summicron ridgid vs collapsible

cosmonaut

cosmonaut

Well-known
Local time
3:07 AM
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
1,212
I am thinking of getting a 50mm summicron. What is the difference in IQ between the ridgid a collapsable? Or should I just get a Voigtlander?
 
Rigid is better.

All Voigtlander lenses are likely to be sharper than the collapsible.
 
Rigid is a classic. I had one and loved it. Now I have the DR and would recommend it over the rigid just to use the eyes and closer focusing, otherwise they are the same.
 
there are different versions of the rigid summicron, one of them has higher contrast, just keep that in mind. Overall they have little contrast, so better for B&W. The collapsible has low contrast as well, with the advantage of when collapsed being really compact (and it looks pretty cool when in 'shooting mode'!).

The DR is really a treat, it is a gorgeous lens either cosmetically and results wise, and the eyes are really interesting to use. Low contrast too. Bokeh is beautiful.

The Voigtlander Nokton has much more contrast, is slightly bigger (but lighter than an early Summicron) but you get focusing as close as 70cm and f1.5, which is interesting. It is also quite cheaper than the Leicas. So if you like low light it can be a good option.
 
Re: CV lenses I don't know about sharper. Higher contrast certainly. Both the DR and Rigid are more susceptible to flair than modern lenses. When used with a hood, though, they are capable of beautiful results.

4534622095_ec5cb59c16_o.jpg


DR Summicron (hoodless, as it turns out) on an RD-1 from a couple of years ago.
 
Killer photo, Benjamin.

Collapsible Summicron to be avoided on the ground that it was an earlier evolutionary artifact and a short-lived one.
 
Could you explain which serial numbers for the Rigid Summicron are higher contrast and which are lower contrast? I have never heard of such a thing before.
In my 50mm lens comparisons, the Rigid Summicron did very well in resolution.
 
I love a litlle contrast. So the Voigtlander moves up the list. I have a Nokton 40mmSC. I wonder if the 50 and 40 are to close in focal length to justify having the both.
 
Had a 50/2 Summicron collapsible in the '70s that came with a bargain M2. It never really felt adequate for news work (moderate contrast) and the collapsing/uncollapsing business was annoying.

I fortunately found a collector who absolutely had to have a collapsible, and worked out a nice deal.

My current 50 is the Voigtlander 50/2.5, which is inexpensive (in M-mount terms) and very usable.
 
I never noticed that much (if any) difference between my collapsible and DR Summicron. The DR is a lot lighter. Collapsing is a minor annoyance so I never do.
 
I really like the collapsible 'cron, and never found any of my other 'crons lacking in anything (there was a time when I had a nice rigid, sold to get the latest version in black).
 
The original Type 1 Rigid Summicron 7 element in 5 groups is lower contrast than the type 2 Rigid Summicron 6 elements in 5 groups. I have at least three versions of the collapsible Summicron: the original Thorium lens, an early non-thorium lens, and two later Collapsible Summicrons that were made just before the Rigid Summicron debuted. The later Collapsible Summicrons are better than the earlier ones, glass in similar condition. The Thorium Summicrons give poor color results because of the discoloration from radiation damage. The early non-thorium lenses have a different coating scheme than the later ones, and there might be other differences. The 11x optics were not interchangeable with the 13x collapsible Summicrons.

Collapsible Summicron 13x on the M2, Fujicolor 200, wide-open at F2.

2287586434_d9aa2807a2_o.jpg


Same lens On the M8, wide-open at F2.

picture.php


Detail of above.
picture.php
 
Most collapsible crons need a rebuild and cleaning of haze, so unless you're planning on having this done, a rigid would likely be newer and not needed.

After having my "minty" (as bought here on the classifieds) collapsible rebuilt and cleaned, I've not seen any rigid or DR images come close to it.

Of course the DR focuses closer with the eyes, and the head elements are mechanically interchanbeable with the Rigid. Some references imply 2 versions of the rigid, the latter being closer to the DR but without the option for close focus or eyes.

They all share the same optics design, but glass materials, coatings, and distances from flange to elements vary.

You are much likelier to get better IQ from the cleanest most recently rebuilt example, than from any version in barrel housing variations, IMHO.
 
very nice photos Brian. To my eyes, the collapsible images look sharper with more "pop" and brighter overall. The rigid ones are ok though.
 
The later type 1 Rigid Summicrons have improve/harder coatings. The construction also changed lightly. I believe that the earliest Type 1 Rigid Summicrons were slightly different optically from those that follwed, based on taking a 14x apart.

And I agree that there is some "magic" to the Collapsible Summicrons. If you blow up 100% crops, they are slightly softer than the Rigids. I just like the 13x collapsibles better. They are not hard to work on, the Rigids are a real pain.
 
Last edited:
Condition is everything w/ these lenses as they're quite old. I had a Rigid and it was the sharpest 50 lens I had ever used (although I actually prefer the way the R 50 images). I sold it and bought a 50 collapsible, and the collapsible is as sharp or sharper than the Rigid! Other collapsible I've owned weren't this sharp, so it just depends on your sample. Both of these models of lenses have very soft glass on the front, and most have cleaning marks that reduce the contrast a bit. Possibly the sharpness as well.

Having said all that, if it were me I'd use a DR if I was looking for a 50mm lens for a rangefinder camera. Very, very good lens w/ outstanding image quality.

All of these Leica lenses image very differently than a Voigtlander or any other lens made. Unique is the word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top