Summilux 50/1,4 Ashperic

[joe_pelizza_salusso_di_vol]

I am thinking,since one month, to buy the new 50/1,5 summilux asph.

Is it really worth the 2,300 Euros I must disburse in order to obtain

this gem? Or the old one is just enough? Can somebody over there help

me? (I do not want to collect money for this my personal capriccio).

Thank you

Joe

[jason_b.]

The old one is a great lens, but I'm on the list for the new one. I'm hoping that ASPH pop

will not mean terrible bokeh. The old 50/1.4 has great bokeh, and is one of the things I

rely on it for. The old one is also fantastic against the light.

[daniel_khaw]

Hello Joe

Recently I splurged on the 50/1.4 asph. The colour rendition of the lens and imagery is far better than the Summicron 50/2 [4th generation] that I have. I like the 50/1.4 asph a lot and use it far more than my Summilux 35/1.4 asph now - for reasons that I find the photos very pleasing. The images and colours just stand out. 99% of my photos are shot without flash and many are shot with the aperture wide opened. I believe you will not regret having this new Summilux 50/1.4 asph lens.

Rgds

Daniel

[cameron_sawyer]

For that kind of money, you can buy a good used Noctilux plus a Summicron -- much more useful. Or a Summicron and a VC Nokton. For that matter, you could just buy a the Nokton and spend the rest on travel and film. The Nokton is so good that I cannot imagine how the difference in cost could ever justify itself.

[edlaurpic]

I purchased one a month ago with a 7 day return option, not expecting to

return it, but I did.

 

It was certainly sharp, but I could not see a difference in resolution between

the asph and the old lens with the subjects I shot (maybe I shot the wrong

subjects at the wrong apertures, but I thought I was shooting wide open).

Regarding bokeh the older lens clearly delivered smoother, creamier images

for me. This made me wonder, so I logged on to Erwin Puts' site and re-read

his review of the new lens (which I had only partially read before), and I

discovered that even he, who seems to love the lens, acknowledged (near the

end of the review which I had not noticed when I first read it) its less pleasing

bo-keh performance compared to the older lens. Here is what he says at http:/

/www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/SummiluxASPH/s14-50.html:

 

"Bo-ke aficionados will have mixed feelings about the performance of the

lens. The unsharpness gradient is relatively smooth in the near focus range

when the fore- and background planes are close to the sharpness plane. But

when the distance between main subject and fore-/background increases the

unsharpness subjects lose shape and form. Especially when the

unsharpness areas are backlit, the shapes become very harsh and rough.

This behaviour is due to the reduction of the astigmatism and curvature of

field as is a small price am gladly willing to pay. With careful selection of the

background and at full aperture, you can produce very intriguing natural

portraits."

 

Even though the lens shade can be locked in the out position, which is nice, I

also didn't like the fact that the lens was not as compact (it's a little longer, but

noticeably) and was a little heavier than the old version (less obvious). This,

combined with the disappointing bo-keh clinched it for me, and I returned it.

My test was not scientific, and I would certainly trust Erwin Puts' opinion more

than mine regarding resolution. So I guess if that's what you value most, you

may still like it better than the old one. If bo-keh is really important to you, as it

is to me, then having less pleasing bokeh in the new lens may not be a price

you "are gladly willing to pay."

[ben z]

I paid around $600 for my 80s version 50 Lux. I can't see where there is room for $1900-worth of improvement in its performance.

[tommy_baker]

Generally ASPH lenses suck. Except for the 35/1.4 ASPH. (and maybe the 90/

2.0 ASPH). The rest I stick to the pre-Asperic lenses. Much nicer imaging

[michael_hintlian1]

Tommy...what do you mean?

 

"...Generally ASPH lenses suck. Except for the 35/1.4 ASPH. (and maybe the 90/ 2.0

ASPH). The rest I stick to the pre-Asperic lenses. Much nicer imaging..."

[brunom]

Joe

 

You have to decide what you want the lens for?

 

I have a 1959 version, and as a people lens I think it is great,but if I want a clinical or technical look with the highest resolution I'd use a Summicron, if I had one, or the Summilux stopped down to f/5.6 - f/11 where I doubt any difference could be seen. As it is I use a 120mm Makro Planar for that type of photograph on a 503cw.

 

You should buy a Summilux primarily for its use at f1.4 - f/2.8. Just remember, no one lens can be best at everthing, and from what you've said I would say buy a good 2nd version, and just use it. Stop worrying about whether the latest and greatest is any better than what you have - if you like it, that should be enough.

 

Good luck with your purchase.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[tommy_baker]

Michael,

 

Its my personal opinion and experience only, so here goes..

