50 f2 DR Summicron with "Eyes"

ColColt · Aug 18, 2015

Great lens. I had one back in the early 80's but are they worth $1000 with the eyes? I ran across that combo yesterday and the lens did look nearly unused with superb glass. My credit card keeps jumping out of my pocket.

I keep wondering if it's better than my Zeiss 50f2 Planar *T lens.

ToddB · Aug 18, 2015

I have 50mm DR. I have to say the images have characteristics of medium format. Tack sharp! I really don't understand what the eyes do, or do you leave them on all the time?

ColColt · Aug 18, 2015

The eyes give the camera the ability to be used almost like a micro lens with the 50 or 35mm lenses... something they can't do by themselves as they don't have close focus capability.

https://www.cameraquest.com/m50dr.htm

https://www.google.com/search?q=lei...FGPTxVlxM:&usg=__PP6SxGkmHlZop_1HzovTsTBt5nE=

summicron1 · Aug 18, 2015

ToddB said:
I have 50mm DR. I have to say the images have characteristics of medium format. Tack sharp! I really don't understand what the eyes do, or do you leave them on all the time?

yeah, they let you focus a foot or so closer than otherwise, providing parallax, so you take them off for normal use. Putting them on releases a catch on the lens focusing mount that lets it focus closer.

Other than that, optically, I believe the lens is the same as a similar non-DR summicron of similar vintage. It is a good lens, but you pay a premium for close-up ability you probably won't use a lot.

mnemosyne · Aug 19, 2015

I assume the price of 1000$ has to do with the cosmetic appearance of the lens. It's a probably in a collectable condition (or the seller at least thinks it is).
I haven't monitored prices recently but speaking generally the non-DR version of the Summicron are actually more sought after and fetch a premium among users because the DR version due to mechanical limitations can not be used on the digital Leica M bodies. They are also considered more handsome than the DR counterpart, which is also a bit heavier.
The prices for a good DR Summicron with goggles (normally used cosmetic appearance and no significant problems with the glass) used to be around 500~600 EUR over here when I last checked. Deduct 100 EUR for missing goggles. These are very difficult to find as a spare part and you have to be careful to get the right type (there are two different types of goggles for the DR that are mechanically not interchangeable).

When buying one of these, don't be fooled by the cosmetic appearance, it is important that the glass is in good condition. Haze is a very common problem in these lenses and it can be difficult or impossible to remove. You will only know after the lens has been opened for service, so buying a hazy lens is a considerable risk I would personally avoid.

The DR Summicron has distinctly different character from the ZM Planar. Technically speaking, the Planar is a better lens with more microcontrast and sharpness into the corners at widest and wider apertures. The Summicron has less microcontrast (brillance). It is a high resolving lens and gives a clearly defined, detailed picture in the center at f2-f2.8, but sharpness drops off towards the corners. The contrast is medium. The lens has a tendency to flare even with a hood when shooting against the light, but this is normal for lenses of that age. The Planar is remarkably flare resistant, but has a bit more distortion than the Summicron (more or less zero distortion), but not disturbingly so. I like the Summicron very much for b&w photography. Used to use the Planar for a couple of years mostly for color and liked the results, but have sold it when I was reducing my collection of M mount 50s some time ago.

Xmas · Aug 19, 2015

ColColt said:
Great lens. I had one back in the early 80's but are they worth $1000 with the eyes? I ran across that combo yesterday and the lens did look nearly unused with superb glass. My credit card keeps jumping out of my pocket.

I keep wondering if it's better than my Zeiss 50f2 Planar *T lens.

No it is not better in any sense unless you have a M9.
Except it will fix your credit card.

cuthbert · Aug 19, 2015

I got mine for 475 euros, it's not in perfect conditions (scratches on the glass and a little haze) but it takes very good pics...I wouldn't call them medium format level but definitely much better than a Summitar. The googles are VERY handy and close focus is great but I can't use in on my M5, so it's my first choice for the M3.

