50mm Summicron v3

If the scratches are just on the coating, I'd not worry about it one bit.

If it's the glass and the scratches are very fine lines less than a hair's width, I'd not really worry - you'd not see any meaningful degradation in the image. You'd probably need expensive equipment in an optical lab to detect any flaws.

More important is the condition of the rear element, along with the lens feeling solid when focusing or changing aperture.
 
All else being perfect, the corners at 2.0 from around 12 mm from center are soft. V2 is similar. Collapsible not as good at 2,28,4.0. This is a low contrast lens made for making slides.
If you can find the parts, the optical cell unscrews for use on copy stand/focoslide and enlarger.
contrast is boosted from v2 and I never noticed resolution loss.
ANY HASE AT ALL wrecks performance.
 
Your collapsible was the lemon :). I had one and it was good from wide open. BW darkroom prints where so good from it, I ditched MF gear. My collapsible was recently serviced.
 
Hi everyone,
I've been reading this forum for some time, but haven't posted so far. Since I have a V3 that I love, I thought I'd share some pics with you.
I quite like the versatility of this lens, it works very well in both color and b&w.
I find it less "clinical" than the v4 or the Planar and more predictable than the v1 or v2 (I have a v1 - collapsible - that I love as well, but it's more sensitive to flare and lower contrast).
20191207-20195050.jpg

20200306-20198862.jpg
 
nightfly said:
I think mine is a V3 and got it for a similar price. Love the lens. Actually bought a V4 with a tab because I like the tab so much on my 35mm Summicron and sent it back because the build quality on my V3 was so much better. I just ordered one of those slide on tabs for mine but haven't received it yet.
Click to expand...
I'd like to know more about how to go about assessing build quality. One in a while I do spot something about a lens that feels not right-or not right enough for the money-but I own both a version 3 and version 4 Summicron, and can't say I'm aware of anything not to like about build quality. I sold my 35mm Canadian "Bokeh King" Summicron because of reports here of non-replaceable plastic parts. That was of people being able to identify a specific and verifiable complaint about quality. This doesn't seem to be the case when v. 3 vs. v.4 are being compared.

Can someone help me become a better judge of Leica lens "build quality?"
 
Last edited:
brusby said:
Nice tones here and also in your other seascape pic above. They look like they coulda been difficult with all the bright reflections.
Click to expand...
Many thanks, Bruce! I confess to doing a bit of post-processing, including turning down the highlights and lifting the shadows, to get the kind of tonality I’m after. I also do some dodging and burning in PS.
 
raid said:
Thanks. It is clear that V2 is the Rigid Summicron. I have two of them, plus a DR and a collapsible Summicron. Nothing newer.
Click to expand...
The DR is a V2 Summicron. The differences with the rigid are that the DR has removable optical unit; and all DR are of the same exact focal length. Something like 51.6mm? Trusting to memory.
 
Rob-F said:
The DR is a V2 Summicron. The differences with the rigid are that the DR has removable optical unit; and all DR are of the same exact focal length. Something like 51.6mm? Trusting to memory.
Click to expand...
In my experience both the DR and the rigid share identical removable optical units. And they are interchangeable, at least among the few examples I've had. I was curious about this so I swapped optical units among one rigid and three DR. They all focused perfectly regardless of how the bodies and optical units were paired. But, four lenses is admittedly a small sample, so these results may not hold true for all examples.
 
Rob-F said:
The DR is a V2 Summicron. The differences with the rigid are that the DR has removable optical unit; and all DR are of the same exact focal length. Something like 51.6mm? Trusting to memory.
Click to expand...
This is not true. I’ve owned the V1 collapsible, multiple V2 rigid and DR, V3, V4 a few Elmar and the prized 50mm f1.2 back in the 70’s.

The difference in the v2 rigid and DR is the close focus and that’s it. The lens cells unscrew from the mount in all v2 rigid versions I’ve owned. I currently own a rigid v2 and the cells unscrew and mount in an adapter just as the DR for use on a bellows or Visoflex.

No all DR versions are not 51.6mm. They’re just like all the Leica lenses of that era and each one will vary in FL. The mounts are individually adjusted for its exact FL.

In the Leica guide for normal people, the author states the V3 has a tab, my version I bought new around 1970-71 did not have a tab. The V3 has some very good qualities. I mentioned I had a 50 Noctilux 1.2 around that time. It wasn’t a high resolution lens especially at apertures fellow f4 but where it excelled was in situations where a light source might be in or on the edge of the frame. In the earlier lenses flare could veil the image rendering it unusable and at the least flare around light sources could be extreme. The Noctilux brought that under reasonable control. Why I mention that, the V3 has similar qualities but higher resolution with slightly less flare control. I always thought of it as the poor man’s Noctilux.

