This Japanese site has pictures of both collapsible Summicron (SOOIC) variants: They are detailed enough to distinguish between the early, radioactive variant and the later version, even without serial numbers (or a Geiger counter!). The 'Summitar.' (which does indeed bear this model name on the front of the lens) is also shown (described here as a 'Prototype Summicron'), and there's a group picture of both LTM SOOICs, the SOOIC-M and the rigid SOMNI for comparison.
. Leica Order No. 11113-black - 11100-black - 11114-chrom+black. LLC - 127. Production era - 1961-1991 2028001.
. Leica Order No. 11819-black, 11826-black, 11825-silver, 11816-silver, 11624-titan, 11619-silver (S), 11615-silver-50yr. LLC - 123. Production era - 1979-Current.
Do you have one of the earlier versions? I have the First version made between 1959 and 1961. Mine is a very early lens with a low serial number. They say the newer versions are better. All I have to say is that out of over 50 lenses in various mounts my Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux is just about my favorite. The 'only' lens that I like as much is my Canon EF 85mm f 1.2L First version. My humble opinion is that any changes Leica made from my version are not actually improvements but rather a slight rethinking of what people expect from this lens.
That is to say, a newer version will be different but I hardly think it could possibly be any better than the one I already have. But your feelings and expectations about an image may be different from mine. Mine is very sharp even wide open and with good micro contrast providing a certain clarity to each an every image. It's also smooth, with just the correct amount of friction to aid in obtaing focus. Free paint program. The smallish size and little weight of my lens is also apreciated.
Maybe the best lens optically made by Leica, though the 28 Summicron gives it a good run outstanding wide open with minimal artifact & wonderful build you have to work the focus helical a bit as they tend to be stiff out of the box loves the built in lens hood - - pbase & dpreview supporter DPR forum member since 5/2001 'Avoid making a commotion, just as you wouldn’t stir up the water before fishing. Don’t use a flash out of respect for the natural lighting, even when there isn’t any. If these rules aren’t followed, the photographer becomes unbearably obtrusive' - attributed to HCB. I have essentially all the 50 mm/ 1.4 lenses from Leica, the 50mm/1:1 and the 50mm/ 0.95, both M and R. There is no question that the Leica lenses outperform the Canons and the Nikon, but not everyone is in 'love' with the rangefinder. Zeiss 50 mm is also pretty good and mu favorite id the Zeiss 28mm/2.8 which I use frequently on the M8. I rate the ASPH 35mm and 50mm as a must.
The 35 mm also comes in different flavors. Some like the pre-asph better, not as harsh. In my M collection I have 21/1.4, 28/2 35/1.4 (4 generations including R ), 50mm/1.4 (including R 3 generation, 75 an 90mm. My dream lens is the 29 to 90 mm zoom from the R camera.
What do you mean by 'that good'? First let's agree upon how much good is enough. Instead of giving this lens an esoteric 'that good' rating, I would say that this is probably the most no-surprise lens out of all 1.4/50 lenses that I know. For all practical purposes you can assume that it will perform identically at any aperture and in almost any lighting conditions. No other 1.4/50mm can do it. Zeiss 1.5/50 Sonnar is kind of like that, but it has focus shift while Summilux does not. A file shot with M9 and this lens (provided the camera was stable enough for the shutter speed) can be printed six feet wide and enjoyed from a distance of one foot.
It will resolve a texture on a leather jacket a hundred feet away. It will produce the most neutral bokeh. Its ability to hold detail in highlights is remarkable. A pre-aspheric 50mm Summilux will do all that too, but not without thinking about what you are doing.
Especially when it comes to shooting against the light. Having said all that, I must tell you that I like the Pre-ASPH 50mm Summilux better. Edit: Try it and decide for yourself. Don't base such an expensive purchase solely on people's opinions on the internet. As far as you're concerned everyone that praises it owns it already.
Who would put down a lens they own? - That's quite an amusing point of view. Unless by 'putting down' you mean something like 'this lens is a piece of junk', knowing and admitting negative properties of your equipment is just as important as recognizing positive ones. I can go even further: if you know what your lens is doing wrong in a certain situation, you can always use this property as a creative tool.
In light of my previous statement, I can actually explain why I prefer a pre-ASPH lens. The latest 50mm Summilux is so perfect that there are no negatives to play with. Jeff hladun wrote: I would go even further and say that some of those who pursue perfection in lens sharpness and microcontrast do so to gain more digital information with which to manipulate later in post-processing. I would say that at times I deliberately look for imperfections and distortions that give me more interesting information to manipulate later in post processing. And the old canard about 'you can always add in defects but not take them away' is a load of nonsense, IMO. Try adding in the precise defects of a Noct f/1, for example. Is that there is nothing left to complain about.
Summilux 50mm 1.4 Serial Numbers
If you can't make a good photo with this lens, you have absolutely nothing to pin your failure on but your own good self. I understand how many folks love the quirks of other lenses, and how they might even choose a less perfect lens because its imperfections suit them. I feel that way about the 28/2; it is a brilliant lens, clearly better than anything similar i've ever tried, but it has character in ways that the 50/1.4 would never dream of. I sometimes wish i had taken a photo with the 28, because of what that lens would have added to the shot. That never happens with the 50; on the contrary, i sometimes wish i had taken a photo with the 50, because of what it would subtract from the picture, which was spuriously added by another lens. Songs free download tamil.
On the whole, i am more satisfied with a lens i can count on for dependable, predictable performance 100% of the time, than one which i will love 30% of the time, but sometimes regret. (my 35/1.4 asph, penultimate version, fits this latter description fiendishly well.) i don't have a clue what the lens will be worth in 5 or 50 years, but it really won't matter much to me; i don't intend to sell it. Otoh, i keep my insurance current, which pays replacement value; i expect that new copies of this lens aren't going to get any cheaper.
Leica Sl 50mm Summilux Review
But, having said all that, differences one could perceive in actual prints between any of leica's 50mm lenses, besides obvious aperture tricks and infelicitous flare, are incredibly minimal. If you're asking because you're worried about whether getting a summicron or even summarit instead will hobble your photography, stop worrying and get a lens already. Ultimately the main difference is in very low light, and shooting against the light.
Summilux 50mm R Lens
. Leica Order No.
LLC - 128. Production era 1998-2009, 2,700+ lenses. Variants - Non-ROM & ROM versions. Lens mount - LEICA R-bayonet for LEICA to LEICA with mechanical, and, for LEICA /, additional electronic exposure control.
Number of lenses /groups - 8 / 7. Focusing range - 0.5 m / 20 in.