For the M4-P and the M5 I bought a black and I'm eager to take pics with it, IMO if you have a Planar there's little point in getting one, you should have tought about it before getting the Zeiss glass as it's the standard lens for M2s and M3s.

Xmas · Aug 19, 2015

Yes but blind tests at /5.6 8x10 wet prints difficult to tell apart unless you are shooting with delta 100 the ISO test chart off a tripod and using a loupe on the print? Unless it is contra jour when their signature may show and the summitar is not always the lowest contrast.

cuthbert · Aug 19, 2015

Xmas said:
Yes but blind tests at /5.6 8x10 wet prints difficult to tell apart unless you are shooting with delta 100 the ISO test chart off a tripod and using a loupe on the print? Unless it is contra jour when their signature may show and the summitar is not always the lowest contrast.

No, actually the Summitar is a pretty bad lens IMO, and mine is perfect. Even a Industar 61 can do better and one year ago I posted some pics on another board (rangefinder forum) just writing I used my Leica IIIb and the Leicisti immediately asked me which lens I used because it had more definition than a standard Summitar..they thought it was a collapsible Summicron I.

This is one of the pics of that film:

Film is BW400CN.

I don't have a scanned pic taken with the Summitar with me at the moment, but it's a classic low def low contrast vintage lens, the 'cron is light years better.

This is taken with the M3 and Neopan, sunny 16 rule:

Metered with the M5, same film:

Metered with the M5, in colour (Ektar 100):

Not the most flare resistant lens, but it's a 1960 lens:

Ko.Fe. · Aug 19, 2015

ColColt said:
Great lens. I had one back in the early 80's but are they worth $1000 with the eyes? I ran across that combo yesterday and the lens did look nearly unused with superb glass. My credit card keeps jumping out of my pocket.

I keep wondering if it's better than my Zeiss 50f2 Planar *T lens.

It is different.

If goggles are matching the lens and it is perfect in condition, the price is right.

I had Summitar and it was CLA'ed.

I have prints from it as well and they are special ones.

But I sold it because it is bulky.
I61 is primitive lens. The way it is made and how it renders.

cuthbert · Aug 19, 2015

I suspect you have post war Summitar, mine is from 1939 so uncoated, zero resistance to flare, the colours are pretty desaturated and contrast is always low.

The I61 is a much more modern design with good coating and Lanthanium glass that boosts the performance (I think the DR Summicron also uses some "rare Earth" glass in it) so my comparison is unfair, I know it.

Xmas · Aug 19, 2015

cuthbert said:
No, actually the Summitar is a pretty bad lens IMO, and mine is perfect. Even a Industar 61 can do better and one year ago I posted some pics on another board (rangefinder forum) just writing I used my Leica IIIb and the Leicisti immediately asked me which lens I used because it had more definition than a standard Summitar..they thought it was a collapsible Summicron I.

This is one of the pics of that film:

Film is BW400CN.

I don't have a scanned pic taken with the Summitar with me at the moment, but it's a classic low def low contrast vintage lens, the 'cron is light years better.

This is taken with the M3 and Neopan, sunny 16 rule:

Metered with the M5, same film:

Metered with the M5, in colour (Ektar 100):

Not the most flare resistant lens, but it's a 1960 lens:

It may have been mistreated over the years mine is low contrast but reasonable otherwise.
Eg some were hard coated by third parties and may have been refigured in the polishing process.

Noel

Ko.Fe. · Aug 19, 2015

cuthbert said:
I suspect you have post war Summitar, mine is from 1939 so uncoated, zero resistance to flare, the colours are pretty desaturated and contrast is always low.

The I61 is a much more modern design with good coating and Lanthanium glass that boosts the performance (I think the DR Summicron also uses some "rare Earth" glass in it) so my comparison is unfair, I know it.

