Having read that, I don't really get why people are willing so much for the E55 version if the only optical difference is in the coatings. I see the v2 being sold for 200-300 euros and the E55 going for 2-3 times that.
Having read that, I don't really get why people are willing so much for the E55 version if the only optical difference is in the coatings. I see the v2 being sold for 200-300 euros and the E55 going for 2-3 times that.
To clarify, the Cron 50/2 V2 is the E55 version (11215 - 11216 - 11345 - 11217)
The Cron 50/2 V1 is not E55 but Series 6 (11218 - 11228)
As for the flicker discussion, obviously someone is paraphrasing E.Puts who wrote:
The current Summicron-R is almost identical in optical construction with its counterpart in the M-system. It is one of the two or three best standard lenses in the world. The predecessor from 1964 was balanced for high contrast at wide openings. The disadvantage of the design was a slight shift of focus when stopping down, that resulted in the best sharpness zone shifting from center to a zone outside of the center. The current version is a bit less contrasty at full aperture, but performs better when stopping down, and its image quality is more evenly distributed over the whole image area. Stopped down to f/4 the lens already delivers its best performance. Over an image area with a diameter of 24mm excellent quality can be seen. Brilliance, edge sharpness and resolution smoothly work together to create images with crisp rendition and almost a 3-dimensional effect. Most objects are 3-dimensional and should, when projected onto a flat plane (paper or screen), keep these properties. Image quality falls off towards the corners, i.e. if the image quality across the whole negative area is really crucial, one should consider the Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8.
I have not used the first version but the second version E55 (mine is Canadian from the late 70's) is by far my favorite 50mm lens for both B&W and color. It's really somewhat of a chameleon depending upon what aperture it's shot at. Wide open, it's sharp but definitely has the "Leica glow" in the center (sort of like a softar filter effect, sharp but soft) and lower contrast. By F4, it's completely different - amazingly sharp and contrasty (Puts got that right I think) with extremely subtle tonal gradations and hue differentiation with color. The contrast rendering of this lens is unusual as compared to most lenses I have used as it seems to somehow render amazing shadow detail while still providing a very contrasty image. It's almost if the dynamic range is increased.
I have to start using mine more... I got the new
old stock from Italy, it's great on NEX as it's
very small for an R lens.
It has great colors wide open, but the bokeh
is not the smoothest. As I shoot with my
Macro R 60 a lot, I'd like to use the 50 wide open
and I don't think it's at the level of 28 Cron
or 28 R ver2...
Almass wrote:
To clarify, the Cron 50/2 V2 is the E55 version (11215 - 11216 - 11345 - 11217)
The Cron 50/2 V1 is not E55 but Series 6 (11218 - 11228)
The V2 doesn't have the text "E55" on the id ring (front of the lens), does it? I thought that the third incarnation is the same optically as the V2 but has a different barrel and does say E55 on the id ring. If this is true, the V2 may have a 55mm filter thread, but can be distinguished from the V3 which I called E55.
Edit: Maybe I'm imagining things, but I thought I read the above somewhere. It seems that only the 33xxxxx serial lenses have the E55 designation, even though the earlier V2 ones do have a 55mm filter thread?
Isn't it easier to just identify them a detachable hood (vI), built in hood Canadian (vII) built in hood German (vIII)?
Strictly for B&W, I'd go with the vI because it's cheaper, it is a hair sharper central frame and the lens' biggest problems (CA in the out of focus areas, flatter colors) becomes a non-issue. For a B&W that will sometimes also be used for color shots, I'd go with either of the other two.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I have not used the first version but the second version E55 (mine is Canadian from the late 70's) is by far my favorite 50mm lens for both B&W and color. It's really somewhat of a chameleon depending upon what aperture it's shot at. Wide open, it's sharp but definitely has the "Leica glow" in the center (sort of like a softar filter effect, sharp but soft) and lower contrast. By F4, it's completely different - amazingly sharp and contrasty (Puts got that right I think) with extremely subtle tonal gradations and hue differentiation with color. The contrast rendering of this lens is unusual as compared to most lenses I have used as it seems to somehow render amazing shadow detail while still providing a very contrasty image. It's almost if the dynamic range is increased. ...Show more →
i found my e55 to be sharp wide open and not much different at any other aperature. my curiousity got the best of me and I got an e55 50'lux and wide open it it blew me away regarding the difference in terms of Leica glow, yet still sharp & contrasty.
JimUe wrote:
i found my e55 to be sharp wide open and not much different at any other aperature. my curiousity got the best of me and I got an e55 50'lux and wide open it it blew me away regarding the difference in terms of Leica glow, yet still sharp & contrasty.
It could be the two I have owned render differently than the later E55 designated ones as they were VII with built in hoods, late 70's Canadian but did not have E55 written on them like the last version. These two both performed exactly the same and rendered noticeably different wide open versus at F4+.
