Fred Miranda wrote:
When people bring up the 50mm f/1.4 pre-asph "v2", I'm always curious what they find so special compared to the v3. Optically, they are the same design. The v3 is much lighter, focuses down to 0.7m, and in my experience is just as good. I've compared good copies of both and couldn't see any meaningful differences, and I actually prefer the flare behavior of the v3.
The aluminum black v3 is light, compact, has a built in hood, takes 46mm filters, and that closer focus is very useful. I do get the appeal of the v2 brass barrel and ring aesthetics, but beyond that, I'm not seeing a real advantage....Show more →
Main reason why the Leica 50/1.4 v2 is more desired than v3 is due to coatings applied in v3 which are not very UV resistant - it is the main flaw of the v3 lens. I read online and watched videos warning about this as buyers-aware. Depending how the v3 lens was stored and used, it seems a gamble getting a good copy with intact coatings or an affected one. The more recent video below which I watched about v2 and v3 Summilux differences states that damaged coating of the v3 lens cannot be fixed/repaired. The author claims it would be a total loss (even I haven't seen actual photos how the lens looks like with broken coating).
retrofocus wrote:
Main reason why the Leica 50/1.4 v2 is more desired than v3 is due to coatings applied in v3 which are not very UV resistant - it is the main flaw of the v3 lens. I read online and watched videos warning about this as buyers-aware. Depending how the v3 lens was stored and used, it seems a gamble getting a good copy with intact coatings or an affected one. The more recent video below which I watched about v2 and v3 Summilux differences states that damaged coating of the v3 lens cannot be fixed/repaired. The author claims it would be a total loss (even I haven't seen actual photos how the lens looks like with broken coating).
I didn't watch the video, but I thought the issue with v3 was the balsam cement used to hold lenses in place. And contrary to anyone who says it can't be fixed, it can be fixed by having the lens sent to Wetzlar for repair. I have a friend (here in the U.S.) whose version 3 had lens separation. He sent it to NJ, and in turn NJ sent it to Wetzlar for repair which was successful. This is the first time I heard there being an issue with UV coating.
The v2 is also cemented in a similar way, with the same optical design, so this is something that can happen with any of these older lenses.
I get that the real concern is finding a good copy without optical or mechanical issues, and I completely agree with that. But when it comes purely to image output and rendering, there's nothing that suggests one version is inherently better than the other. In the comparison I did, which I can’t seem to find anymore, I actually preferred the flare from the v3. It has character, but it's still very manageable.
Here are a few samples showing the flare behavior from the v3:
brick33308 wrote:
I didn't watch the video, but I thought the issue with v3 was the balsam cement used to hold lenses in place. And contrary to anyone who says it can't be fixed, it can be fixed by having the lens sent to Wetzlar for repair. I have a friend (here in the U.S.) whose version 3 had lens separation. He sent it to NJ, and in turn NJ sent it to Wetzlar for repair which was successful. This is the first time I heard there being an issue with UV coating.
Makes sense that lens element separation can be fixed at Leica for an uptick repair price of course. What can't be fixed is a damaged coating on the front lens since coating procedures cannot just be replicated anymore. I believe these are two separate issues here - the cementing holding lens elements together both in v2 and v3 and the affected coating in v3.
retrofocus wrote:
Makes sense that lens element separation can be fixed at Leica for an uptick repair price of course. What can't be fixed is a damaged coating on the front lens since coating procedures cannot just be replicated anymore. I believe these are two separate issues here - the cementing holding lens elements together both in v2 and v3 and the affected coating in v3.
There is basically no solid evidence that v3 coatings fail or degrade on their own in real-world use...Any reports are likely anecdotal, since coating issues can happen with older lenses in general.
Regarding the cement issue...This keeps getting repeated online and has turned into a bit of a myth, but the evidence suggests it only affects a small number of lenses and is not v3 specific. Both v2 and v3 share the same cemented optical groups, so the risk is copy dependent, not version dependent, and most lenses from either version are perfectly fine. Most likely a technician flagged the potential for issues with glued elements, due to multiple factors, and that warning keeps getting amplified.
Basically if your v2 or v3 shows no haze or cement issues, it's very likely to be fine and stay that way for a long time. The optical cement isn't indestructible, so it could theoretically degrade over many decades, but most properly stored copies (low humidity, no physical stress, moderate temperature...) stay perfectly fine. I own both v2 (silver chrome) and v3 (black aluminum) and they have no haze or cement issues.
The newer version most likely has better coating. I think the concerns about the V3 are exaggerated. I just checked mine, and it’s as clean as the day I bought it new. Other members can share their experiences. Has this happened to you, or have you seen a V3 with damaged coating or a clouded cemented lens group?
I was going to get version 3 of the lux 50 pre, mainly because of its .7M min focus distance as compared to 1M min focus distance of versions 1 and 2. However when I mentioned it to Ye, he practically stomped on my head warning me to stay away from it because over the years he'd seen a much higher incidence of balsam separation in version 3 as compared to other models. Instead he pushed me to get a version 2 which I did, and I love, but wish it had the .7 min focus distance.