Yes, Summitar was coated. It appears to be "interesting" version.
Coated, but with good number of aperture blades.

But I also had uncoated and not trashed Summar.
My copy was sharp and the amount of details it was giving due to absence of coating was very appealing.

Sold it because it didn't sit right on M4-2.

I had I-61 L/D, as well, was hoping for magic, but nothing to write home about, may be earlier I61 is way better.
I prefer I-26m over 61 L/D to be honest.

cuthbert · Aug 19, 2015

Xmas said:
It may have been mistreated over the years mine is low contrast but reasonable otherwise.
Eg some were hard coated by third parties and may have been refigured in the polishing process.

Noel

Mine looks brand new, it's not even scratched.

Go on the rangefinder forum, they have a thread dedicated to the Summitar and you can notice that in most of the pictures have the traditional low contrast low definition look of old lenses, but anyway we are taling the Summicron DR here.

ColColt · Aug 19, 2015

The DR I had back in the 80's was superbly sharp and I liked the heft. It didn't come with the eyes. I can't recall the price but it was definitely not close to $1000. Of course, that was long ago, too. I already had the Zeiss lens for a month and came across the DR lens with eyes just the other day on ebay and the lens came from a collector. It looks like it just left Wetzlar last week. It was stated there was no scratches, haze, fungus or separation.

Ko.Fe. · Aug 19, 2015

Not so long time ago even well used, next to abused DR was above 1K USD.

Similar Summicron version 2 lens without goggles is not DR, but Rigid.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-summicron-comparison-table.htm

ColColt · Aug 19, 2015

There's a Rigid and there's a DR with or without the goggles. I had one sans the goggles in the 80's. Due to the tab on top the goggles could be added, however.

Ko.Fe. · Aug 19, 2015

ColColt said:
There's a Rigid and there's a DR with or without the goggles. I had one sans the goggles in the 80's. Due to the tab on top the goggles could be added, however.

Goggles and DRs aren't easily swappable, to my knowledge. Not in terms of how to put them on, but due to alignment requirements.

ColColt · Aug 19, 2015

Are you saying the two have to be a matched pair? How would you know if that particular lens/goggles are matched?

John Koehrer · Aug 20, 2015

ColColt said:
Are you saying the two have to be a matched pair? How would you know if that particular lens/goggles are matched?

I'm also curious about this and never heard of it until recently on the interweb. Any reference from Leitz?

ColColt · Aug 20, 2015

I haven't been able to find anything about it unless I overlooked something here...

https://www.cameraquest.com/m50dr.htm

Theo Sulphate · Aug 20, 2015

ColColt said:
Are you saying the two have to be a matched pair? How would you know if that particular lens/goggles are matched?

The only concern about which type of Eyes to mount on the 50 DR Summicron is mentioned on the Cameraquest site (same link above). The article mentions the size of the ball bearing on old vs. new DR lenses and how that affects fit with the two variations of the Eyes.

ColColt · Aug 20, 2015

In the photos that are provided of the lens/goggles I was looking at, the ball bearing is shown as is the goggles but I wouldn't be able to tell if they would work or not. He got both from a collector so "assuming" the collector bought them together it probably would.

Theo Sulphate · Aug 20, 2015

ColColt said:
In the photos that are provided of the lens/goggles I was looking at, the ball bearing is shown as is the goggles but I wouldn't be able to tell if they would work or not. He got both from a collector so "assuming" the collector bought them together it probably would.

All that I think is needed is to know whether the lens has the single distance scale (either feet or meters) or the dual scale. Then, the final thing is looking at the logo on the Eyes. The way I interpret it:

Early DR with single scale - use only the Eyes with E. Leitz condenser logo

Later DR with dual scale - can use Eyes with either E. Leitz condenser logo OR Leitz Wetzlar script

ColColt · Aug 21, 2015

This is the one I'm considering buying...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/231656625277?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

50 f2 DR Summicron with "Eyes"

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency