Dear All,

Recently, I was unexpectdly offered the chance to buy a used 50mm/1.4 Summilux-M (Wetzlar version with slotted shade, vintage ~1973). It was in ex+ condition and the asking price was only $650, so I "struck while the iron was hot", not wanting to miss a bargain.

Now, I hadn't really considered the 50 Summilux before I bought it, having been forced to make a hurried decision, so I was curious to see what information and comments there might be about it on the web, such as archived posts. I was rather surprised to see that relatively little has been said in favour of this lens. It seems to be overshadowed by other M lenses (e.g. Noctilux, 50 'cron, 75 'lux and 35 'lux ASPH). Leica seems to have neglected it, having made no significant improvements in the last 18 years or so, apart from reducing the minimum focusing distance.

To me, the 50 Summilux provides the ideal compromise of speed, size, weight and cost. My only other lenses are a 3E and a 90 Elmarit-M, so I thought that the 'lux would be a useful addition for use in low available light. I've found this to be true and have been very pleased with the results. So why is it that the 50 Summilux seems to be the poor cousin of other lenses in the M stable?

Regards,

Ray

"The trouble with resisting temptation is you never know when you'll get another chance!"

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 08, 2002

Answers

"So why is it that the 50 Summilux seems to be the poor cousin of other lenses in the M stable?"

Because the 50mm Summicron is good and cheap new. The Noctilux has the advantage of hype and a logical fast option if you already have the Summicron. The 35mm Summilux ASPH (while comparing oranges)is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The 75mm Summilux was the king of short teles at least before 90AA. The Summilux is my standard 50mm and it is no slouch.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), January 08, 2002.

I didn't realize that it wasn't in favor. I love mine. It shares the title of "most-used lens" with my DR-Summicron.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 08, 2002.

Ray, I do not own that one, but wish I did: you are right for speed, size and weight appeal. Not so right for price, alas, at least when new.

Leica pricing of the 50mm f1.4 (both R and M) is even more outlandish than for the other lenses. While the superlative 35mm 'lux costs around 30% more than high quality competitors (Canon 35mm f1.4 is 1840 EUR against 2349 EUR for the Leica 35 asph 'lux for example) , the 50mm f1.4 is around 300-400% more expensive than competitors, with hardly any performance advantage.

Same could be said in relative terms for the 50 'cron, but absolute amounts make that lens the least expensive one of the stable. That and its excellent performance justify its success.

The Nocti is actually around 15% LESS expensive than its Canon counterpart !!!

The latest 50 R 'lux (60mm filter size) seems to provide some edge to Leica in terms of comparative performances, according to the Putscyclopedia bible. The M however does not seem to provide that clear competitive edge Leica users enjoy wide open with jewels such as the 35mm asph 'lux or the latest 90 AA 'cron.

So all in all, there are quite a few objective reasons that explain why the 50 'lux is not a the centre of the leicaphiles' attention...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 08, 2002.

For a brief history of the 50mm Summilux see:

http://www.lhsa.org/legleica313.html

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), January 08, 2002.

Ray

I think it is simply that it is an old design and therefore easily available in various second hand combinations all offering the same performance as a new one. As Jacques says, it does not offer cutting edge performance for the price you need to pay to buy a new one (unlike the R 'lux), so to many it appears overpriced new. However, secondhand it just has to be a great bargain if you can pick up an earlier one. Being a faster lens it does not have the performance of the Summicrons, but I suspect that it is actually a very fine lens particularly for portraits and low light shooting. Like you have done, I would certainly buy a s/h one should I see a deal like yours. Puts maintains that the Nokton is actually a better performer, but mechanically perhaps not as good. I guess it must be on the cards for Leica to update the 50 'lux to follow the R lead. It took over 6 years for this to happen with the 90mm Elmarit-R ---> Elmarit-M.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 08, 2002.

My reasons for not owning the 50mm Summilux would echo Jacques's comments, only my points of comparison would be to non-Leitz/Leica LTM 50s, like the Canon RF & Nikkor 50/1.4's & my various Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnars. While the 50 'lux, particularly a newer 1 w/improved coatings, may provide some performance advantage over these lenses, it's simply not enough to justify the higher price of even a used 'lux (e.g., it's quite possible to get a mid to late 1960's-era Canon 50/1.4 for < $450). In contrast, I see a significant performance bump w/the ASPH 35mm Summilux & Summicron as compared to my older 35s.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), January 08, 2002.

I have one and love it. I like it better than I did my 'Cron and my Noctilux combined. It is indeed a superb compromise optic between the size/weight/cost of the 'Cron and the speed/cost of the Noct.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 08, 2002.

I have the 'cron, but after seeing Mike's photo, I wonder if I made the right choice.

-- Bill Henick (dhen1922@aol.com), January 08, 2002.

In Erwin Puts' newsletter number 5/22, he makes some comments about certain lenses being over-rated, (enough fuel in there for many flaming threads!). It is interesting that years ago Puts himself, did a very long article on how great the Noctilux was. This was carried in a magazine before his web site picked it up. This single article was a big spark in my desire to get a Noctilux.

Flash forward... in the newsletter, he dispels much of the aura of the Noctilux, and comes to the conclusion that the Summilux is the better lens. It has according to Puts, better imagery at f/1.4 than the Noct' at f/1.4, and of course, the Summilux at f/1.4 is sharper than the Noct' at its full aperture.

