Summicron vs. Summilux vs. Noctilux

Hi,

 

<p>

 

I investigated the f-stop vs. price relationship in M lenses and was wondering if the move from Summicron to Summilux was worth $1,000 and from Summilux to Noctilux another $1,000. I realize money is a relative thing on this newsgroup, but are Summicrons on a par with the Summilux and Noctilux in terms of quality, if price is not a factor?

 

<p>

 

It is hard to get an unbiased answer by trolling the website because Noctilux owners tend to justify their purchase in very eloquent terms.

 

<p>

 

FWIW I ended up buying the 35mm Summicron-M Asph because I liked its size, very convenient, lives up to the Leica promise of discreteness. However, I now wonder if I should have bought the Summilux instead. Somehow these ideas creep up at the wrong point in a purchase of this kind, for after agonizing over the price and justifying it, and then spending it, suddenly Summilux greed takes over.

 

<p>

 

Thanks,

Having gone through the same post-purchase pangs, my suggestion would

be to go forth and photograph, carrying a small note pad and a pencil.

Every time you just can't get the shot at f/2, make a note in the

notepad. Look at the notepad at the end of 3 months, and again at the

end of 6 months. My notepad would be empty. Yours might not be, but

you'll have documentation to back up any second guessing you might

want to do.

How can you advise on subjectivity? Speaking only for myself, I

can't imagine missing one f-stop like I would miss the extra grand

that stop costs. I think you will find f2 to be plenty fast. $1,000

buys a bunch of film.

Your first paragraph implies you are asking about lenses with a 50mm

focal length, as you mention the Noctilux. However your second

question seems to be asking a question on the 35's...

 

<p>

 

My answer is one that others have used for this question in the past

on the 'Cron/'Lux/Noct debate: At f5.6 and above, you'll have a tough

time telling them apart. At f2, the 'Cron probably has a slight edge

over the "lux and the Noct, at f1.4 the 'Lux probably has a slight

edge over the Noct, but blows the 'Cron away, and at f1 the Noct wins

hands-down.

 

<p>

 

The point is, all Leica glass is very good and there is no need to

pay for an f-stop you don't need or will rarely ever use.

 

<p>

 

To your second question, how often have you wanted an extra stop on

your 35 'Cron? If the answer is "quite often" then you probably

should consider getting the 'Lux. OTOH if your answer is "only on

occasion" then you are probably just as well off with your 'cron and

a heavier wallet.

 

<p>

 

;-) Cheers,

I've have considered your questions several times myself. I have

found that even 1.0 might not be fast enough all the time. I no

longer stress over the "which lens" question, but now consider which

film. Faster films have eased my pain.

Im with Don on this one. Ive always found myself creeping toward

faster and faster lenses, both for rangefinder and slr. The truth

that Im starting to realize, is that very often nothing is fast

enough, and Im much better served to go with a faster film.

This may be of course because Ive been doing most of my shooting

indoors lately too-- 1.4 is fast enough, I found that I struggled

with my Canon 50 f1.2 over DOF issues. But then again there's that

nagging "maybe if you caved in for a noct, you'd practice a lot

more.."

Go with the lens you have, and you will know after some time if you

NEED faster.

Best,

sadly, I am not a Leica owner so take my words lightly. I can,

however, relate this to my Hasselblad endeavours, and tell you that I

recently purchased a 110mm F2 lens because it offers me something no

other lens can. the delicious lack of DOF at f2 in medium-format. my

photography requires this, and a Noctilux would be my 35mm

equivalent. I am not looking for sharpness nor edge definition when I

shoot wide-open. I want character. I want a signature. I wanted

something that f4 doesn't yield, and I paid the price.

 

<p>

 

quit thinking pure f-stops ... and look deeper.

For me a 35/1.4ASPH is a useful lens with a useful aperture,

especially since I use a Tri-Elmar for most shooting, which is 3 full

stops slower, and no performance penalty over the 35/2ASPH. The

50/1.4 OTOH represents a less clear-cut decision because f/1.4 is

visibly lower contrast and less sharp in the corners than the

35/1.4ASPH and you even give up something to the 50/2 in the

performance at f/2 and f/2.8. In addition the shallow DOF at f/1.4

with a 50mm has a very, very limited usefulness in my photography.

