I have just acquired a pristine summilux 50, the first model (serialnumber 1500xxx) to use with my M3. I have read somewhere that the first model was changed into a better configuration in the second model. Other people tell me that the configuration has stayed the same all the time (even for the latest model). Does anyone have good/bad experience with first version summilux 50? BTW I bought it as a "middle lens" since I have the elmarit 90 for my M3 and the summicron 35 ASPH for my M6 and use these combos 80% of the time.

-- Thomas Krantz (tkrantz@kpmg.com), November 23, 2001

Answers

1rst computation (redesigned version of the Summarit) up to 1844000 (1959-1961) 2d computation (much improved) from 1844001 (1961-today)

-- Lucien (lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), November 23, 2001.

First version is softer wide open....but a bit of a bokeh king :-)

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), November 23, 2001.

See previous thread accompanied by photograph from early 50 Summilux. Looks pretty good to me! http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0077Zm

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), November 23, 2001.

That's an early Summilux indeed! The finer optical points can be debated, but it's still a great lens, certainly a benchmark for Leitz...hold onto it as it's rarer (and probably better made) than the new stuff and if the glass is clean, you've got a gem.

Carlin

-- Carlin Mayer (carlinm@abac.com), November 23, 2001.

Yes, well I checked the serialnumber and it's 1644302, but still a very early summilux, and yes, the glass is totally clean and bright with all the coating still there in a thick layer! I paid 775 USD for it (in Denmark), I don't know whether its cheap or not, I just fell in love with this piece of heavy glass

Thomas

-- Thomas Krantz (tkrantz@kpmg.com), November 23, 2001.

Here's an image shot with the first version Summilux wide open. Shadow detail is better on the print (the lower contrast of the early lens is actually helpful in preserving shadow detail in these situations). Off-axis coma is clearly evident in the out-of-focus highlights near the top center, and it also affects the appearance of the leaves on the right.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), November 23, 2001.

The first version of the 50/1.4 Summilux (chrome) (SN 1644xxx-1844xxx) was a significant improvement on the 50/1.5 Summarit, which is quite soft wide open. At SN 1844xxx, Leitz introduced the second version (still chrome, but later black anodized) which (still seven elements) imporved somewhat on the earlier version. But the first version is still quite a good lens.

In addition, I think the early chrome versions of Summilux, with the scalloped focusing ring, are among the most beautiful and solidly constructed Leica lenses. I won't criticize the modern version of the 50/1.4 Summilux with the built-in hood, but the older lens is certainly more elegant. In addition, the older lens has a longer focussing helical (ie., takes more of a turn to go from infinity to 1m) than the modern lens (which now has the closest focussing distance reduced to 0.7 m). This makes for more precise focussing.

I have the second version chrome lens from the early 1960s, and it is an absolutely superb lens, both optically and in terms of build quality. These early Leitz M lenses were really masterpieces of design and production.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), November 23, 2001.

Thomas,

The following is an extract from "Legendary Leica Lenses: The 50mm f/1.4 Summilux" By Dick Gilcreast, published in Volume 31 No. 3, 1998 of "The Viewfinder", quarterly journal of the Leica Historical Society of America:

"The [50] Summilux underwent a complete but unannounced redesign apparently in 1962 (Lager) in which the layout of the lens was changed. Still seven elements in 5 groups, the two separate thin corrector elements at the back became a single thick cemented pair while the second and third elements in front of the diaphragm were separated with an air space. Performance of the new lens was quite different, indicating a change in Leitz's basic design parameters. The lens was now quite sharp and contrasty wide open, but this change was brought about at the expense of some increased field curvature and a little less sharpness at the extreme edges of the frame at the intermediate apertures around f/4 and f/5.6. The lens was now more suited to low light wide open work, but less so for the amateur's landscape motifs."

You can access this article from the LHSA web-site, URL http://www.lhsa.org/

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), November 26, 2001.