Much has been discussed on this forum and others about the various 35mm Summilux and Summicron lenses. A common sentiment is that the pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron is the 'King of Bokeh', and that it tends to produce more 'classic'-looking results than the current generation ASPH 35mm Summicron or Summilux.

If I may, let me turn the discussion to 50mm lenses, and more specifically the various generations of Summicron. I exclude the 50mm Summilux, Noctilux and Elmar because there have been fewer versions to choose between.

Is there such a thing as a 'classic' 50mm Summicron, one which has unique characteristics and is regarded similarly to the pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron? I have read older threads here, and the articles on the LHSA website, but the jury is still out. In particular, discussions about the DR Summicron are contentious. It has its fans and its detractors. Some would hype it as 'legendary', but others have sold it quickly, being displeased with its bokeh.

Let me phrase my question slightly differently: Do any contributors own multiple versions of the 50mm Summicron? For B&W photography, which version do you most commonly use, and why?

-- Stuart Dorman (stuart.dorman@us.pwcglobal.com), April 25, 2002

Answers

I own a collapsible in LTM, a 11817 (from 1969) and a current 11819 (with built-in hood). The collapsible is basically a display piece now, gets occasional use on my LTM bodies but at one time it was my main 50, with an M adaptor. The 11817 I used from the time I got my M4 up until about 3 years ago when I purchased the 11819. I had never considered that lens initially because of the finger tab it had until the mount was redesigned, as I don't like tabs. But when they redesigned it without a tab and with a built-in shade I bought one. Optically I can tell not difference whatsoever from the 11817, even wide open. But not having to bother with the separate hood is very nice, although the newer lens is thicker and heavier than the older one. There are some people to debate constantly that the original chrome rigid and the DR are the best 50/2's of all, but I didn't get one back when they were new and in recent years I haven't come across a single copy that didn't have a loused-up front element coating...plus, theres not only a dumb focusing tab I hate but an infernal infinity lock as well. The latest 50/2 has great optical qualities and the best (to me) ergonomics of them all.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 25, 2002.

Any chrome film gets shot with the 50 DR. Color neg and B&W, the latest formulation Summicron 50 with tab. Same story on other focal lengths too; chrome on older lenses, all else the newer ones. Works best for my eye and rarely vary from this regimine.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 25, 2002.

My personal taste, the DR Summicron is very nice in terms of detail sharpness (resolution) but the tonality is rather spiffy in its approach and I personally prefer the look of the recent version of the Summi.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

I have used every vintage of 50mm Summicron for the M camera, and have settled on the last optical version, but in its previous incarnation (tabbed and separate hood), as my everyday model. I use it for both B&W and color with great results in both mediums.

My older models, while good, suffered from coating deficiencies, and low contrast. I know that there are sample variations, and that some older lenses can be great, but I reduced my search time by getting this latest computation, and enjoy the clarity.

Below are two color examples, (sorry no B&W scans), showing the look at f/2.0. The first image was from a test of the lens' bokeh at full aperture with subjects at various distances in the frame. It might look as if there is a 'hot spot" in the center of the tree, but that is just the way the sun was setting... I had to wait until it was low to shoot at f/2.0. The second shot is just a wide-open window light portrait. I think the image is as good as any from any 50mm lens of any generation or brand that I have made... it is just made with a fairly new optical formula. The background blur still says "Leica look" to me. BTW... this was taken hand-held at 1/15th of a second.

bokeh test @ f/2.0 , Portrait @ f/2.0

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 25, 2002.

Their is an interesting article by Seth Rosner,in Vol 34, No 1, 2001, issue of LHSA's online Viewfinder, available as a PDF download. Mr. Rosner implies that the 50mm rigid DR is the all time Summicron champ. He may very well be right, although I think he and Mr. Puts have argued extensively about it. Other issues investigate the Summicron quite thoughly.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

Thanks to all for responses so far.

Jay - your comment about finding a Rigid or DR in really good condition rings true. My M2 is 40 years old and still works like a charm but it does look its age. I have to imagine the percentage of lenses from the same era which are still optically excellent is lower than the percentage of bodies which are mechanically excellent. Somehow that sentence grew out of all proportion, but I think you get my point.

Jerry - your answer surprised me the most; I would have expected the older lenses to give better results with B&W, not colour slides. Out of interest, what type of chromes do you use? And can you elaborate on why your chosen combination works best for you?

Alfie - could you define 'spiffy'? I have heard it used in positive connotations, but your usage seems to indicate the exact opposite.

Al - you must have steadier hands than I to get such sharp results @ 1/15 handheld! Note to self: cut down on caffeine.

Glenn - it was precisely the series of PDFs on LHSA debating the 'best' 50mm Summicron which caused me to pose the question. Erwin's analysis is informative, but I think focuses too much on the mathematics and MTF graphs. Seth's analysis is more from the heart, and therefore could be considered more subjective. Things got a little heated and the personal barbs got in the way of the end result.

