Leica Summicron-M 50/2 or Summilux-M 50/1.4

What is your choice between the Leica Summicron-M 50/2 or Summilux-M 50/1.4 lenses and why if the cost the lens is not a factor? Thanks.

Unfortunately, it depends on your subject. As far as resolution, the

summicron is superior, by a slight margin at f2 and f2.8, to the

summilux. After f4 you would need to magnify over 22x to notice. Of

course, if you need to shoot indoors with no flash, the summilux is

faster and renders out of focus areas (bokeh) beautifully. I believe

the out of focus rendition of the summilux is finer than that of the

summicron.

A Leitz guy 20 years ago told me that the Summicron was the better

lens, as far as sharpness and contrast at f/5.6 went. Photodo.com

bears him out.

 

<p>

 

However, in the real world, you'll never see the difference, it's very

subtle, and hand holding erases it anyway. That extra stop makes all

the difference sometimes, and I favor the Summilux, despite the extra

bulk and intrusion into the bottom right of the finder's field.

They're both exquisite lenses. You'll be happy with either, and never

really know if you made the right choice.

I just settled an Summicron-M 50/2 lens. The build-in lens hood is

very handy and compact (in my camera bag) but a little bit thin. The

front lens element is very closed to lens cover and a good UV filter

is almost required to protect the lens being scratched. The focusing

ring rotates with smooth(then I found my 90 Summicron-M is bit too

tight) and easy feeling. I do not need the focusing tab but still it

is good to have. It looks very good on my .85 M6 (possible the best.

Almost 'full frame' for an eye glasses user like me). Only a bit

blocked in the lower right corner when the build-in lens hood

extended. Thank you for your information to help me selecting this

lens.