The V3 controlled flare much better than previous lenses, the DR and Rigid v2 and v1. The v3 struck a very good balance between contrast and resolution. You can appreciate that if doing night shots and ones with backlighting or sources of light in or near the edge of the frame.

In real world photography the resolution difference is not anything you’ll ever see but you will appreciate the flare control.
 
Last edited:
x-ray said:
This is not true. I’ve owned the V1 collapsible, multiple V2 rigid and DR, V3, V4 a few Elmar and the prized 50mm f1.2 back in the 70’s.

The difference in the v2 rigid and DR is the close focus and that’s it. The lens cells unscrew from the mount in all v2 rigid versions I’ve owned. I currently own a rigid v2 and the cells unscrew and mount in an adapter just as the DR for use on a bellows or Visoflex.

No all DR versions are not 51.6mm. They’re just like all the Leica lenses of that era and each one will vary in FL. The mounts are individually adjusted for its exact FL.

In the Leica guide for normal people, the author states the V3 has a tab, my version I bought new around 1970-71 did not have a tab. The V3 has some very good qualities. I mentioned I had a 50 Noctilux 1.2 around that time. It wasn’t a high resolution lens especially at apertures fellow f4 but where it excelled was in situations where a light source might be in or on the edge of the frame. In the earlier lenses flare could veil the image rendering it unusable and at the least flare around light sources could be extreme. The Noctilux brought that under reasonable control. Why I mention that, the V3 has similar qualities but higher resolution with slightly less flare control. I always thought of it as the poor man’s Noctilux.

The V3 controlled flare much better than previous lenses, the DR and Rigid v2 and v1. The v3 struck a very good balance between contrast and resolution. You can appreciate that if doing night shots and ones with backlighting or sources of light in or near the edge of the frame.
In real world photography the resolution difference is not anything you’ll ever see but you will appreciate the flare control.
Click to expand...
First of all, I stand corrected on the lens cell being removable on the rigid. By the way, I own most of the 50's you mentioned, and some you didn't, as well. I have the v. 3 and v. 4 Summicron, and like yours, my v. 3 does not have a tab. I've had two v. 4 Summicrons. My first had the tab with the semicircular opening for the finger; my current one has the so-called "bear claw." That took a little getting used to, but I like it better. Some bemoan the lack of character in the v. 4; I'm a little annoyed that four surfaces were left flat, rather than employing those surfaces for higher correction. I know, I might not want to pay for it, but still. You never know.

I don't know why you say that all DRS versions are not 51.6mm. I'm pretty sure all DRS are identical in focal length, and fairly sure about that dimension. There was a reason for doing it that way. Yes, the tolerances in focal length were/are accommodated in most others by mating them to a focusing mount of matching length and thread pitch. But not the DRS. It's in my reference material someplace. I'll try to find the time to look for it. The production lens cells of the required focal length were reserved for the DRS, while the remaining ones were available for the rigid.
 
Rob-F said:
First of all, I stand corrected on the lens cell being removable on the rigid. By the way, I own most of the 50's you mentioned, and some you didn't, as well. I have the v. 3 and v. 4 Summicron, and like yours, my v. 3 does not have a tab. I've had two v. 4 Summicrons. My first had the tab with the semicircular opening for the finger; my current one has the so-called "bear claw." That took a little getting used to, but I like it better. Some bemoan the lack of character in the v. 4; I'm a little annoyed that four surfaces were left flat, rather than employing those surfaces for higher correction. I know, I might not want to pay for it, but still. You never know.

I don't know why you say that all DRS versions are not 51.6mm. I'm pretty sure all DRS are identical in focal length, and fairly sure about that dimension. There was a reason for doing it that way. Yes, the tolerances in focal length were/are accommodated in most others by mating them to a focusing mount of matching length and thread pitch. But not the DRS. It's in my reference material someplace. I'll try to find the time to look for it. The production lens cells of the required focal length were reserved for the DRS, while the remaining ones were available for the rigid.
Click to expand...

I get where you're coming from about the "economizing" in the 50 Cron, but Zeiss did use curved surfaces in the 50/2.0 ZM Planar and as far as I can tell it mostly just traded some edge/corner sharpness for midfield, which tbh probably is a good choice, but it's not clearly better than the far older design of the Leica.

It's only cheaper than the Leica by virtue of being made by Cosina, I suspect. I am guessing due to the fact that the 15/2.8 ZM is deep, into Leica glass money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top