Assuming it is in good condition, how does the older 50 f2 rigid chrome summicron compare opticaly with the later 50 f2 summicron?

thank you in advance.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), March 02, 2002

Answers

For a detailed comparison, in which it comes off second best, see Erwin Puts' essay here:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/scronhist.html

Personally I like the rendition of the rigid, and of its optical twin, the dual-range, much better than the technically "better" current version, but I'm old...................

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), March 02, 2002.

And for a view that doesn't toe the "newest is best" line: http://cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 02, 2002.

And here is an article where it comes out "best": http://www.lhsa.org/pd f/341newmusing.pdf This article also includes the Summicron that came between the rigid and the current design, Puts' article doesn't.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), March 02, 2002.

In Erwin Put's Newsletter 57 he shows the contrast percentages for the DR/Rigid vs. current 50 Summicron at resolutions of 10 l/mm to 100 l/mm. The Older one is as good or better than the newer one on axis but not nearly as good 15mm off axis. However, 15mm off axis is pretty far out and my experience over several decades with a Rigid Summicron makes me believe that in real world situations, the Rigid can hold it's own. Erwin states that the older lens suffers from flare and he doesn't mention at what aperture these reading were taken.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), March 02, 2002.

Many words have been shed on both sides comparing the 50/2 rigid Summicron chrome with the current 50/2 Summicron. You can read some of the argumentsin the LHSA Viewfinder which is online on the LHSA website. Erwin will tellyou all of the scientific reasons that the current lens is the best, while many long time Leica users swear by the 50/2 rigid chrome Summicron. I can tell you from experience that the rigid chrome lens is an outstanding lens, both in terms of its optics and its build quality.

The newer lens probably has a little more contrast at full aperture, but the older lens is a joy to behold. Its workmanship is clearly from another era, one in which craftsmanship and elegance was valued more than it is today. The only downside I can think of for the 50/2 rigid chrome is that finding one with good glass can be a challenge. These older chrome lenses often show internal fogging, and cleaning marks on the front and rear elements are common.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 03, 2002.