The Noctilux represents not only an enormous price increase, but also

an enormous weight and bulk increase not to mention blockage of a

significant chunk of the viewfinder. Plus, to me the only subject I

could cover satisfactorily with the meager DOF at f/1 would be a

newspaper taped to a wall. I've wondered sometimes if that might not

in fact be the subject most often photographed with Leica lenses ;>)

(Except that the vignetting at f/1 would make it unsuitable even for

flat-copy work.) So you can probably guess which 50 I own.

When i was comparing a 35/1.4 and a 35/2 of 2 different brands of SLR

lenses, i did notice that even at same aperture size, the 35/1.4

register bigger discs with out-of-focus highlights. More obvious when

shooting at 1.5m than at 2.5m and when i took it to 1m, the character

is hard to ignore.

 

<p>

 

That is my basis of choosing my next lens: 35/1.4 ASPH, no matter what

others say about the 4th 35/2.

In Leicadom, faster is always more attractive: the quality is there

at maximum aperture, and you will be shooting whatever stock when

your competitors will be packing up, weither it is K25 time or T-

Max3200 time...

 

<p>

 

If you can afford the 35 'lux, buy it. Size is not that bad and it

will serve that extra mile where the 'cron stalls. If you can afford

the 50 'lux, buy it, for the same reasons. Nocti is a little less

versatile and therefore more questionable, but f1 will let you shoot

when even f1.4 users decide to pack up...

 

<p>

 

I've done what you did. I like my 35 'cron, I use it daily with

complete confidence. Great at all apertures, small, etc. But boy, do

I lust for the 'lux. That extra mile is soooo useful !

 

<p>

 

And yes, f1.4 with 35mm allows more selective focus effects,

difficult to obtain with a wide angle. Same with f1.4 (or f1) with

50mm: fight the ugly backgrounds with minimal DoF.

One of the good features of a rangefinder is its compactness. When

you use lenses with a bigger maximum aperture, you lose some of this

quality. I do love fast lenses, but sometimes I would prefer

something smaller and lighter.

 

<p>

 

Leica lenses are getting better and better, but unfortunately they

are also becoming bigger and heavier.

 

<p>

 

The other day I just went to a shop full of Leica stuff and I one

more time dreamt about getting one of the old LTM mount cameras:

They are so small and compact that the M looks big in comparison.

And also the old LTM lenses. For example their was an old 28mm

Hector whose height must half been barely more that a half inch... I

will get one of these cute little bastards one of these days.

 

<p>

 

Before commiting to a lens, decide what is the most important to

you: Speed or compactness. Both current 35mm are great.

Since you mentioned 50mm lenses first (assuming that "Noctilux" means

you're thinking about 50s), maybe you're trying to decide what to get

for your <i>next</i> lens. In that case, you might consider that a

used 50mm Summilux certainly doesn't need to cost $1000 more than a

new Summicron.

 

<p>

 

And if you think beyond just the f-stops, as daniel taylor suggests,

you may also be interested in the many fine 50 f/1.4 lenses from

Leica, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, and others over the past 50 years. Many

of these lenses are also known for having particular signatures.

 

<p>

 

If you're looking for a new 50, and you want Summilux speed, but

you're worried you won't use it enough to justify the price, you

might also consider thes Voigtlander (Cosina) Nokton 50 f/1.5, for

about $400.

To answer your question, of course the Summicrons are "on a par" w/the

Summilux & Noctilux in terms of quality--actually they tend to perform

better (if only slightly so) @ the same apertures (designing &

manufacturing faster lenses involves many optical compromises). As

other posters have noted, you should only get the Summilux or Noctilux

if you really need (or want) the extra stop or 2 & you can justify the

extra $$ to get that extra speed.

Thanks again for all your opinions. It's amazing how much agonizing

thought (and psychic energy) goes into choosing a lens when there are

sometimes only two to choose from in a particular focal length. The

whole process is really quite a joy that only lovers of this stuff

can understand.

 

<p>

 

Note: I didn't get into the black vs. chrome thing, but I would

guess there are strong views on each side.

 

<p>

 

Thanks very much,

It's funny how many of us get caught up in endless analysis before

deciding what our next equipment purchase will be. We ponder and

ponder and even ask others in the community for advice. And then

when we finally purchase and actually use that next item, the fog

fades and it all becomes so clear ... whether that analysis was dead

on or way off the mark.

Vikram,

 

<p>

 

I have owned the Asp35'lux, 50'lux and Noctilux. The speed of the

lenses is very important with lowlight photography, but the modern

highspeed films available today make slower lenses very competative

too.

