After much research (and help from you guys on the BB) on the alternatives from Konica (possible flare problems) and Voigtlander (a bit big and possibly flare prone?) I have decided to do the proper thing and go for the Leica 50 F2. There seem to be quite a few versions out there - tabs, no tabs , lenshood etc. I have used a 35 F2 with the focusing tab and it was very nice - its the way you can hold and brace the camera which feels very 'right'. What's the best of the modern ones?

-- John Griffin (John.griffin@millerhare.com), February 27, 2002

Answers

This is totally subjective, but I love my next to last version Summicron, which is optically identical to the last version but ergonomically better (to me). I do like tabs, and I believe the external hood offers more physical protection than the collapsible hood. I do also have a non-tabbed Summicron from 1969, so I can compare the operation of both types, and again, for me the tab make a noticeable difference in speed of use.

Since you already stated that you like the tab on your 35mm lens, you have sort of answered your own question.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 27, 2002.

Ive got the latest version being the one that has a built in lens hood and no focussing tab. Although image wise its excellent, I would prefer if there was a tab, plus detachable hood, which I believe the version previous to the current version has. (plus there are meant to be identical glass computation wise.

The 2.8 elmar is also worth considering if you want a compact camera. (the m6 with 50F2 is a bit bulky)

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), February 27, 2002.

John,

sorry, I seem to be the only defender of the Konica lens here (mostly due to the price; if I needn't care about money I'd upgrade at once). I don't know where you got the information regarding that lens and flare, I have quite the opposite experience:
My Konica shows sicnificantly less flare than my 2.8/35 Summaron or 90 Elmar-C (both with hood) as well as my LTM-lenses (coated 35 and 50 Elmars) - and also less than my Contax SLR lenses (35/2.8, 50/1.7, 85/2.8), which are known to be very flare resistant.
Nonetheless going for a Leica lens instead is never a mistake. I handled some think that the last one with tab would be my choice. I'd avoid the older lenses (except maybe the DR), they are not that much cheaper and Leica has made some noticable improvements since the first ones.

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), February 27, 2002.

John, I have exactly the same feeling as Al does. I originally bought the current 2/50, then sold it and bought a used penultimate -- but last version thereof -- 2/50 (just like Al's) and need/want only it as a 2/50. My 2/35A and 21A also have these tabs (concave), and although there are many of us out there who unnecessitate/dislike/hate tabs of any sort, I need them, I love them. If you like them, just get them if you can!

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 27, 2002.

Penultimate 50. Tab. Period[.]

-- Cosmo Genovese (cosmo@rome.com), February 27, 2002.

I have a black 50mm cron with tab and lens hood black, made in germany clean, boxed which I never used. I just got a chrome one, so I can't justify having both. If interested email me direct.

-- John Abela (jamriman@yahoo.com), February 27, 2002.

Seconded.

Penultimate 50. Tab. Period[.]

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 27, 2002.

I have a ridgid summicron from the 1960s. It looks the best, and has the best hood. The tab I find to be only of marginal use. BTW, on the ridgid you can unscrew the infinity lock if you dont like it. The tab for me makes more sense on a 35 or wider lens. I would use my ridgid more except that it flares when shooting into point light sources. I guess I am spoiled by my noctilux... I guess I will get a newer, more flare resistant 50 at some point...

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), February 28, 2002.

John,

If you want to go modern, the tabbed 50 is the best. I went through the exercise that you're currently in a couple of years ago and came to that conclusion. Couldn't find one in chrome though so on kind of a flier I e-mailed Roger Horn at Leica NJ and lo and behold they had the last of their NOS on the back shelves. He mailed it to my dealer. Therefore I'm not to quick to knock the NJ people.

Believe me, however bad they are now, they are factors of ten better than back in the old Park Avenue days.

What I didn't see mentioned above was the old 50mm DR Summicron. A wonderful lens that has held its value quite well thank you, for almost 45 years. If you can find one complete with eyes, snap it up. Try to examine it first though. Look for fungus and cleaning marks especially. They've been around a long time.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), February 28, 2002.

What differences, if any, has anyone noticed in flare susceptibility between the 1969-79 Summicron 50, vs. the version that came after it? Any comments comparing flare characteristics of any of the other 50 Summicron formulas?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 28, 2002.

Bob,

I have both of these lenses. I had the latest computation, a 1985 model for a while, and then bought an M4 which came with a pristine 1969 version. I was interested in the performance difference, so I burned a lot of film.

I took many photos of many subjects, still lifes, portraits and extreme lighting scenarios. I always had the lens not being used in the photo, so when I laid out my slides, I could instantly determine which lens was on the camera.

My results for real world, 3 dimensional subjects, was that both lenses performed so similarly that I could put either version on my camera without prejudice as far as optics were concerned, (my operational preference for the tab not withstanding). I did a lot of same subject shots, so when I was able to induce flare in one lens, it was also in the other. In normal front light, the performance at f/2.0 was so close between both lenses that you couldn't pick a "best" image.

All of this was done years before I ever heard of the internet, so I didn't have any prejudice based on reports from many of the sources we have today, (maybe that is a good thing). If there was more strict testing with graphs and other standard procedures, maybe one lens would be rated "better" than the other, but in the real world, I couldn't see anything that would cause me to reject the 1969 lens.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 28, 2002.

I have owned the DR 50, collapsible 50 Summicron, tabbed 50, and the current lens. They are all excellent lenses, although the collapsible one was much lower in contrast than the others. I find I get the best, most consistant results with the current lens, especially at the wide apertures. This could be because the focusing is more precise with the rubber ring as opposed to the tab-which is faster but not as precise. I liked the compact size of the tabbed lens better, but after shooting several rolls with it and the current 50 and comparing the results, I sold the tabbed version. I have to wonder if all the tab advocates above have ever shot with the current lens for comparison.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 01, 2002.

Well, Andrew, I had the current 2/50 which I bought with the new TTL and used it for a half a year before getting the LP (last penultimate). No, I certainly never burned up so much film as you or Al did, and was never interested in comparing their optical qualities anyhow. Just liked the LP because of the tab. And because of its better hood. (Oops, sorry, that too is somewhat sunjective.)

BTW one thing I do not like about tab haters is that they always say the tabless version is worse re focusability. I myself find the tabby version faster, but I don't need that speed. If I focus by tab as slow as I do with a tabless, my shots are just as sharp (I think).

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), March 01, 2002.