Okay, I got some great responses from my previous thread about the 50 f/2 vs. 50 f/1.4 and then compared to a 35 f/2.

I've decided to got with a 50 f/2: the 50 mm because that's the focal length I love to shoot at with my f100 and f/2 because the previous answers pointed me in that direction (less money too).

So now, I must decided between a used but mint condition 50 mm f/2 collapse or a new 50 f/2 rigid. I know there's a price difference, let's ignore that. The collapse version seems appealing because of the slim profile it gives the camera.

Is there any difference in image sharpness and contrast between the two?

How about issues of lens flare?

Thanks for the advice in advance. I'm glad I found this forum. I've learned a lot from it in the week that I've been following it.

-- v. virtucio (danzfotog@yahoo.com), August 22, 2001

Answers

The current 50mm Summicron is lighter, sharper, contrastier, and focuses closer than the old collapsable. I prefer the collapsable.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), August 22, 2001.

V. Virtucio:

The current 50mm Summicron is lighter, sharper, contrastier, and focuses closer than the old collapsable. I prefer the collapsable.

I agree, except that I prefer the current. Probably means that it doesn't make much difference. Choose what fits your needs.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975 @aol.com), August 22, 2001.

I used the old collapsible lens for a while, (two examples), and found them to be a bit behind the rigid Summicrons of a similar vintage, (late '50's, early '60's), and quite a bit behind the current Summicron in contrast and sharpness. It may be valid to have lenses that can do certain things better than other lenses. While the new lens is a killer optically, some situations can benefit from the look of the older lens.

The thing to think about is that there have been many improvements in the durability of coatings and glass. Many lenses from that era have micro scratches from cleaning, so it might be harder to find a pristine example. If the lens requires a service, factor that into the price.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 22, 2001.

Okay, thanks for the response. The dealer was telling me there was no difference between the new rigid and the used collapsable. I figured he was being honest since it seemed he wasn't trying to push the more expensive lens on me.

I'll go with the rigid because sharpness and contrast is important to me. I have to say I haven't really developed an eye for soft photos. I 've seen some good work out there but when I try to do soft focus photos, they just end up looking blurry to me.

Thanks again.

-- v. virtucio (danzfotog@yahoo.com), August 22, 2001.

V,

Take a look at this site. The collapsible lens is NOT the same as the current formula.

click here;/a>

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 22, 2001.

Unless you specifically want a low contrast lens, get the new one. The other problem with the older lens is that it is famous for scratched soft coating and is usually fogged up inside. I have never seen a single one of those lenses that wasn't fogged internally to one degree or another. Mine was only slightly, but it still flaired and had low contrast like an uncoated lens.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 22, 2001.

Just to nit pick a little, the lens known as the Rigid Summicron is the one that followed the collapsible. Current lenses are just called Summicrons.

My favorite is the original Rigid Summicron.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), August 22, 2001.

BTW, if your dealer is telling you that the collapsible is equal to the current Summicron it's time to find a new dealer!

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), August 22, 2001.

I bought the current Summicron-M 50/2 and I'm completely delighted by it. It's better than the collapsible on my IIIf.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), August 22, 2001.

One of the many things I've learned on our forum is that all Leica lenses (and all leicas) have their uses. I've learned not to trade my stuff for newer, "better" stuff.

I have the collapsible Summicron, the black 1969-79 one, and the tabbed one. The latter two are sharper and contrastier. This is not, however, a dramatic difference. You see it in the greater overall crispness and cleanness of lines, and the darker shadows, owing to the absence of stray light dispersed from highlight areas.

But I would not part with my collapsible. The images are subtly and softly romanticized. Colors glow softly on overcast days. When we go to Vermont this Fall to shoot the Fall colors, it will be in the bag.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), August 22, 2001.

The collapsible Summicrons are mostly 40 so years old and many of them have internal haze or cleaning marks on the fron element. I got one at a bargain price many years ago and it had a clean front element but some internal haze. It mainly sat on the shelf until I recently bought an M3 specifically to use with a 50mm lens. The camera and the lens both went off to Sherry and when the lens came back it was pristine (as was the camera). It now produces sharp contrasty images that I'm very happy with. I also have some current Leica glass, including the 35mm Summilux ASPH and must say that the cleaned and overhauled collapsible Summicron holds its own.

However the optical formula may have improved over the years, I think the major factor with the collapsible may be that at this point, most need an overhaul to achieve their best results.

-- Rolfe Tessem (rolfe@ldp.com), August 22, 2001.

I purchased a Summicron collapsable a few years ago along with an M3. I have found the lens excellent with color print film. It has a certain softness not present with my 70's vintage 50 Summicron. The newer lens is sharper but each and every lens I own has its own special characteristics. No one is better than any other in my opinion. Some may be sharper but older lenses have a certain characteristics not present in newer versions. I don't know the reasons but it probably has something to do with coatings or type of glass (s) used when they were made.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), August 23, 2001.