 

<p>

 

I sold both of my 1.4's and shoot mostly with my Nocitlux now. As far

as image sharpness and contrast go, the 35 wins hands down. It is

better ergonomically and probably is a more practical focal length.

 

<p>

 

It probably is the best lowlight lens too, given the focal length to

aperature ratio.

 

<p>

 

My reasons for my choices? Purely emotional. I don't like the bokeh

of the Asp 35 and love the look of the Noctilux.

 

<p>

 

It's image is soft, there is vignetting, it's big and heavy and slow

it use. But when I look at the prints.....nothing else comes close.

 

<p>

 

The 50'lux is very similar and infact has more contrast and almost no

noticable vignetting and is much smaller than the Noctilux. However,

the bokeh is still not the same, even at the same aperature

settings. ;-)

 

<p>

 

Do I miss these lenses. Sometimes. I think not having a 35 can be a

pain, but I had an emotional distance to my 35'lux which was bought

used and my dealings with the seller soured my feelings. Plus I sold

to a friend who will benefit from it's use.

 

<p>

 

I am now eyeing off a 35'cron that is much more compact and much

lower in price than the 'luxes.

 

<p>

 

Vikram, nothing about Leicas is rational. Emotion rules in this

particular field of interest. If we were truely right brained about

our photography we'd all be shooting with something else....

 

<p>

 

Now to come off my tangental ramblings.....the 35Asp'lux has very

similar performance to the 35Asp'cron. A little sharper in the centre

and a little softer at the edges. The benefit of the 'lux is one

extra stop-and a high contrast useable stop at that. The benefit of

the 'cron is greater edge to edge eveness in performance and a

flatter field image. Plus it's smaller and it's cheaper.

 

<p>

 

Simon

Vikram. The relationship of the price vs maximum aperture is not

related to optical quality per se. The larger the aperture, the

harder it is to design a high quality lens and the greater the cost

of the glass (more glass plus expensive special types of glasses

needed to provide the necessary correction). To defray the

designcosts and the materials costs, the manufacturer charges more

for lenses of the same focal length with larger max apertures.

 

<p>

 

Basically, you're paying for the maximum aperture. Gnereally

speaking, other things being equal, the lenses with more modest

apertures will have the best absolute performance. The Noctilux is a

good example, not as good optical quality as the Summicron, aperture

for aperture, but much more expensive. The 50/2 Summicron is still

the best 50 Leica makes.

Simon and Eliot,

 

<p>

 

Thanks very much for your responses, even though your conclusions are

diametrically opposed! As Kelvin said, we ponder and ponder.

 

<p>

 

The 35 Summicron Asph is a cutie, and the other lenses look huge by

comparison. Only the 50 Summicron comes close. In spite of the

small size, the images from the 35 are wonderful, if only my talent

and vision could keep up!

Having gotten the bug about "upgrading" my 35 Summicron to an ASPH, I did a google and came upon this conversation. I am still thinking, but I do have these comments to add: always test the specific lens (e.g. I got a 50 pre-ASPH Summilux in a trade so I tested it before thinking I would sell it--this lens is, contrary to everything I've heard in more 35 years of Leica use, superior to the excellent German Summicron I used to have. While alluded to, but not directly addressed, is the feel of the lens/body combo in actual use. This is an issue I am thinking about since the chrome ASPH is significantly heavier than the black ones (Summicrons). The bottom line on Leicas is that when I started using them they were made for photographers, now they are made for collectors and Leicaphiles. So we users have to pick and choose--Leica doesn't care about us, nor should they as we are an insignificant part of the market. I heartily indorse whoever said just go out and make some photographs. And if you can find it in your heart and head to never, ever use the phrase Bokeh, the world will be a better place. Richard www.metaphoto.com

<i>"I got a 50 pre-ASPH Summilux in a trade so I tested it before thinking I would sell it--this lens is, contrary to everything I've heard in more 35 years of Leica use, superior to the excellent German Summicron I used to have." </i>

<br><br>Do you mean a 35 pre-ASPH Summilux? (There is no ASPH version of the 50)

I have Summicron-R 50/2, never want to get a Summilux-R 50/1.4, because I have a Carl Zeiss T* Planar 50/1.4, the best 50/1.4 lens.

What camera does the Zeiss lens fit, Martin? Contax?

Zeiss lenses fit into Contax cameras. That's what makes Contax good.

Ditto Yashica cameras (now Kyocera). Not sure if that's good.