The Leica 50mm Summicron-M f/2.0 II Rigid on the Leica M Monochrom, and with the original lens cap.
#50mm summicron collapsible vs rigid series
The 50mm Summicron-M f/2.0 Rigid was produced from 1956 to 1968 as Series II of the model series (Model no SOSIC). Leica 50mm Summicron-M f/2.0 DR (Dual Range)īy: Thorsten Overgaard. Can't wait.Leica 50mm Summicron-M f/2.0 Rigid (Series II) I'm working on trading in some of my Nikon AFS lenses for a Noctilux. I use my collapsible the least and then split between the DR and the Summilux. I like it a lot for subjects where I want to bring out detail like old buildings and wood grain. That lens has surgical resolution and beats the current Cron at every stop. The current Cron is a wonderful lens and sharp everywhere. From about f5.6 and above I can't tell the difference between the DR and the latest. It is sharp at every stop and mine seems to be sharper at f2 then my current Cron. The DR Cron with eyes is a wonderful lens and my favorite. Above f4 it has very good sharpness but a little less contrast than it's younger siblings. It has low resolution and contrast wide open, very pleasant for some subjects like portraits. The collapsible 50 Cron is sort of dreamy at it's wider stops. I have four 50's and would not give up any of them. Leica's 50's are wonderful with different characteristics and personalities. hope I got around to what you were looking for. I've shot the newer ones, and for my work there is nothing to be gained by 'trading up'. They each have something to offer, the best balance being the Summicron. I've picked a palette of M lenses running from a 1936 Summar, to a 1945 Sonnar, to a mid '50s Summicron.
#50mm summicron collapsible vs rigid pro
My own reference for this, besides being a pro Leica shooter for 35 years, is a background in photojournalism ( "Leica & loincloth", available darkness stuff ) and, surprisingly, photomicroscopy, the other end of the technical spectrum. When you get a second lens, you might go to a 35/1.4 Summilux ( new version ) or a 35/2 Zeiss that will have shockingly different character than the Summicron. It is a splendid lens, with a wonderful style, and with Tri X, or FP4 (!) you'll make wonderful, satisfying pictures forever. That said, unless you were setting out to make a book of urban nighscapes, I wouldn't expect ou would ever lose a picture with your Summicron that a new one would get, or that you would need ever think about switching lenses. say, an urban nightscape, you'd see a visible difference between the first and recent Summicrons. If you were to bolt the camera to a solid tripod, like a #5 Gitzo or a Foba ( please, nothing that says Manfrotto, please ) and use a cable release and some TMX developed in FX39 or some acutance developer, and printed the image in a Focomat, and in turn photographed a brick building in flat lighting, or shot in high contrast light. You know what a handsome world the lens sees. Leica lenses have always made the most of the virtues and always hidden the flaws artfully. The art of the lensmaker at the time your lens was made was in balancing the performance of the lens to have pleasant characteristics across the field, and at all apertures. Since pictures, made on film, in real conditions, are determined by acutance and seldom by resolution, that's what we need to talk about. Resolution usually means the ability to discern fine detail at any contrast. I'll assume you mean 'acutance', or the ability to RENDER important detail, which is a product of both image contrast and resolution. I know that's obvious, but we are interested in making pictures, not doing lab tests.įirst, there is much more than sharpness involved. That said, the only way you can perceive the differences is if you make pictures in conditions in which they are perceptable. Click to expand.The first generation Summicron is surpassed a little bit by the DR / Rigid Summicron, and they in turn by the 1969 version, they in turn by the current one (1979).