ed_polzin Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 im new to leica bc i was interested in using rangefinders. Im coming from nikon using a 50 1.4 Initially i was going to buy the summilux for the M body i just bought, but ive heard poor things about it. it seams to be the red-headed stepchild of the leica community. im more interested in a lens with a special took than one with perect sharpness. ive seen pics with a very unique (sorry to have to say this) glow or 3d look and i want that. i like a short depth of field and care very much about oof areas. anyone who likes the summilux tell me why. i know the summicron has that special look and i was wondering if the lux has the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jo_l_cahane Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 I cannot post photos (no scanner yet ) but i am very satisfied with my first version chrome summilux M It is a very versatile lens, nice oof and plenty enough sharpness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_b._elmer Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 I guess you ask about the M 50 Summilux. I got one some years ago after having had a 50/2.0 for many years and used it only rarely. Now the 50/1.4 is my favourite lens for M, since it is so versatile and provides a beautiful fingerprint with sharp focus and unsharp background (some call it Bokeh). In fact, I have 2 of them now! It is no wonder it has been in production for 40 years and is still a beloved lens for those who can afford it. Just go ahead and try it, I don't think you will be disappointed, especially if you come from Nikon, which in my experience does not provide natural colours like the Leica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Ed, if you've heard poor things about it, probably the criticism was that it's an old design and overdue for an update. Old design, yes--it has a heritage dating back to the old Xenon. Of course, it's been updated many time since then: Xenon-Summarit-Summilux verion I, and then version II. And since the version II, Leica has probably tweaked it a bit without saying anything. Just as you were posting this, I was packing up my black version II to go shoot a few shots with the M3 on this gray, rainy overcast day. It does have its own signature, just as you were writing about. A very smooth look. Well, time to go shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 I have the latest Summilux 50 and it doesn't start looking like the Summicron until about f4.0, and that's fine with me. At f1.4 and 2.0, I prefer the look of the Summilux to the Summicron, and it sounds like you might as well, since you like "glow" and the "3-D look." (I'd post a scan, but my scans don't do my prints much justice.) The lens is sharp in the center even at f1.4, but the corners are a bit soft. To my eye, it helps the image seem to 'pop' a bit off the paper. The limited DOF helps that effect, too. And I've found the Summilux to be more flare resistant than my Summicron ever was. FWIW, I carry an 8X ND filter with me just so I can shoot wide open more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bas1 Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Love mine to death, it does over 75% of my workload. The bokeh is fab and the sharpness is everything you want from a lens. Just a great lens.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_lehuray1 Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Please try to explain what is wrong with this Summilux picture.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hart Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Superb lens, unjustly maligned by those who take photos of newspapers stuck on walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_perkins2 Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 It's not a bad lens. It's just that there are better lenses if you'll be shooting wide open - the current 35 f1.4 for example is sharper at the edges and doesn't flare as much. The Nikon 50 f1.4 is probably a better lens wide open too. But if you're using it at f4 or above, you'd be hard pressed to see the diffrence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 <<im more interested in a lens with a special took than one with perect sharpness.>> Then you'd be better off with a Summarit, the f/1.5 predecessor of the Summilux. And preferably one with a messed up front coating (not hard to find). Or maybe one of those Russian lenses they sell by the yard on eBay. The Summilux is quite soft into the corners until f/8 but it still might be too sharp for you. Of course you could always smear some Vaseline on the front element. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 <<Please try to explain what is wrong with this Summilux picture.>> Not a thing if the subject is those bright white dots on the left resembling the Olympic Rings. That's where my eye was immediately drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_carson Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 The only thing that I find wrong with the summilux is the price. Otherwise, I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito sobrinho Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 "please try to explain what is wrong with this Summilux picture" You are lucky to have a DOF from the hand up to her back hair at f1.4 and at this close distance. I have a Summilux since the early 80's and I can not duplicate your picture at a short distance of what you did at f1.