I was thinking about picking up the above as an alt lens to mount on a Canon 1Ds mkIII. It looks like many examples are creeping north of $600 on ebay and amazon. My question isn't so much whether the lens is worth it as if there's a value or quality difference in the lenses that are manufactured in Canada.
No knock on Canada, but should I expect less quality and cheaper prices for Leitz Canada lenses or were they all manufactured there?
Specifically, I'm looking at a Leitz Canada serial number beginning with 290, which is a type II version.
Quality: there is no difference between German- and Canadian-made lenses.
Functionality: "Made in Canada" lenses may be more likely to be R-only, which do not fully function on Leicaflex, SL, or SL II bodies. If you care, it clearly states on the bottom of the lens: "For Leica R only." This has zero effect on R3 or later bodies, and zero effect with using the lens on a Canon body.
Value: some people think that German-made is inherently superior and so they'll pay more; this doesn't mean that the German-made lenses are better photographic tools. Personally, when shopping auctions, I'll even gravitate toward Canadian lenses because it is less likely that a collector will inflate the price of the item.
Summicron-R 50 II made in Canada and later made in Germany (ROM version) were same optical design and no real quality differences. The ones made in Germany and with ROM version may have different coatings on the lens.
I have owned a few of the Summicron-R 50's that were made in Canada. They are some of the very best lenses I have ever used. I'm sure the German ones are just as good but if/ when I ever buy another one, it will be a Canadian version.
My Leica-R Summicron 50/2 and 90/2 were both made in Canada. My -R 35/2 was made in Germany. All were 3-cam. All were great lenses. There were no apparent differences in quality between the Canadian and German lenses.
I had the canadian 50 cron-r and I have the wetzlar 50 lux-r of the same vintage. By all technical measures the canadian cron is way better than the wetzlar lux-r, but not because of where its made.
Ironically, I think the non-mandler wetzlar lux has more meander glow than the mandler designed Canada cron
JimUe wrote:
I had the canadian 50 cron-r and I have the wetzlar 50 lux-r of the same vintage. But all technical measures the canadian cron is way better than the wetzlar lux-r.
One of the things I really like about Leica is that the common lenses are just as carefully designed as the flagships. Given two lenses from the same era and of the same focal length, the slower lens will usually outperform (on technical merits) the faster lens, and will usually be cheaper to boot. Faster lenses are simply harder to design; that major brands of lenses have f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses that outperform their f/2 or f/2.8 counterparts simply shows that the slower lenses are designed to meet a budget rather than to perform optimally.
redisburning wrote:
I suggest the 60 macro elmarit over the 50 cron, personally.
Case in point: the 60mm macro outperforms the 50 Summicron and Summilux when stopped down past f/5.6.
Outstanding lens, and very similar optically to the current Summicron-M. I used a Canadian 50 Cron-R with a Leica R6 for a few years, and now that I shoot M (M Monochrom and M5) the 50 Cron-M continues to give me the look I know and love.
it's a great lens. the 50 cron e55 is a nice lens but the Elmarit is certainly better for IQ stopped down. Leica MTFs as well as Puts' columns have confirmed. I really like mine, and it's certainly worth it over a lens that is one step faster. Just IMO.
it's a great lens. the 50 cron e55 is a nice lens but the Elmarit is certainly better for IQ stopped down. Leica MTFs as well as Puts' columns have confirmed. I really like mine, and it's certainly worth it over a lens that is one step faster. Just IMO.
Thanks, I may go for the 60 , just for the macro capabilities- that first shot is especially nice with that rich Leica color.
