rsolti13 wrote:
make sure to shine the light through both the front and rear element and inspect the edges of the glass. If you see lots of dots that aren't on the outside glass it could be either fungus or separation, depending on what exactly it looks like
My preference is picture 2, 1, 2, 2….and I’m almost certain the new version is pics 1, 2 and 4. 3rd pic not sure, but like the 2nd better. Flower pic (#2) has some softness in mid zone that one could say is more of the classic look. On the last picture, I think the second one looks much nicer, less structure in out of focus areas.
None of these look like a V2/V3. They have a totally different look to them, which isn’t a bad thing, just not what they are advertising.
Your wife’s action in the fourth is exactly what mine would be doing lol
Nick YR wrote:
Woah congrats, Brick!! Is there a chrome V3 btw?
I was also very close on pulling the trigger on a chrome early V2 with great condition and just CLA’ed. Priced ard 3k.
But the 1m MFD keeps pulling me back. Is 3k reasonable for a great condition v2?
I went with black because it weighs less than chrome.
I was VERY close to getting v2, but at the last minute went for v3 because of the .7m min focus distanc3
The 380g’s of the chromed brass v3 is reminiscent of the old Nikkor 50 f/1.4’s of the 1950’s. They’re like jewels in the hand and the built in hood is really useful. Perhaps Leica is trying to stay relevant with this v2 re issue and remedial digital upgrades and limited editions because really, how much more tech can you squeeze out of planned obsolescence and the digital M? Perhaps this is what has drawn so many back to shooting film because of the variables in film stock, the use of filters and film techniques in processing, printing and the decoupling of pixel peeping! I guess the EVF on the new M rangefinder will usher in a new era of buyers, but the Q3 43 is pretty close already when in manual mode.
HAHA- Sorry I just exposed the EXIF- One shows it as an Elmairt- No idea how that happened. Maybe when swapping lenses the code didn't read properly. II updated the profile in LR but its the the Lux ASPH
They are 100% pretty obvious to me. Overall I really enjoy using the new re-issue and find it a really pleasing lens.
If you like the haptics of this one and prefer a bit more vintage character thats not over the top, this is a winner-
Nick YR wrote:
Fred, or any of you guys here know whether it was possible for a V1 or V2 to be modified with close focus, similar to steel rim and 50 rigid were?
I'm sure it's possible, but the real question is how difficult it would be and who would actually be willing to take on the challenge. These kinds of experiments definitely involve some trial and error, and there's always a bit of risk involved too.
For the V2, I'd actually recommend looking for a V3 in good working condition since they share the same optical design. I get that the V2 might feel a bit more classic, but with the V3 you get a lens that focuses as close as 0.63m (measured) and includes a built-in hood. The black aluminum version is also the lightest 50mm f/1.4 Summilux ever made!
The only real downside, in my opinion, is the short 90-degree focus throw (same as the first ASPH version)...but some people might actually prefer that.
Talking to Chat GPT about my new 50/1.4 pre-asph version 3 it said “If you want, you can send me a photo through the lens with a light behind it, and I can help you assess what you’re seeing.” So I uploaded several images shining the light into both ends and taking pics of the other end.
Chat GPT said: thanks for the images — they’re very helpful. Based on what I see:
• The surface of the rear element appears clean and free of fungus or haze.
• The white specks and reflections you’re seeing are likely:
• Light scatter from surface dust or coating imperfections,
• Possibly minor internal dust or bubbles (normal for older lenses),
• But I don’t see the telltale signs of cement separation such as:
• Rainbow-like discoloration,
• Diffuse circular haze between elements,
• Wavy or cracked lines near the element edges.
Your lens looks optically healthy, and certainly not suffering from advanced element separation. If anything, the bright flashlight test here is revealing minor dust and typical aging signs — nothing unexpected for a ~1986 Leica lens. If you’re seeing good contrast and sharpness wide open (especially in backlit shots), then I’d say you’re in excellent shape. Would you like to do a test photo series to fully confirm image quality (wide open vs. stopped down)? I can suggest a quick protocol.