I prefer the version I for B&W. It also has better bokeh than version II. However, for color version II is better. It has the same color rendition as Elmarit 28mm, version II and Elmarit 90mm, version II. I have a Canadian one that has 55mm filter diameter, but doesn't say E55 on the frontal ring.
I have no idea what the designations like '11 217' or '11 345' mean.
Mine is a 'demo' s/n 3818xxx, has E55 on the front, and 'made in Germany' inscribed discreetly on the barrel - it's from 1998, if the info at these links is to be believed.
I agree with Tariq on the dual purpose effect, I found this out by accident one day - I had bought it for the central colour/contrast and for low light in monasteries (the glow effect), but it does a fine job of scenics also (f4-f5.6), if more 'pictorial' than Zeiss lenses.
For colour it's seductive and leaves just nothing to complain about, I even like its slightly rough bokeh. It has a permanent place in my o/s bag, and weighs around 360g with Leitax mount, front cap and filter. It should be truly excellent on a NEX as it's quite compact.
Regarding the bokeh of the E55: for a 50mm wide open it actually looks quite good to me. These samples caught my attention: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/895186/74#10535128 I think that the Contax Planar 50/1.4 bokeh would probably look more rough and less uniform across the frame, esp. wide open.
AhamB wrote:
Regarding the bokeh of the E55: for a 50mm wide open it actually looks quite good to me. These samples caught my attention: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/895186/74#10535128 I think that the Contax Planar 50/1.4 bokeh would probably look more rough and less uniform across the frame, esp. wide open.
When I compared the Contax 50/1.4 and R 50/2 E55 the Contax, although funky wide open, had smoother bokeh than the Cron at equivalent apertures.
AhamB wrote:
Regarding the bokeh of the E55: for a 50mm wide open it actually looks quite good to me. These samples caught my attention: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/895186/74#10535128 I think that the Contax Planar 50/1.4 bokeh would probably look more rough and less uniform across the frame, esp. wide open.
I own both the Summicron 50 E55 and the contax 1.4/50 and I agree with the link I provided on top.
Also I'm really interested with the Bokeh of both v1 vs v2 Summicron . From the pics i've seen in the net the v1's Bokeh is quite busy and not as smooth as reported here...
So.....in summary....is the v.1 thought of as better fr B&W whilst the v.2 superior for color? And the differences between the various mounts of the v.2 are coatings, CAMs and ROM?
They vary greatly in price as I've noted; saw a ROM for over $1000 and a 3-CAM for $550.
snowboarder wrote:
I have to start using mine more... I got the new
old stock from Italy, it's great on NEX as it's
very small for an R lens.
It has great colors wide open, but the bokeh
is not the smoothest. As I shoot with my
Macro R 60 a lot, I'd like to use the 50 wide open
and I don't think it's at the level of 28 Cron
or 28 R ver2...
mind sharing how much you paid? my dealer refuses to budge on price b/c its "new"
Apr 27, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Yes, I think your summary is pretty accurate, but some might quibble on the prefrence for v.1 over v.2 and vice versa. The ROM's are more expensive as the ROM is needed for the latest Leica R film cameras and they are newer lenses. For shooting on digital (other than the Leica DMR) the ROM is unnecessary. Personally, I have a nice 3-Cam and I added an elpro lens for close-up work and a Leitax converter. I think it is a very solid and versatile lens.
If it's a factory ROM and not a "ROMed" (sort like the difference between an actual AI and an AIed Nikon lens) then the price difference is usually explained by the fact that it's a newer, but, in general, the German built-ins are more highly valued than their Canadian counterparts. The 35 and 90 'crons show the most improvement in the manufacturing move between Canada and Germany. It's less evident in 50s, so there's not a whole lot of incentive to pay the premium.
I just realized this post put me past 3k. I'm dedicated! Woo-hoo.
I own both the Summicron 50 E55 and the contax 1.4/50 and I agree with the link I provided on top.
I remember that test -- thanks for the link. I have the Contax and am thinking about getting the Summicron to supplement it.
Regarding the bokeh, I found this quote from Sr.Cordeiro striking:
It was a surprise for me when I compared the images at f/2 and have seen little differences in terms of bokeh quality. I've allways find the bokeh of the zeiss very ugly but I think it was because I was using it at f/1.4 most of the time. At f/2 and further the zeiss shows a better bokeh or maybe the leica doesn't have a smoother bokeh like I was expecting (if not what 50mm will have it??).
Probably, the Summilux 50 is one of the few lenses that have smoother bokeh at f/2 (of course there are the Sigma 50/1.4 and a few other AF lenses that may have smoother bokeh but I don't consider them competition in this case).
