50mm Summicron versions:

1. Collapsible - v. low contrast - 1953-57
2. Rigid - slightly more contrast, sharper wide open - 1957-68
3. Dual Range - prety much as the rigid with a close focussing attachment, usually more expensive than v2 (only for film Ms really) 1963(?)-1968. Should be the same formula as the rigid but many claim to see a difference in results.
4. 1st aluminium alloy body, black finish, no infinity lock, focus by ring only - The '69 'cron. Much more contrasty than other versions, not so favoured by Leica enthusiasts. 1969-1979
5. Tabbed focus mechanism, current formula 1979-1990
6. Current version, same formula as previous but no focus tab and a built in sliding hood.

I've owned versions 1, 5 and 6. They are all excellent but the modern formula is sharper wide open at the cost of some softness to the bokeh. If I had to live with one lens for life it would be a 50mm Summicron but I would use it with 35mm film, an M9 or maybe a Summicron-R on a Canon 5D. Versions 2,3 or 5 would be my picks. For :u43: I love my 45/1.8 and can't think of a legacy lens I'd rather use instead in the 40-50mm range.

Collapsible 'cron @f2.8, close to minimum focus, Leica M2, Ilford Delta 100, lab scan.


Doorbells, Florence by Mark Bowerman, on Flickr

Edit: posted after your decision.

__________________
Mark

My stuff is at ipernityhttp://www.ipernity.com/home/294121

Unrepentant E-P1 user

It's one of the either or propositions that I don't want to take up. I love the 45, and haven't desired another lens in that focal length, but today I opened up an early birthday gift and inside the package was a very nice 50mm LTM Summicron f2, sent I know for my 1938 Leica camera, but I had to test it on the E-M5. I just shot a few test shots around the house, but my initial impression is that it is as sharp as the native lens. Sometimes I just like going out with manual focus lenses on my digital camera, and when I do this lens will undoubtedly go with me.

Now if it stops raining I'll throw it on the Leica IIIb that has Ilford FP4 film in it, rated at iso 80, and I'll shoot up the rest of that role and develop it this evening. Can't wait. But even though it was sent for my film camera, I just know I'll play with it on the E-M5.

__________________
Du noir s'en vient
Le clair qu'il a.

Guillevic

Couldn't resist doing a quick test. Collapsible Summicron 50/2 vs Jupter-8 50/2 vs Zuiko 45/1.8All jpeg sooc at 1/400 @ f2.8. I don't think any of them disgrace themselves. The Jupiter-8 is pretty good for a £10 lens. The no-brainer pick is the Zuiko - edges the IQ (maybe) and it is auto-focus.

Summicron:


Jupiter-8:


Zuiko:

__________________

Of those images I find the Summicron to be the most pleasing. It has a wonderful 3D quality that really jumps out at you. I notice it most in the flower that is pointing downward. The Jupiter is a close second and the Olympus still very good but a bit less so. They're all very sharp. The bokeh is very nice on the Summicron. Of those three the Jupiter really jumps out as by far the best bargain. Of course the Olympus is AF and on m43 I would likely choose it over either the Summicron or Jupiter because I don't find m43 to be a particularly good platform for using legacy glass.

I wouldn't argue with any of that. The Summicron is from 1955 - not bad for a 57-year old!

__________________

The Oly 45/1.8 is a no-bainer. I own many Leica lenses, including the 50 Cron. There is nothing special about this lens, it's not a bad performing lens, it's just that you can get equal or better for much less money. Of all the Leica lenses I own, the best one is the ridiculously over priced 100mm/2.8 APO macro. If you own a Leica, and have use for it on that camera, then get the lens. Don't be fooled by the Leica name, they excellent lenses for their respective cameras, but on the m43 they don't live up to their reputation. The 45/1.8 is hands down, a better lens for m43 cameras.

I really don't see it - perhaps it would be different if you'd put "clickable" pictures up so one can see fine detail, but for me the Jupiter wins this one, and for exactly the same reason as I love my 85mm f2 - eloquent and romantic without in any way lacking precision. The Leica is a close second and the Olympus 3rd.

I tried the Olympus at a dealer and while it's incredibly impressive for size/weight/sharpness/AF speed I don't find its rendition that engaging. The 75mm, however, is a different story...

I couldn't disagree, there's something I like about all three and the Jupiter-8 does have that certain something in the way it draws the image. The lens I lust after is the Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f1.5 which has that same something in spades.

One small problem with the Jupiter-8 is that the oof is really fugly at f2 - and not in a good way.

I do find the 45/1.8 a bit clinical sometimes but its balance of qualities combined with autofocus makes it my go-to lens. The others get used when I have the leisure to manual focus. If Olympus were to introduce focus peaking of some sort it might be a different story.

Btw, the images are clickable now but only to 2,048px jpegs - sorry, I didn't upload bigger.

__________________

I went back and looked at them and I prefer the Summicron as it has a tiny bit more contrast but the Summicorn and the Jupiter are very close. Personally I am always on the lookout for a decent Jupiter-*. I think it would match up really well with my NEX.

FWIW I had 2 45/1.8's and never really got on with them. I too found the rendering a bit sterile at times but mostly I found that I like a bit closer focus ability than the 45/1.8 offers so I was constantly feeling frustrated by that. Not really the lens's fault but just me wanting something it didn't do. I sold it and decided to go with a PL45 instead. It arrives Tuesday. I'm interested to see how it does rendering wise. I have heard it is quite nice.

If you will be shooting mostly static subjects where it's relatively easy to focus manually, and focus isn't changing constantly... it's a tougher call... however, if portraits make up much of what you will use the lens for, get a native 45 (either Oly 45/1.8 or PL 45/2.) for the AF. It's MUCH easier to create good portraits, with shallow DOF if you like that, with AF, especially if your subject is moving around a bit. The 45/1.8 would be arguably slightly better suited for portraits than the 45/2.8 due to the slightly shallower DOF capability.

I do prefer the bokeh in the Summicron in the examples above. I really wish those samples could have included the PL 45/2.8 to see how it would render the same scene in comparison - all shot at f/2.8.

As for color rendition... I feel that was a bit more significant issue in the film days when we had much less control over color rendition and contrast. With digital capture and PP apps like LR, one can do a lot to adjust contrast, sharpen images, and tweak color renditions... and it's very quick and easy to do.

For me, in your shoes, this would be a no brainer. I'd go with the Oly 45/1.8 or the PL 45/2.8 - either one is a very good lens in that focal length. You can get a little bit shallower DOF with the 1.8, if that is something that matters to you. And you can get awesome macro capability and very good sharpness with the 2.8 - possibly a better lens for landscapes and general subjects, perhaps, than the 1.8. Either one will be a good portrait lens. And the PL 45/2.8 is likely to be a bit better with close-in AF, as some folks have experienced some issues with AF hunting using the 45/1.8.

So.. 45/1.8 if portraits are more important to you and 45/2.8 if general use and macro performance is more important to you. Either way, take your pick of these two native lenses and you'll be very happy, I'm sure.

__________________
Don