How good is the original design of the 50 Summilux lens? I've read the history of the lens, and know that they redesigned it after only 2 yrs and why...and made the 1.4 and 2.0 better performing at the expense of medium aperture detail, etc...but what is never mentioned is how good is the lens overall? Also, since it is from the 1950's, does this particular lens glass prone to the yellowing of the earlier 1950's leica lenses? 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

Answers

I have a simple lens testing technique. I take photographs and, if I am happy, I keep the lens. Reading what other people think of a lens that you already have is a bit pointless what with sample variation, technique differences and other such whatnot.

I had a 21/3.4 lens, the one everyone raves about, but it did not do the job for me. Am I fussy, no, but I tend to shot wide open and the 21/3.4 flares at f3.4 so you only can really use it a f4. The 21/2.8A works much better for me.

So are you happy with the lens? Then it is a keeper regardless if someone else does not care for theirs.

Erwin's book on Leica lenses is better than any sleeping pill yet devised and I do not think I have manged to get more than two or three pages of the lens design section in before gently falling asleep.

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

I like John's methodology. As much as I'm more than willing to share my *opinions* of lenses I've used or owned, it always rattles me to hear anyone proclaim definitively that one lens is better than another, implying (strongly, in the case of a certain author)that anyone who disagrees simply has low standards. IMO, in photography, science and technology are the means to the art-form, *not* the other way around.

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

Ed,

"The pictures are fabulous with the lens." What else matters? Who cares how the lens compares to newer lenses or what other people think? If you are happy, that is all that matters. Congratulations on your find! At the risk of angering some fellow forum members, I think too much time is spent studying camera and lens specs and too little time spent studying photographic techniques.

Last year I bought an R8 and a 50 Summilux-R. I was apprehensive about the lens because of the rather poor test report by Popular Photography. But the pictures were terrific. My response was "WOW! If this is a mediocre lens, then I want more of them!". If someone else prefers another version or model, that's fine, but don't rain on my parade. OR in this case don't rain on your parade! LB

-- Luther Berry (lberrytx@aol.com), January 08, 2002.

I'm with John and Jay here, so often reports say this or that and frequently I am disapointed when I try the lens myself. However, I feel it's fair so say any Leica, Canon or Nikon prime from recent times or the higher end zooms (ignoring the "plastic" element cheapo's) will satisfy most 35mm user.

As is so often said, take a look at any of the classics shots from the past century and ask yourself the question - what is more important, the design/quality/clarity etc of the glass OR what that photographer actually captured with his eyes and observation?

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 08, 2002.

When that first 50mm Summilux was designed, the lens of choice was the Nikkor 50mm f:1.4, essentially copied from the Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f:1.5. I had both lenses (still own the Nikkor), and can tell you that the Summilux was at least as good in sharpness and contrast as the Nikkor at all apertures, at the center and particularly at the edges of the negative. It also had better "Bokeh" but we didn't call it that. I was never quite sure why they redesigned it.

-- (bmitch@home.com), January 08, 2002.

While I agree with the point that John, Jay and Giles make and support, I also think your question (and others like it) is relevant.

You asked: >does anybody know about the performance of this lens? I wonder how less of a performer it is compared to recent offerings??<

Unfortunately, it appears nobody has actually tested the version you own relative to the more recent offerings. So, you can either be content with your remark: >it is perfectly clear, the focus is butterly smooth, as is the aperture control. The pictures are fabulous taken with the lens< Or alternatively you could satisfy your own curiousity: >however, I haven't done any "real" testing with chromes and a loupe, etc...and was wondering...< by testing it yourself, and sharing the results.

;-) Cheers,

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

Ed: Now that I've read your review, I finally know something worth knowing about this lens. If I see one at a nice price, I'll buy it.

Thanks for the review, Ed!

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

The first version of the 50/1.4 Summilux was only made from 1959- 1961, so there are far fewer V1 than V2 lenses around, explaining the lack of experience with this model. Its optical layout is very similar to the 50/1.5 Summarit, which it replaced; while the optical layout of the V2 Summilux is significantly different. FWIW, performance is said to be intermediate between that of the Summarit and the V2 Summilux.

I have experience with the Summarit and V2 Slux. The latter is a really excell;ent lens. I was not terribly impressed with the Summarit (though it was probably OK for its day). I can't complain too much, because the Summarit is readily available and not terribly expensive.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 11, 2002.

Thanks everyone for all the great info in reply to my question, it's been very helpful...

-- Ed Hoey (ehoey@charter.net), January 11, 2002.