50mm Lux (11114) vs 3rd Version (11868)

I am considering the purchase of a 50mm. Lack of flair and smooth OOF

attributes are critical points. The Lux v3 has been reported to be flair

resistant but is pricey. How does the older Lux v2 compare to v3 (11868) for

flair?

 

Another option is a Cron or Konica M. Is the Lux v2 more flair resistant than

a 1994 version Cron?

"I am considering the purchase of a 50mm. Lack of flair and smooth OOF attributes are critical points...."

Why don't you just get an Elmar?

Bill, I am leaning towards an older Lux as a low light portrait lens. My two lens kit is a 40mm Rokkor & Elmarit 90mm. My favorite SLR lens is a Rokkor 58mm f/1.2. I am looking for similar image qualities in a M mount.

The older 43mm thread Summilux is basically the same lens glass in a different mount. Its

great for flare control and has a optical signature that is very 'Leica-like'. With its longer

focus throw, clip-on hood some folks prefer it to the newer version. Find a good deal and

you'll be happy.

Richard I've had both 2nd and 3rd versions. Regretably I sold the 2nd version, then later on got the 3rd version after using a Nocton 50 . Both are very flair resistant, both are very nice lenses. To me the older lux just felt better with it's smaller filter size and attachable hood. I might be imagining it but also the OOF areas looked smoother and warmer when I look at old slides. The 'newer' 46mm filter lux never seemed to quite replicated that look. So I'd go for a version 2.

I have a ver. 1 (1644XXX) I'm quite happy with.

I have used both some. Unlike Simon I do not really see a difference on film. However, for better or worse, the 11868 focuses to .7m rather than 1m, which can make a surprising difference on occasion. As pointed out above, the 11868 also focuses more quickly but is consequently a little harder to touch up in fine increments if necessary. In practice, I think I'd miss more shots trying to get the 11114 to focus than tweaking the 11868, but YMMV.

Don't know if this is allowed under the new rules, but I've got a version 2 for sale in the new

correct for sale area. Let me know if you are interested.

I've had two 43mm Luxes and have noticed a difference between them and my late model pre-asph, w/ the pre-asph being outstanding. Maybe its just my eye or the timing or the film. Don't know.

 

I believe the diff among these versions is the improved multi-coating of the later models.

"I believe the diff among these versions is the improved multi-coating of the later models."

 

Improved in what way? The wavelengths of light have been known for centuries, and various coatings since, at least, WWII. It's up to the designers to decide which glass and coatings to use based upon the desired result.

 

New doesn't necessarily mean better.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss

Hi Stephen - Its pretty well known that Leica improved its multi-coating over the decades.

 

Do you believe that the 1962 model delivers exactly the same results as the most recent pre-asph?

Do you believe that the 1962 model delivers exactly the same results as the most recent pre-asph?

 

My '58 model produces the same as the latest pre-asph I borrowed did.

One thing I don't care for with the 3rd version is the closer focusing compared to the 2nd version. To me ,this lens was not designed for such close focusing. Well at least I was wasn't happy with my results on the few times I tried it.