As pointed out in The timeworn poll... I had had the newest 50 'cron before trading it in for the newest (ASPH) 35 'cron. I am thinking of getting a 50 'cron again, but this time a "next to last 50mm Summicron with tab" (Al Smith's quote).
I also hear (e.g. in which 50mm lens? and in Which 50mm M lens?) that that last tabbed 'cron (1979-1994) is better because of its removable, stronger hood. That tab and that hood are the two biggest things I'd prefer. But maybe the newest (or even the older) 'cron has an advantage somewhere else? What about

sharpness/resolution/contrast?

6 lens - 4 group differences?

glass types and/or coatings?

both down to f/16?

both up to 0.7 m?

same sizes and weights?

Have I overlooked anything? Many thanks.

Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), July 13, 2001

Answers

As far as I know, aside from the hood and the tab, the two lenses are identical. There may be a weight difference, but with a lens that small, a few grams here or there aren't going to make much difference. I use the tabbed version, and I've tried the current one - they appear to be about the same size and weight. The optical formulae are identical, they both focus to 0.7m, both stop down to f/16. I'd expct the performace of the two versions to be indistinguishable.

Some people prefer the handling of the current lens with its standard focussing ring, and some prefer the retractable hood because you can put a lens cap on with less fuss.

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), July 13, 2001.

Michael,

All Leica press and even Erwin Puts' new lens book indicated that only the external cosmetic have changed from these two lenses. Before I had my next to last version, I was using the 1969-1979 black vintage Summicron. This model had a detachable hood, but no tab. After I got the (then) new model, I was immediately enamored by the tab.

This is purely subjective, but ergonomically the tab makes the Leica work for me. My second favorite lens, the 35mm Summicron also has this feature, and both of these lenses just fit my way of working the camera. My left index finger shoots right to the tab when I pick up the camera. I immediately know where I am along the focusing range, and I can estimate where the tab should be while eye-balling the subject...it is not, "that person is 8 feet away", but "the tab should be at the 5 o'clock position for that person"... all before the camera comes to my eye. Every once in awhile, I pick up my non- tabbed Summicron, and am shocked at how much more (apparent) effort it takes to complete all of the pre-shooting actions. Again, I am speaking only for me, because many people feel the opposite.

The hood preference goes back to my Nikon SLR days. All of my lenses had screw in external hoods, and they have saved my glass many times by absorbing impact. Additionally, if dust or water comes up quickly, I simply hold my hooded lens tight against my belly, until I can get out of the adverse condition. Do that with a collapsing hood, and the front element will be in contact with your shirt. Like the tab, this is simply my preference.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 13, 2001.

Hi Mike and everybody,

On the Leica Customers Forum (and you know it !), JohnF gave us some details on this subject and said that the lens hood was too short in the newer version of Summicron 50; I was afraid and astonished because new in Leica world; now, after some pictures, I wonder if he wasn't true. It would be fine to ask him for more details. With pleasure if I can help you and regards. Alain

-- alain.besançon (alain.besancon@chu-dijon.fr), July 13, 2001.

Ahhh, you guys are again perfect! I thought (and even hoped) the second latest would be as "good" as the latest in every regard except for my two preferences. Al, I also used the type of belly you did as I started with an FM2, F3 and their great, rigid screw-in hoods which always protected everything. I need a tab (because I had a stroke which slightly lamed my left hand) and that is one reason I got the 2/35 instead (the other reason just being for me the better, more open angle). Also, as you said, the pre-focus e.g. to 5 o'clock is the only way to fly (again, for me). I loved the way John Collier used to tell us about this dry-run. Only whiskey is better here.

Yours subjectively, Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), July 13, 2001.

Sounds like you would enjoy the smaller tabbed lens with the rigid hood. Try to get one with a higher serial number, as I once bought an earlier one and it had fungus already and had to be returned. I like the tab on the 35mm, but have grown to prefer the current 50. I have stated several times that I am getting better results in low light f2.0 & 2,8 with the current one. It is probably because I can fine focus the current lens better with the focus the way it is. No doubt about it, however, the tabbed lens is faster for grab shots.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 13, 2001.

The lastest tabbed version is preferable. I wish my new-version 'Lux had it, as I miss it terribly on that lens. While I have learned to focus the non-tabbed "Lux almost as fast as my tabbed 'Cron, I am definately faster with the tab -- the 4, 5, 6, 7 o'clock thing really works! Plus the retractible hood on the 'Lux is a joke, as I imagine the one on the new 'Cron is as well. If I wasn't a lens-speed junkie, I'd have held on to the 'Cron over the 'Lux for the these two reasons alone; forgetting even that the 'Cron is sharper lens.

Gee, now you've got me thinking... Maybe I ought to hold onto my 'Cron a little longer and take a few more photos with it. I might just end up offing the 'Lux instead!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 13, 2001.

I think the current 50/2 is better at least it works for me. I use my left index finger's friction to focus since it has raised threads on the focus ring which is something like on the aperture ring. It won't do for the smooth suface focus ring with tab which becomes very awkward to focus to far distance in vertical mode. The built-in lens hood is very handy. It is always ready to shoot and takes less space in the camera bag comparing the one with hood on. I also prefer if the 35 asph has no tab so I can focus the same way as I did on my 50 'cron.