 

Long time ago I got an M6TTL and very latest lenses, [new] (ie. cost a lot of

money), 35/2.0 ASPH and 90 APO ASPH, thinking yeah the latest will be the

best.. Sharp they were, contrasty too, but in some instances too contrasty that

the midtones blocked up and lost tonality; and also these modern ASPH

lenses were very clinical; the bokeh was also not the most appealing. I shoot

mostly B&W and I think the more tones in an image the better it is.

 

I then tried earlier lenses like the 35/2 4th version, 35/2.8 summaron, and 35/

2.0 1st version, 50/2.0 DR & 90/2.0 pre-ASPH and these lenses I found were

much better. Slightly lower contrast yes, but still sharp enough and had

character. Yes, this was the reason I got into leica in the first place, to produce

interesting images with the Leica look. These earlier lense are in all reality

un-perfect lenses technically, but in imperfection there is perfection.. if you

know what I mean. The tones were smoother capturing very delicate tones

and the bokeh smooth. Also in some instances these lenses were lighter and

better built.

 

The 90/2.0 APO ASPH is an amazing lens at f2.0, but I find it was too sharp

and much too clinical, I still have it, but have not used it since I bought the 90/

2.0 last version of the pre-aspheric 90/2.0's and it is a way different lens, very

sharp but without the clinical and soulessness of the 90/2.0 SAA. And its (the

90/2.0 pre) bokeh is very creamy and seamless -- awesome. Plus its a little

lighter and shorter.

 

When the 28/2.0 ASPH came out, there was so much hype about that lens, I

held off to see the first images, and true to form the images from this ASPH

lens was way too contrasty and abrasive for my taste. So I got the 28/2.8

elmarit last version and that is an awesome lens, yes, its 1 stop slower, but the

images are what counts for me. And as usual its more compact and lighter

that the 28/2.0 ASPH.

 

The ONLY APSH lens I think is exceptional, but does not have the over

contrasty characteristics etc.. is the 35/1.4 ASPH. Great lens for low-light. It is

a lens that can pickup delicate details and tones. I also have the 35/1.4 pre-

aspheric lens, glows and is not as good at night time as the ASPH, but it has

character, bags of it.

 

So, when Leica annouced the new 50/1.4 ASPH, I wasn't excited one bit. I'll

still to my pre-ASPH 'lux thank you very much.

[mark_ng]

uh oh...here goes the age old debate...

old lenses are built better??? (Wetzler debate)

[stephen_w.]

Some people unfamiliar with Leitz/Leica are always impressed when picking up my cameras. It has to do with the density/solid feeling. Some people deride newer Leica gear because the use of plastic in place of metal. It has nothing to do with manufacturing tolerance, just choice of materials.

 

BTW, I agree, in principle, with Tommy. I will never sell my chrome 50 'lux and 35 ver.1 'cron.

[george_b1]

OK - - This is an "Old Fart's" observation, after using Leica cameras and lenses since 1945.

 

Since I shoot slides for projection - - - and I do not use Photoshop or other "enhancements" to modify what the lens/film records, I'll observe that the later ASPH lenses DO provide a better color rendition, less flare and higher contrast when the slides are projected (2002, 90mm SuperColorplan, matte screen).

 

My older 50mm 1.4 (later model and with pristine glass) just wasn't up to the slides taken with the current Summicron 50. Forget bokeh - - unless you're one of these people that isn't apparently interested the primary focus of the photo, but dance around to examine the background for perceived flaws. The in-focus subject matter is what counts, although the bokeh can add or ssubtract from the ultimate enjoyment of the picture. BUT - - are you using your Leica and its lenses to capture reality, or are you using them to re-create in your mind's eye, a photographic "painting" of what you saw??

 

IMHO, the 24mm 2.8 ASPH is one of the finest lenses that ever came out of Solms. Projection of slides taken with this lens are simply awesome (if you forgive the photographer's choice of subject and examine the range, sharpness, contrast and color balances in the image). I would suspect that the new 50mm Summilux carries forth those same qualities.

[Nowhereman]

>>> Forget bokeh - - unless you're one of these people that isn't apparently interested

the primary focus of the photo, but dance around to examine the background for

perceived flaws. The in-focus subject matter is what counts.......[etc, blah-blah-blah]<<<

 

Tiresome. Doug Herr has shown repeadtedly in his wildlife pictures posted here that the

nature of rendition of o-o-f areas can make or break a picture: for example, when the

areas in focus are a small proportion of the picture area and the o-o-f areas are a large

proprtion of the area of the picture, as in many protraits, the nature of the bokeh becomes

very important. Just because bokeh is not important for your photos, doesn't mean that it

is not for others.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

[stephen_w.]

