summicron. dual range vs. newest

shaaktiman · 01-19-2006

I have the newest version of the 50 summicron and love it. My favorite lens hands down. (also my only leica lens.) There's something about the older chrome that I love though, just visually. I've been thinking of getting a DR and then selling the 50 I like less of the 2.

Before I jump in, does anyone have any advice or comments on the differences between the 2 versions? (The ability to focus closer sounds nice to me too I have to say.) Anyone out there have a DR? Like it?

waileong · 01-19-2006

The close focus is by 20 cm (50 cm for DR vs 70 cm for current)-- ok but not enough to do macros. And I do find that the face gets distorted a bit when I use it at 50 cm-- kind of a wide angle effect. You also lose half-a-stop when you do close focus, so remember to compensate.

A lot of people prefer the removable hood used by the earlier versions, incl. the DR. However, that's an additional cost to consider for this lens.

In terms of resolution, contrast, etc. you can check the websites/MTF graphs. No doubt the latest is sharper, but also more "harsh". Colour rendition, bokeh etc. are personal preferences, only you can decide which you prefer. The head of the DR lens unscrews so you can use it for Visoflex.

Yes, I like my DR a lot, although I find that my 35/1.4 ASPH gets more use simply because it's wider-- I can take pix of my children when they sit across my seat in the bus.

rover · 01-20-2006

The DR is a wonderful lens, very heavy because it is built like a tank. Optically it produces wonderful images, creamy with lots of glow. I will offer two criticisms.

First, ergonomically it is not the best to use. The focusing ring is very beefy and the aperture ring is very small and built very close to the focusing ring. I have trouble getting a positive grip on the aperture ring. This is more of an issue if you are using a metered body when you are more prone to adjust the aperture and correct exposure at eye level.

The Rigid Summicron has the same optical formula as the DR, is also excellently made and mine produces images every bit the same as my DR. It is a much more handsome lens (in my opinion) and easier to use.

The other criticism is that the close focus ability is really not that practical. To do so you must stop, shift the focusing ring into the close mode, attach the goggles then shoot. If your subject is not a stationary object, it will be gone by time you are ready to shoot. The Nikkor lenses, 50/2 and 50/1.4 have a much more practical close focus solution. There is a "bump" in the focusing ring as you turn past the normal close focus limit. You simply continue turning past that bump. Note that any range closer than the normal 1m is uncoupled so you have to guesstimate your focus, but it is faster to do this than fumbling with the DR's goggles.

regit · 01-20-2006

OT question for Rover, wouldn't the rigid summicron be closer to the collapsible than the DR? I have the lens data for collapsible and DR, while they have the same elements/groups, they produce different MTFs, etc. I don't have the data for the rigid and hence the question.

MCTuomey · 01-20-2006

I have the DR, a user w/o goggles. There are some examples in my gallery. I like the lens generally for the usual 'cron reasons, but it is not gentle to less youthful faces, so much so I bought a Summarit. Which my spouse prefers ... and I'm beginning to like, too.

I find the lower contrast and softness of the Summarit wide open to be "creamy," and in certain lighting it seems to have that glow-y quality. Not so the DR, which to me has more modern contrast and sharpness.

But I have no experience with the newer/est Summicrons, so maybe my response is mostly OT.

rover · 01-20-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by regit

OT question for Rover, wouldn't the rigid summicron be closer to the collapsible than the DR? I have the lens data for collapsible and DR, while they have the same elements/groups, they produce different MTFs, etc. I don't have the data for the rigid and hence the question.

The rigid is significantly sharper and more contrasty than the collapsible, which is also good, but just has a different look. It is not like a modern Summicron, I also have the tabbed Summi, which is even sharper.

I find the DR and Rigid very pleasing. The Rigid is just ergonomically better for me.

regit · 01-20-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by rover

The rigid is significantly sharper and more contrasty than the collapsible, which is also good, but just has a different look. It is not like a modern Summicron, I also have the tabbed Summi, which is even sharper.

I find the DR and Rigid very pleasing. The Rigid is just ergonomically better for me.

Thanks Rover. I'm actually quite interested in the "look" of the rigid. I had a Japanese magazine that shows a side-by-side comparision between a current cron and a rigid... for whatever reasons, the rigid has more "sparkle" to the pictures. I was hoping the rigid is closer to the collaps as I like the idea of a small package.

FWIW, I had the Lux ASPH and I'm not really fond of it and I'm mainly using a sonnar these days... if only there's a side-by-side for the sonnar and rigid...