I own the current version of the 50mm Summicron-M, and so far it sounds like I have a keeper. I don't intend trading it, or going for a faster 50mm lens. However, the thought did cross my mind that supplementing it with a DR might not be a bad idea. Having bought into Leica for the 35mm lenses, I find I use the 50mm lens more. But I would only buy a second 50 if the characteristics were significantly different. I'm still curious to hear what other forum members' experiences have been.

Cheers!

-- Stuart Dorman (stuart.dorman@us.pwcglobal.com), April 25, 2002.

Jay, your answer implies that the 11817=11819 optically. I am aware that Leica got rid of the tab :-( and built in a hood a few years ago. But does the 11817/11819 optical formula date all the way back to 1969? I thought it was more recent than that...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 25, 2002.

I have used 4 versions of the 50 Summcron, the collapsing, DR, tabbed, and current version. I get the sharpest images wide open with the current version. All of the lenses did well stopped down a bit, the collapsing one had lower contrast and was very nice for portraits. The tabbed lens is said to be identical to the current lens, but I get sharper f2.0 images with the current one, probably because the focus is more precise on it (longer throw). I didn't really notice a "major "bokeh" differnece with any of the lenses, they all have decent out of focus highlights for the most part.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 25, 2002.

Stuart,

I don't know if that's a difficult or easy question to answer, but I fear as I start to put it down in words, it may prove lengthy.

First of all, I think to my eye and that of the "test chart folk", the characteristics of both Leitz/Leica lenses and emulsions have changed somewhat in the 40+ years of my shooting. Overall I think its safe to generalize that lens wise at least, the new era Leica lenses are both sharper and more contrasty than those of 40 years ago.

My "old" Leitz lenses are 50mm DR, 35mm 8-element Summicron, 90mm Elmarit, 135mm Elmar, 200mm Telyt, and finally 65mm 1st version. I have shot Kodachrome almost exclusively those past 4+ decades, since it was ASA 10, and still do with the current ISO 25 (when I can find it) and 64. There were occasional side trips to Agfachrome and Ektachome-X long ago when I needed the additional speed, and Velvia today when I want unreal color saturation. (Incidently, I just happened to stumble upon 2 fresh bricks of 36 exp. Kodachrome 25 at my dealers last week as it was being stocked to the shelves. I bought them on the spot and they're in the freezer now. I can relax for awhile.) All these lenses BTW are vintage 1959 through 1962.

Most would concur that there isn't much out there sharper than old Kodachrome and the contrast is no slouch either. Those "old" lenses, with this "old" emulsion, seem to complement one another to my eye. Wonderful tonality and rich color, combined with longevity. I suspect, at least on Leitz's part, they made the lenses of that era to bring out the best of those emulsions.

And I believe they have continued to make their lenses with an eye to maximizing the capabilities of todays emulsions. I shoot very little B&W (3-5%?), and when I do it's either Plus-X, Tri-X, or Delta 400. The color neg film is either Kodacolor Royal Gold or Fuji. Besides being almost 2 stops faster at 32 vs. 100, the color neg film of today is much sharper than it was 40 years ago, and with the C-41 process of today vs. the C-4 of old (not to mention the capabilities of processors themselves) the results almost demand that one use the lenses of todays production to bring that out.

So, with color neg film and B&W, the current tabbed 50 mm Summicron, 90mm Elmarit-M, 35mm Summicron ASPH, and 24mm Elmarit-M ASPH get the business. Occasionally I'll stray, especially if I need the reach of the 135 or 200 in negative, or the width of the 24 in chrome, but not often.

Ultimately though any image is in the eye of the beholder, whether its well crafted technically with all that implies, or simply subjectively pleasing. Then again I may just be too old to change my ways.

Probably should have started and finished by just answering because I like the way the results look.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 25, 2002.

Mani, the 11817 is not the same optical design as the 11819. The 11817 has 6 elements in 5 groups, and the 11819 (and the current 11826) has 6 elements in 4 groups.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), April 25, 2002.

Ken,

Thank you for the clarification. But then, Jay's 11819 would not have built in hood surely, since that was built in to the 11826 which superseded (mechanically) the optically identical 11819 which had the removable hood?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 25, 2002.

Just shooting off without checking here, but isn't there an '18 between the '17 and '19? Wasn't the '18 the later 7-element, lens, and the one with the tab? I've read that the '17 is somehow inferior, but I sure like mine just fine.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 26, 2002.

I've got a Rigid Summicron that I've had almost since it came out of Wetzlar in 1966. It's perfect and I simply cannot force myself to swap it for a new one. I've handled the newer ones but they always seemed to be more cheaply made than other Leica focal lengths (maybe because the are).

The Rigid isn't all that great wide open but it's center performance probably matches any of the later versions stopped down. In any case, my wife used the Rigid on an M3 during my Nikon years and every time we'd return from a trip and put the Kodachrome slides into a Prodovit tray, the Rigid blew away my AI-S Nikkors. I cured that problem by taking back the M3 and buying an SL/2:-) I eventually atoned for my crime by buying her a Minilux.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), April 26, 2002.