So I uploaded 3 images I took with the new lens (copies at the end of this post), and here’s what ChatGPT said about them:
These look beautiful — your Summilux 50/1.4 pre-ASPH V3 seems to be in top optical condition. Here’s a quick breakdown of what I see in each:
🧔♂️ Portrait (man with glasses)
• Rendering: Classic Leica look — smooth tonal transitions and 3D pop.
• Sharpness: Razor sharp at the eye line, with no signs of internal haze softening the image.
• Contrast: Excellent for a wide-open shot; no milky veil or flaring.
• Bokeh: Creamy and pleasing background — signature of this lens wide open.
🐶 Dog on couch
• Detail: Fine textures in fur and the fabric of the cushion are preserved — suggests very clean optics.
• Bokeh: Again, silky background blur. No harsh edges or double lines.
• Microcontrast: Nicely present. This level of subtle texture would be lost if the lens had separation or fog.
🐶 Dog in blanket
• Low light performance: Tonal rendering is beautiful in shadows.
• Focus: Eye is tack-sharp with lovely roll-off.
• Haze check: No signs of internal fog or reduced contrast despite the soft light conditions.
💡 Verdict:
Your lens is performing exactly as it should — classic Summilux character, strong wide-open sharpness, and no visible signs of glue separation or haze. You’ve got a very clean copy on your hands. If you ever decide to shoot into direct sunlight, I can help analyze flare and veiling behavior too — but based on these images alone, this lens looks optically mint.
BOTTOM LINE: I love this lens and am happy with its condition which is how it was described by the Japanese store seller on eBay.
I just did a centering test of my new 50/1.4 pre-asph version 3 with ChatGPT. I downloaded a chart, affixed it to a board and put it on the wall, and shot it as ChatGPT instructed. Here's the analysis.
ChatGPT Lens Centering Analysis — April 19, 2025
User: Here are 5 images of a test chart shot with my new 50mm lens at following f stops: 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4 and 5.6. I only adjusted exposure. Otherwise they are straight out of camera. Please analyze and tell me if the lens is properly centered.
ChatGPT:
Thanks for sharing the series. Here's an initial visual assessment of the 50mm lens centering based on the test chart across the five apertures:
General Observations:
- Sharpness improves steadily from f/1.4 through f/5.6, as expected.
- Center sharpness looks consistent and strong in all shots, even wide open.
- Edge and corner sharpness, especially left vs. right, is where centering issues would typically show up — let’s take a closer look.
Edge Comparison by Aperture:
f/1.4:
- Left and right edges both appear slightly soft.
- Mild softness is typical at this aperture, but both sides seem equally soft, which is a good sign.
- Corners don’t show signs of decentering yet.
f/2:
- Slight increase in sharpness across the frame.
- Both sides continue to sharpen evenly, with no obvious lopsided blur.
f/2.8:
- Edges start to show good clarity. The left and right vertical resolution bars are quite close in sharpness.
- No visible asymmetry.
f/4:
- Edges and corners continue to improve in sync.
- The checkered and line patterns on both sides look well defined and equally resolved.
f/5.6:
- Peak performance — strong contrast and resolution across the entire frame.
- Both left and right sides look very well matched.
- No tilt, blur, or decentering evident.
Conclusion:
✅ Your lens appears to be properly centered.
There’s no sign of edge softness favoring one side, nor any tilt or field curvature that would suggest an optical issue. The symmetry of sharpness progression across apertures supports that conclusion.
FINALLY I got my 50/1.4 pre-asph. It's version 2 and in mint condition. It's possible that at the end of the year I'll have the ability to get a version 3 except that it's brass so I have to decide whether the trade-off in extra weight is worth having a min focus distance of .7M instead of the 1M min distance of the v2 I just got.
Meanwhile, here's the very first picture taken with my new lens, shot at f1.4.
The more structured bokeh gives it a way in all of them except for the wine glass- 
