/1.4. The 50 end of the Tri-Elmar is indistinguishable from a current-generation fixed 50, and with the recently-discontinued "first version" (which I like better than the new one for several reasons) going for US$1300-1400 it's quite a big bang for the buck. The older-version 50 Summicrons (11817 and earlier) are no less sharp than the current one, but at f/2 and somewhat at f/2.8 they aren't quite as contrasty. The 50 Summilux had only one optical redesign, way back in the chrome-age, so any black one is optically up to date. As 50/1.4's go it's probably one of the very best, but if you shoot mostly at f/2 and slower the current Summicron would be a better performer. I'd leave the older chrome lenses to the collectors, you can get better optical performance for the same money buying late-model black lenses that show some use on the outside. To most thieves, a lens is a lens. And Thailand proved to be one of the safest places I've travelled recently. The Thai youth are mandated to go to school, and further officially encouraged and subsidized through university level. The culture is steeped in the honorable precepts of Buddhism; the country and its people are clean and beautiful and friendly.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 21, 2001.

I use a first-generation 50 Summilux ('59) and a scuffed-up 50 Dual-Range Summicron ('61). The Summicron is a little sharper and significantly smaller and lighter. No one has ever complained about the optical quality of either lens based on viewing my photos. I don't doubt that new models have improved contrast and resolution, but the older ones are good enough that people have been impressed by the technical quality of images made with them.

It's really an issue of what satisfies you--and we can't tell you that.

[And, not trying to start a fight, just offering a different perspective: I spend a lot of time shooting at apertures wider than f2 with my Summilux at speeds of 1/25th and below using exposure indices of 1000 to 3200 (sometimes even 6400). An f4 lens with 800-speed film would be useless for my kind of available-darkness shooting. Don't even get me started about the horrors of flash. . .]

Shot below (you knew I was going to post one) was made with the 50 Summilux wide open at about 1/25 (though I think I was finishing off a roll of 400-speed film).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 21, 2001.

Mike... This is probably getting redundant, but "Nice shot!" If I ever get the itch to upgrade my pre-aspheric 35mm Summicron or older 50mm 'cron, I will go through the threads and look at your photos. I know I have not yet max'ed out the potential in my lenses, and buying new ones won't improve anything.

Thanks Mike for reminding me... it is the guy behind the camera, and most of us are not using our more than capable gear to its full potential.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 21, 2001.

Ryan, I will add my voice to the others in telling you that one of the older 50mm Summicrons will still be a very fine performer. The one made from 1969 to 1979, black, no focus tab, or the one just after it, with focus tab, are outstanding lenses. Even if you were to get the one before that, the so-called "rigid" model, or the dual- range, the performance will be outstanding, and the fifferences hard to see. So I'd save a few bucks there, and put them toward the 35 ASPH, if you are so inclined. I haven't bought one yet myself--I use the 35 cron & 35 Lux-- but all that I've read here is so consistantly positive that I probably will. In the meantime, my older 35's are great, no complaints. But in your position I would go for the 35 lux and 50 used cron.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 21, 2001.

I meant, I would go for the 35 ASPH Lux and used 50 Summicron.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 21, 2001.

You have received some very good advice,regarding the merits etc of the two lenses in question.However for what it's worth. Do you really need a 50mm lens,the angle of view is only 19 degrees different. I suggest that the 50mm is the most rarely used lens in the photographic armoury. Save yourself some weight and forget it. If on the other hand your question was "I am thinking of buying a 21mm... very different answer.

-- Brian Tompkins (AnnTompkins@btinternet.com), March 22, 2001.

I dont know about "50mm is the most rarely used lens in the photographic armoury", but I'll let someone else tackle that... What I'd suggest is that if you are traveling and already have the 90mm and 35mm then ask yourself if bringing a 50mm makes sense given the extra weight, cost, similar angle to the 35mm, etc...

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), March 22, 2001.

Just for your eventual statistics regarding posted answers to your question: I fully agree with Russel's. Most of the time by far the difference between 35 and 50 mm could easily be fixed with just a couple of steps toward your subject, which will be considerably safer than buying such an expensive lens before having the opportunity to get sure you actually will need it often enough to pay for it. And 90 is a nice lens for traveling (for me, at least ...) Regards and enjoy your trip.

-- Iván Barrrientos (ivanbarrientos@simltda.tie.cl), March 22, 2001.

The 35mm lens does not really come near a normal angle-of-view lens, so it differs quite a bit more from the 50mm than many people seem to purport. For those who like to utilize the full frame - or close to it - the 35mm lens will include all the distortions associated with a wide-angle. The problem is, with the RF camera, these distortions don't show up until you look at the negative or the print. If you take a 35mm SLR camera with a 35mm lens and look through the ground-glass viewfinder while you swing the camera around, down, up, and so forth, you'll see clearly what I'm talking about. Do the same thing with the 50mm lens on the SLR and the difference in the object behavior is quite differenct. True, the 35mm lens can be used as a normal lens, but it's not a normal lens when compared to the 50mm. The 50mm (or a 40mm or a 44mm or whatever) will give you the least amount of "subject size" to "relative object distance" distortion of any lens that you'll put on a 35mm camera.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), March 22, 2001.

As we move into the wide angle range, the difference in perspective is greater than a mere comparison of numbers would suggest. A 35 and a 50 are really different enough to make it worth having both. And you can't make a 50 out of a 35 by taking a few steps forward, because the 35 will include more background information than the 50. The 50 can cut out extraneous background.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 23, 2001.

Sure, it's nice to have both the 50mm and the 35mm. But reading the original post it seems to be that Ryan will be traveling and also doesnt have an unlimited budget - that's why I'd recommend dropping the 50mm. Also I'm not sure about you guys but my normal house insurance will cover my camera equipment when traveling but only up to $X,XXX - so I like to keep the replacement value of my gear to that number when I'm traveling. In practice this means only two lenses...

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), March 23, 2001.

Actually, the original question didn't ask for alternate lens kit configurations, it just asked whether an older 50mm lenses would be as good in a practical sense, and whether having both older 50mm and 35mm lenses was viable. The consensus answer is yes.

If we're going to suggest alternatives to the 35mm-50mm-90mm lineup, then of course the popular 35mm-90mm combination is an option. But it leaves out the best horse in the stable, the 50mm Summicron. That's why, if it were ME, I'd get a new 50mm and a used 35mm or one of the Voigtlander lenses, heresy as this may be.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), March 23, 2001.