I have a friend who took version 3 in trade, sent it to Ye for CLA, and Ye told him it had the separation issue and Ye wouldn't touch it. So he sent it to Leica NJ who in turn sent it to Wetzlar. Wetzlar did fix his lens, presumably using a better glue, and I'm kinda envious that now he has a perfect version 3. I think the repair cost was around $650. But I'm not totally jealous because his copy is the titanium version which is I think about 100g heavier than my version 2, and I'm more a fan of lightweight lenses. And that's why I AM jealous of Fred's perfect black version 3
Dan Chang wrote:
The newer version most likely has better coating. I think the concerns about the V3 are exaggerated. I just checked mine, and it’s as clean as the day I bought it new. Other members can share their experiences. Has this happened to you, or have you seen a V3 with damaged coating or a clouded cemented lens group?
The black v3 is the most recommended 50/1.4 pre-asph, according to Josh at Miami Leica. He knows all versions inside out and prefers this one not for rarity or looks, but for practicality: E46 filter, 0.7 m MFD, and at 275g (with built-in hood), the lightest 50/1.4 Leica has ever made. I got my v3 here at FM, and it has clear glass with just a few tiny dust spots, no issues, and it takes beautiful pictures. I also love the short focus throw at 90 degrees...honestly, it's my favorite 50/1.4 for size and weight alone.
I also have the 50/1.4 Lux Asph., but the the Asph. has a modern rendering like the 50/2 APO. Stop the Lux ASPH. down to f/2, and its tiny color fringing practically disappears. (This is the disadvantage of the pre-asph where axial CA is more noticeable)
Here are some shots with the v3. I should use the v2 more often, but its weight sometimes holds me back. Side by side, their output is nearly identical, though the v3 gives slightly better contrast against the light.
The question is: Should Light Lens Lab bring this lens back? Since someone already did it for the v2, it might make more sense to focus on the v3...the one with a modern barrel but classic optical design, assuming the patent has expired.
LEICA M-D (Typ 262)Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 v3 lens50mmf/4.81/60s200 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M-D (Typ 262)Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 v3 lens50mmf/1.41/60s200 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M-D (Typ 262)Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 v3 lens50mmf/1.41/3000s200 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA M-D (Typ 262)Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 v3 lens50mmf/2.41/1500s200 ISO0.0 EV
I watched the video about the V3 - hmmm.
I have a V2 from 1962. It has pristine glass and body chrome - no haze, scratches or delamination - I am obviously very lucky. Just need to use it more often.
Lovely images Fred
shac wrote:
I watched the video about the V3 - hmmm.
I have a V2 from 1962. It has pristine glass and body chrome - no haze, scratches or delamination - I am obviously very lucky. Just need to use it more often.
Lovely images Fred
Just found the video, but the recommendation actually came from talking to him.
They almost didn't mention what I think is the best feature...the super-light 275g weight for the black version 3, making it the lightest Leica 50/1.4 ever made. But they did mention something I didn't know: only the v3 can be 6-bit coded.
Another thing. My copy and it looks like theirs too focuses well beyond 0.7m. Mine goes down to 0.63m (measured), which is the limit for rangefinder coupling on digital Ms.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The question is: Should Light Lens Lab bring this lens back? Since someone already did it for the v2, it might make more sense to focus on the v3...the one with a modern barrel but classic optical design, assuming the patent has expired.
gorgeous pics!
If LLL brings back pre asph v3 I'd be VERY interested assuming it truly duplicates both the rendering and physical attributes of v3, and assuming I was satisfied there were no quality control issues. In the meantime I'm happy with my v2 despite it having a 1M min focus distance.
If LLL brings back pre asph v3 I'd be VERY interested assuming it truly duplicates both the rendering and physical attributes of v3, and assuming I was satisfied there were no quality control issues. In the meantime I'm happy with my v2 despite it having a 1M min focus distance.
Thank you. I still think the Leica 50/1.4 Lux pre-asph v2 in silver chrome is the most beautiful of the bunch. I much prefer its barrel aesthetic and brass feeling. Yes, the MFD is 1m, but it renders the same as the v3.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thank you. I still think the Leica 50/1.4 Lux pre-asph v2 in silver chrome is the most beautiful of the bunch. I much prefer its barrel aesthetic and brass feeling. Yes, the MFD is 1m, but it renders the same as the v3.
which one were you referring to? I have a pre-ash v2 in v1 silver chrome house with scallops focusing ring. Is that it?
Isn't it the same aesthetic design as the most recent re-issue?
Marcus Stein wrote:
which one were you referring to? I have a pre-ash v2 in v1 silver chrome house with scallops focusing ring. Is that it?
Isn't it the same aesthetic design as the most recent re-issue?
Hi Marcus,
Yes, that's the barrel I really like, and it is the one Leica used on the reissue. There are a few variations, but out of all of them, I prefer the silver chrome brass version with the scalloped focusing ring. I believe many version 1 and version 2 lenses were made this way.
So I agree with Josh that the v3 is the most practical. It's like having a modern 90s barrel with a vintage 60s optical design. That said, the version 1 and 2 barrel aesthetics are still the coolest imo. Cosina seems to agrees too, since they use that look on most of their lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thank you. I still think the Leica 50/1.4 Lux pre-asph v2 in silver chrome is the most beautiful of the bunch. I much prefer its barrel aesthetic and brass feeling. Yes, the MFD is 1m, but it renders the same as the v3.
I agree on the V2 Silver, obviously 😁 (Sorry for the crappy iPhone image)
The 50/1.4 pre-asph v3 features a modern barrel design, reminiscent of the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Lux (FLE v1). For comparison, here they are side by side on the M-D and M10-P Safari.