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hall1 Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 You nailed it, Tito. I don't think it was taken at f/1.4 either - more like f/4 to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olliesteiner Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 I love it! It's the only lens I own (thus far) for my Leica M. Sample photo here and more at my web site: http://photos.oliversteiner.com<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 It was my first Leica lens (chrome), even before the M3 bought a couple of hours later at a different shop. I got good results from it. I'm sorry that I sold it, but got a good offer on the street for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 "<<Please try to explain what is wrong with this Summilux picture.>> Not a thing if the subject is those bright white dots on the left resembling the Olympic Rings. That's where my eye was immediately drawn." Bravo, Jay. Someone posts a pic for illustrative purposes and you off an unsolicited critique! Pretty nervy given the paucity of your own postings and the poor quality of the few pics you do post. His shot (which was only offered to show that the Summilux is a reasonably competent lens) could be fixed with a little burning in of those highlights, but no amount of photoshop wizardry could fix your "Peter Paul and Mary" concert pic. I'm sure your Apo-Telyt is a wonderful lens, but a Hektor would have done just as well to capture such a static, boring image. Try getting out of your chair next time. Hey, just trying to "tell it like it is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Fortunately the photo editor who paid me 3 figures for that shot (the real print, not the low-res flatbed scan I uploaded--and disclosed as such) didn't have a personal grudge against me for disagreeing with his internet opinion. This is exactly why I don't post images. Steve asked what was wrong with the shot, I gave my opinion, I'm sure he wouldn't disagree that those highlights are a distraction and hopefully being a pro and used to the often blunt critiques of editors, he understood that my candor was not a malicious personal attack. Unlike yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Here's an interesting article. Worth considering. http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigtl01.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feli Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 The Summilux, like many other lenses, is based on a classic design. It's origins began with the pre WWII Xenon 50/1.5, which evolved into the Summarit 50/1.5 and then into the first generation Summilux, which only survived about 2 years until It was recomputed into what we know as todays Summilux. Since then there has supposedly been a minor tweak (early 80's), from what I've heard mostly coating and assembly tweaks. The Xenon is fairly rare and very prone to flare. Wide open it is soft. The Sumamrit is a coated Xenon with a few tweaks. Again it's prone to flare and has low contrast. Not a great performer, but it has a "look" that some people like. The Summilux is a top notch design. All highspeed lenses are a little soft in the corners and vignette wide open, but that hasn't stopped anyone from taking pictures with them. I have read that the Summilux is in a dead heat with the Zeiss 50/1.4. Supposedly the only thing better than either is the new Summilux-R 50/1.4 Also consider that unless you put it (or any other lens) on a tripod, you will rarely see it's pull potential. Cheers, Feli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheridan Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Ed. In practice, I've found the 50mm Summilux lens to be a very handy lens.Despite critical evaluations on this optic, I've found f1.4 a very useable aperture when you need it - little vignetting, quite contrasty, remarkably flare resistant and suffering little coma, although slightly edge soft. The f1 Noctilux is a mighty lens but it's funny that patently obvious vignetting has been interpreted as a great characteristic when technically it's a shortcoming. I would be interested to see results of the new 50mm R -v- the M equivalent. Even though the R touted as a cracker, the M body in practice has it's advantages.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheridan Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 ...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 "Steve asked what was wrong with the shot..." He did!? Don't you recognize a rhetorical question? And you're not an editor, so your 'blunt' appraisals aren't really very helpful in a forum setting, are they? In fact, they might discourage participation. Much as you say comments like mine do to you, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron_sawyer Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Decent optic, if a little bit long in the tooth. Hard to justify the cost when the Nokton, which is probably a bit better, can be had for only $325. The Nokton is one of my favorites -- nice combination of very good performance wide open (sharper than Summilux) with a less "clinical" look (uncorrected spherical aberrations, probably intentionally, to improve the "b" word). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 <<"Steve asked what was wrong with the shot..." He did!? Don't you recognize a rhetorical question? And you're not an editor, so your 'blunt' appraisals aren't really very helpful in a forum setting, are they? In fact, they might discourage participation. Much as you say comments like mine do to you, right?>> Give it up and grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now