-- kenny chiu (amchiu@worldnet.att.net), July 13, 2001.

The 50mm lens is my main lens, and I too find the focussing tab VERY useful. But sometimes I also want to focus in the "ordinary non-tab way", thus I do not want a smooth focussing ring. For the past 5-6 years I have been using the latest version without the tab, but since the tab from the previous version can be retrofitted on the current version, I bought it as a repair-part from Leica (cheap! about 15 dollars here in Sweden) and had an ordinary camera repairman drill the two necessary holes on the focussing ring and had it permanently mounted. Also, the sliding hood can be problematic. But You can use the screw-in hood from the current Elmar 50 under the sliding hood, or You can just simply put an ordinary O-ring of appropriate size on the hood to prevent it from sliding in. Both solutions are easy and work very well.

-- Göran Bjerklow (goran.bjerklow@swipnet.se), July 13, 2001.

Its not even a choice for me.

I gotta have the tab... and I prefer the focusing hood to be rigid and removable for my kind of shooting. The only lens that I have with the retractable hood is the 75 lux... and I hate the damn thing!

I think Leica should modify the retractable hoods so that they click lock into place (either by twisting the hood in one direction OR better yet, with a ball bearing and limit tension spring) so that its alot harder to retract the hood when your toting your gear.

For the kind of money that I paid for the 75 this type of ergonomic modification should be NO PROBLEM for Leica to add!

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), July 13, 2001.

John, I agree with You. I find it difficult to understand that Leica lenses, which are excellent otherwise (but costly), have this quite simple problem. The above mentioned solutions work quite well, but there never should have been a problem to start with...!

-- Göran Bjerklow (goran.bjerklow@swipnet.se), July 13, 2001.

I must admit, I find the retractable hood realy annoing, Elmar´s screwable hood should be a good solution, but you´re rigth, leitz should give us a better design, I love the idea of the retaractable hood but it should have a lock or something to keep it in it´s place.O ring sounds like a good idea, thank´s Göran.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 13, 2001.

Mike:

I purchased a used 50 'cron, tabbed version to replace my older dual range and collapsible Summicron's. I got used to the tab on my 28 Elmarit and enjoy it. I am using my old metal hoods from the older 50's (12585) instead of the new plastic one it comes with. They are the same dimensions, but more substatial. The previous owner of mine used a 55mm snap on cap over the end of the lens hood for protection while carrying the lens. I have lenses that are 35 plus years old, without fungus, and I attribute this to a dry atmosphere year round.

Mark J.

-- Mark A. Johnson (logic@gci.net), July 14, 2001.

Can you imagine a reason for plastic shades; I did, when my M3 and a 50/2 D.R. with a metel finder (of the old kind), fall from my hands to the concret floor and hit it from the shade, it took me two days to figure out on how to take the shade off, of course the lens suffered baddly for that; I wander if it had been a plastic shade what would had happened.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 14, 2001.

Personally, I think the shades should be removable BUT made out of poly-carbonate material that has some give. In my early teens I was into 1/10 scale R/C racing and I remember the bodies of the scale models were all made of polycarbonate resin. You could crash those things against cement walls at 50 mph with very little damage sustained to the body (basically it just deforms but pops back into shape kinda like a ping-pong ball).

To me this would be the best compromise. The shade is rigid enough to protect your front element from little body nudges BUT has enough elastic give so that if you drop your gear the force of the impact is absorbed by temporary deformation of the shade.

Again, its something that Leica should seriously think about... or maybe some independent like Lutz or Tom.

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), July 14, 2001.

Thank you for all your informative data. I just love it when everybody keeps on telling you what they love (and, of course, hate). That's what this Forum is all about!

Okay -- FWIW -- here are two or three more points (published here by permission) which I just got back from Leica here. This concerns the Summicron-M 2/50 (11819 in black) which was manufactured from 1979 to 1994 when the latest model (11826 in black) appeared, which had the retractable hood.
 

It all started off with S/N 2915801 (1979). From S/N 3098901 (1982) on, both the rotation alignment and the focussing ring tab were modified.

From S/N 3261401 (1983) on, rotation settings were again improved.

During its entire time of issue, however, the optics here remained completely unchanged. The alterations affected solely mountings and other mechanical adjustments.

 
Same player shoots again.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), July 17, 2001.

Thanks Michael,

Now when I say I have the next to last version (335xxxx), I know it is true. I know that the early focusing tab had a rounded end, which was modified to the concave shape of today, but I wonder what "rotation settings" are. Oh well... it doesn't matter, because this is a great lens.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 17, 2001.

Hi Al!

Man, are you fast!

Okay, here we go... "rotation settings" is just my translation of Solms' vocabulary "Schneckenfassung", a wording for something like the lens barrel's turn-in-and-out-ability (y'know, like a snail). Sorry, don't know a decent word in English for that, but I do know that you know what it would be.

Jeers, Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), July 17, 2001.

Michael,

It is probably the "steepness" of the helicoil. My older Summicron rotated quite a bit from its minimum to maximum focusing ranges, while my more modern lens travels just a few millimeters beyond 90 degrees, which makes it faster to focus with the tab.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 17, 2001.

Al, sounds perfect. I'll take it. Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), July 17, 2001.