I totally agree Mitch. I have noticed those bashing bokeh have no OOF in their posted photos. Either all or nothing is in focus. Even when I fill the frame (most if not all), usually a candid portrait, I still like some OOF areas to give the subject depth. I have some nice recent examples from Spain, but no scanner at present. I'm a big fast glass fan.

[wai_leong_lee]

1. Don't buy in euros if you can help it. Buy in US$ before the US$ prices are adjusted.

 

2. The Nokton is not the equivalent of the 50/1.4 Asph, it's much much bigger and certainly not as pleasant at 1.5 compared to the Summilux at 1.4. Frankly, no lens is equal to the new Lux, but the question is whether you are willing to spend $2,000 on the last 5% of performance. However, there are things like bokeh, contrast, color rendition, etc. which are harder to quantify compared to resolution and sharpness.

 

3. As Erwin Puts says, the old one is very very good, but the new one is definitely better if you know how to use it. If you can afford it, go for it.

 

Wai Leong

[rgh]

I agree with George... and with the Bokeh fans too.

 

A super sharp, contrasty, and well saturated 35mm slide has its appeal up on the big screen, and if there is the slightest missed primary subject focus, the lens isn't that 'great', or just an unsteady hand, it will show up on with a big projected image. And as for Bokeh with a slide presentation, the image is up there 20-30 seconds - at most - usually. Yes, bokeh can 'make' a photography especially if you are studying it for a time, but with projection there usually isn't that much time - so unless it REALLY matters in contents, it doesn't in this format. Seconds on the 24mm quality - if you haven't tried it, it is an amazing wide angle lens - and personally with the larger image information content of very wide angles on the limited 35mm format, the more the better.

 

As for a print and especially with black and white (but with color matter too), good/beautiful bokeh can really make a photograph something special. And with fast lenses used wide open, long lenses, or wider angles close up it can take on a 'magic' quality. The pre-ASPH 35/50 Summilux, 35 pre-ASPH Summicron, 28mm Elmarit 1st version, and one of my favorites the pre-ASPH 90mm Summicron are - for me - what makes some of my Leica lenses special.

 

And Joe, if you have to ask "if the new ASPH Summilux is worth it?", you should save yourself some money. I think the ASPH 50mm Summilux is for those people who already know what they want from this lens and how to apply it to their photography. As you can see from the opinions here, it may be the 'best', and not the 'best' at the same time.

[ben z]

I also shoot primarily slides for projection and have done so for several decades now. I also use a Super Colorplan-Pro lens for projection on an RTS projector. The fact is that unless the slides are glass-mounted and the screen is absolutely flat and the projector is perfectly aligned so the slide is parallel to the screen (criteria that I suspect almost nobody adheres to)I wouldn't want to draw any conclusions about lens performance based on projected slides. And even then, you are looking at a 24x36mm slide blown up to mural size viewed from an angle (you'd be blocking the image if your eyes were along the projector lens' axis)on a textured surface.

[rico_tudor]

Tommy,

 

Your attitude is my ideal: breaking the addiction of high contrast and sharpness. Interesting that you favor the 35 ASPHs, since they are not notably sharper than the pre-ASPH 'cron (as shown by image samples posted here, and the published MTF). I also consider their bokeh as pleasant. The main attraction of the 35 ASPHs is their quality being extended to the edge while wide open. Only the matter of size and weight makes me hesitate to upgrade my pre-ASPH.

 

That said, there remains a part of me enthralled by the 28 and 50 ASPH, their raw performance, and the fact that I use those FLs most.

 

(Insert paroxysm here)

[Robin Smith]

"...any conclusions about lens performance based on projected slides."

 

That seems bizarre to me. In that case why not just use the cheapest projector you can buy instead lavishing all that money on one of most, if not the most, expensive 35mm projector you can buy?

 

Altering the manual focus of the projector will enable you to tweak the focus so it is spot on on any part of the projected slide so you can examine the slides image quality to your heart's content - even going right up to the screen. This is no different in principle to holding a print up close or using a magnifier to look at print details.

[Robin Smith]

Mitch,

 

You misrepresent what he said which was: "The in-focus subject matter is what counts, although the bokeh can add or ssubtract from the ultimate enjoyment of the picture."

 

You excluded his vital qualifier - it is not all on nothing. It is all a question of the relative importance one places on having a really sharp plane of focus and a "good" out of focus area. George's opinion was logical even if it does not agree with yours.