So it is either hindsight, or the passing of time after first acquiring his Noctilux, but three years later, Puts states that the Summilux is the lens of choice... lacking only f/1.0, but delivering better results on film than the revered Noctilux.

Of course, Puts is either hated or loved on this site, so the above comments from his newsletter might not mean anything.

For a real debate, you should see what he says about the DR Summicron being bettered by the cheap old f/2.0 Nikkor.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 08, 2002.

I can remember as far back as 35 years ago, everyone who used, sold or even touched a Leica repeated the story that the 50 Summilux wasn't as sharp as the 50 Summicron, and perhaps that might account for its red-headed-stepchild status. I have never owned the 50 Lux, never felt any need to. I didn't own a 35 Lux either until the 3E came along which made the 35/2 superfluous for me and the 1.4 suddenly seemed the most logical "fast" lens for me. The previous- mount 50 Lux takes the weirdo 43mm filter, needs a separate shade and focuses only to 1m; however the new one with E46, built-in hood and 0.7m close focus is more competitive feature-wise with the 50/2 and if I were buying today I might go for the Lux.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 08, 2002.

I recently purchased my first Leica M6, and having no lens to go out with my new camera I visited my local camera shop hoping to find a lens...to my good fortune he had a 50 Summilux from 1959. I was disappointed it wasn't the redesign from the mid-1960's, and almost didn't buy it, however it was so beautiful I bought it. It was just traded in by the original owner of the lens, who sold it back to this camera store to get a digital camera (the camera store has been selling Leica's since 1952 at the same location). Anyway, the lens came with the original Leica UVa filter, which has been covering the lens for the past 40 yrs, and the original XIOOM hood (which I found out later is very hard to find). So I layed down my $700. Being an older lens, I shined a flashlight thru the glass to check for yellowing or defects and it is perfectly clear, the focus is butterly smooth, as is the aperture control. The pictures are fabulous taken with the lens, however, I haven't done any "real" testing with chromes and a loupe, etc...and was wondering...I always hear experiences and lens tests, etc for all the other versions of the 50 Summilux, i.e. 60's, 70-90 and the newest one, but not the original 1959-62, does anybody know about the performance of this lens? I wonder how less of a performer it is compared to recent offerings??

-- Ed Hoey (ehoey@charter.net), January 08, 2002.

Ray

I bought a 50/1.4 chrome lens (second version, after SN 1844xxx) for about $ 350 from Don Chatterton about 10-12 years ago, with shade and E43 UVa filter. I use it for indoor photography and I think it is a wonderful lens. They are cheap now because of the down-turn of the Leica market. Leica has not announced any change in the optical formula of the 50/1.4 Summilux since the 1961 second version (which was apparently not even formally acknowledged by the factory until around 1965-66). However, some commentators (eg., Brian Bowers) believe they may have "tweaked" the design several times over the years (certainly, coatings may have improved).

I have never had any complaints about the 50/1.4 Summilux. By the time you get to f/4.0, this lens is a good match with the 50/2.0 Summicron. It is very resistant to flare and veiling glare, so I get good results indoors and outdoors with light sources in the picture. Even at f/1.4, the images are quite nice and crisp. The lens is said to have some curvature of field, but I wouldn't notice this in ordinary usage. It also has a little more barrel distortion at the edges of the field, particularly in the closer ranges, than the Summicron.

For me, the eralier Wetzlar lens without the built-in-hood is preferable to the newer version, even though, as noted by Jay, they have reduced the close focussing distance from 1.0 m to 0.7 m. In doing this, they also reduced the amount of rotation of the focussing ring required to go from infinity to close focus, with the older lens being more precise. And I prefer not to have the built-in lenshood. With the older lens, you can use the lens without the hood to minimize size. For what I do, the lenshood is usually not needed.

All in all, I think the Wetzlar 50/1.4 lens from 1973 is a good buy at that price, as long as the glass is clean. Hope this is helpful.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 08, 2002.

Ray: the next time I see a 1973 50mm Lux for that price, I'm going to buy it. So if you change your mand, let me know.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 08, 2002.

Thanks to everyone for your responses; you've satisfied my curiosity! The consensus seems to be that the 50 Summilux-M is a very respectable lens but that it doesn't attract much comment these days because it's been around, relatively unchanged, for so many years.

From an aesthetic point of view, I must say that my Wetzlar 50mm Sumilux-M is a handsome looking beast. The current M lenses that I've seen don't seem to have the same charm about them somehow. YMMV of course :-)

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 09, 2002.

so what is your general opinion: comparing the current 50lux with the 50cron at the same aperture, which one is better?

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), January 12, 2002.

You jumped at the chance and got a gem, luck fellow! I am not much of a 50mm lens user, and so, of course, I have an extensive 50mm lens collection. My Summilux (c. 1980, I guess) is no poor cousin to anyone. I also have a Summicron f2. I tend to tote the Summicron more because it is lighter and has a focusing tab, which the Summilux doesn't have, making it easier to use with a Rapidwinder. But there are times, believe it or not, that I've carried BOTH. (Yes I know that sounds crazy, but with two normal lens you are doubly normal I say.)

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), January 14, 2002.