Ronald M · 01-20-2006

The DR and Rigid are the very same optics. Those optical cells which matched the design intent of about 52mm were placed into the DR mounts. As is the was the practice at the time, different focus mounts were made for lens cells that deviated from perfect, they may be 50mm or 50.5 or someplace else within the manufacturing tolerence. Actual tested focal lengths are engraved at the end of the distance scale with the beginning digits truncated. A DR will show it to 1.9 or 1.90 meaning the actual is 51.9. I might be wrong on this actual number as mine is not in front of me.

In theory any cell could have been placed into a DR mount, but then they would have had to made DR mounts for various focal length cells.

The DR is not a premium 50 f 2.0. Simply the focal length came out to match the mounts made for the DR. The coll is a totall different formunla and is a lower contrast lens designed for maximim resolution. A view of the front element from a side by side comparison will show the DR/rigid an much flatter front and the coll more steeply curved.

You will note that all lens with heads that can be removed from the mounts, have the last digits of the serial numbers etched into a black ring inside the focus mount. Always check to see they match for DR, rigids, 90`s except tele-elmarits, and all 135`s. A non matching mount has potential for out of focus pictures.

Ronald M · 01-20-2006

The DR and Rigid are the very same optics. Those optical cells which matched the design intent of about 52mm were placed into the DR mounts. As is the was the practice at the time, different focus mounts were made for lens cells that deviated from perfect, they may be 50mm or 50.5 or someplace else within the manufacturing tolerence. Actual tested focal lengths are engraved at the end of the distance scale with the beginning digits truncated. A DR will show it to 1.9 or 1.90 meaning the actual is 51.9. I might be wrong on this actual number as mine is not in front of me.

In theory any cell could have been placed into a DR mount, but then they would have had to made DR mounts for various focal length cells.

The DR is not a premium 50 f 2.0. Simply the focal length came out to match the mounts made for the DR. The coll is a totall different formunla and is a lower contrast lens designed for maximim resolution. A view of the front element from a side by side comparison will show the DR/rigid an much flatter front and the coll more steeply curved.

You will note that all lens with heads that can be removed from the mounts, have the last digits of the serial numbers etched into a black ring inside the focus mount. Always check to see they match for DR, rigids, 90`s except tele-elmarits, and all 135`s. A non matching mount has potential for out of focus pictures.

Ben Z · 01-20-2006

If you like the performance of the current version and the esthetics of the DR/Rigid, you might want to keep your eye out for the 50 Jahre Summicron, which is the current optics in a reproduction of the old chrome style mount. There were 1000 of them made, originally sold for $1300 (back when a regular one was <$1000 new) so people seem to be hoping theirs will fetch a premium. I saw one in LN- on KEH for $1040 maybe a month back, which isn't bad considering how much the plain-jane Cron's price has been jacked up to recently. You could sell yours and have the best of both worlds for probably the net cost of a DR or rigid, which (I have one) is a relly sharp lens but tends to flare, and you really would want to keep a filter on it all the time because the front coatings are very easy to scratch when cleaning.

Biggles · 01-20-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by rover

...The Nikkor lenses, 50/2 and 50/1.4 have a much more practical close focus solution. There is a "bump" in the focusing ring as you turn past the normal close focus limit. You simply continue turning past that bump...

You mean... they go to eleven?

Neat! Now I gotta see one of these in person!

regit · 01-21-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by regit

Thanks Rover. I'm actually quite interested in the "look" of the rigid. I had a Japanese magazine that shows a side-by-side comparision between a current cron and a rigid... for whatever reasons, the rigid has more "sparkle" to the pictures. I was hoping the rigid is closer to the collaps as I like the idea of a small package.

FWIW, I had the Lux ASPH and I'm not really fond of it and I'm mainly using a sonnar these days... if only there's a side-by-side for the sonnar and rigid...

For those interested in the comparision that I'm referring, here's a scan of a couple of shots: Top and left bottom, current 'cron. The rest from 1st generation.

kajabbi · 01-23-2006

I have both thev Drs and the newest formula. There is no question that at F2 the new version has higher contrast. After ssending my Drs to Sherry for a good bath and any necessary adjustments, they came back as sharp as the newer version from 2.8 on. Even at F2 it takes a print of 16X20 or larger to notice any difference. The contrast differencial can easily be corrected in the darkroom or Photoshop.
I am so happy with thev Drs that the newest version has been retired to a bureau drawer.