I agree that the lens is magnificent lens for such an old design. Here are some of my own notes and comments on that lens.

- It CAN flare badly in certain situations. The pull-out hood on the current version isnt sufficient. The previous version had a separate hood which is better. However it is flimsy so try look for the metal hood that is hard to find.

- The previous version has the exact same optics but in a smaller package and includes a focussing tab. Some people prefer the tab and some prefer the knurled ring of the current version. I like tabs myself so I sold mine to get a previous.

- The silver version of the current lens is silky smooth gem of mechanical perfection. However it is quite heavy ( I think over 300 grams) so steer away from that If you like to keep the weight down. Previous version, black, is about 185 grams. A big difference on such a small camera.

- For some reason, all the 50s I have owned are prone to ghosting from filters, more so than other lenses. I now use mine without a filter at all (M9) to make sure I never have ghosting.

- Bokeh at f/2 is creamy smooth, just like proven in Steves review. However, at mid-apertures such as f/4 the bokeh can be terrible and busy, especially with branches and other high contrast subjects in the out of focus area. Because of this I try to shoot this lens either wide open or at f8 -f11.

- 6-bit coding is not really necessary, but I HAVE noticed that here is more camera vignetting with the lens set at “Uncoded” versus having the lens correctly identified (either via coding or dialing in the correct lens).

- Someone asked about focus travel, and I would say thats about 100 degrees. (a little over one quarter of the lens barrel.) I think this is the same on both versions but I have not made a side to side comparison. With a tabbed version this is perfect – enough to get precise focus quickly. With the un-tabbed current version I felt that I sometimes had to change grip when focussing from near to far. Not an ideal situation as I like to know where my focus is “by feel”. With a little bit of training one can learn to estimate focus distance. Being able to prefocus the lens to within 10% or even 5% before even looking through the finder is a big advantage with this lens. That is in my opinion much easier with the tabbed version. 50mm is long enough that you need to be pretty accurate with your focus, especially at f2.

I’ve only just recently discovered this fantastic website and ‘blog, Steve, and I gotta say, I’ve rarely found any such place as informative, well balanced and, well, fun.

I’m not even close to the “pro’ ” territory of many of the folks here, but have nevertheless had a long-time love of all things photographic and photographable. Drove my mom CRAZY when I was kid! It all started with my old Konica Autoreflex T2 and 57/f1.2 (a most fabulous lens, I must say!) Needless to say, though, that beast was anything but a stealthy street camera – and street and people shots are what I do and love.

So yep! I eventually wound up with a 1956-ish M3 and collapsible 50 Summicron. Even though the poor lens is in dire need of a cleaning nowadays, it produces what I know as that “classic” look to which you refer. But oh boy does it wash out from being so dirty! Rarely used now… BUT! My newer 50/f2 is my almost-always on the M3. I’m also getting acquainted with my “new” 1946 50/f2 Summitar. WOW. Love it. Glad to hear that you’re liking yours as well!

So why do I finally jump in and write? Because Leica glass _always_ shows itself, in my experience. Always. I work at a maritime academy, at sea a good deal of the time, around a bunch of “kids” with all manner of P&S this or that, even some fancier digicams (but nothing M9 or X1 class, of course). We’re all frequently shooting very similar snaps and stuff. They joke with me all the time about my silly old-school film camera (ye gads!), claiming how prehistoric and “inferior” it is; how “slow” it must be; how “expensive” it is to do film. In the next breath they typically change their tune, when they see the difference in the pix. Not to mention when they cannot take a picture anyway because their camera is refusing to cooperate in the humidity…

Without fail, even on hasty scans, somehow they can always pick out the Leica shots as looking nicer – even when they’re clueless as to where they came from. I then explain that it’s the glass. Now everyone wants to borrow one of my film cameras so they can play too!

It’s that subtle roundness; that 3D effect… er, that “glow”? I’m forever hooked. Now all I gotta do is resist the temptation to get one of those Sonnars! That one I may have to beg to justify with the “other half,” but the Leica stuff? Proven worth.

Thanks for really cool site!!
Scott

Thanks for a wonderful review of this lens. I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on the absence on a focus tab on the new version. I have used the older version in the past and really liked using the focus tab. I felt it gave me very precise control.

What is the travel on the focus ring like on this new version, do you have to do much rotating? I would love to know your experience.

Best regards
Stephen

I have yet to figure out which body I want though, so it is sitting on my desk staring at me… pleading with me…