New Summilux 50/ 1,4 proved

[joe_pelizza_salusso_di_vol]

I proved the new Summilux 1,4 asph. Well, what can I say? All the

photos have been shoted at 3 p.m. in a iced, brilliant, clear day.

Too much probably, The film was a normal slides Kodak press 100.

Unluckly I cannot post any of them because I have no system for, but

I can say you my personal impressions: The lens is crisping too much.

And too much is my impression for everything I noticed: dof,

clearness, separation of the colours and so on. Bokeh quite does not

exist, every thing is in focus or very very in close up. 3D very

good, but but... this is the point... it is a cold lens, it is very

similar to a Zeiss lens (I have the Contax system too for this I may

compare). It is a Leica lens, undoubtly, but, Impo, with a Zeiss

pecularity.

It is not a painter brush, it is a Messer, a scalpel, a double razor.

Joe

[michael_kastner]

Hmm, sounds like my impressions of the 2/90AA, which I used for a week. For many people, a really very sharp lens. For me, TOO sharp.

[scott_eaton]

Then use a softer film; Astia, Reala, etc.

[max_fun]

It's hard to imagine how a 1.4 lens up close has no bokeh, but having the lens tack sharp wide open is amazing. Too bad I can't afford this lens :(

[ben z]

"And too much is my impression for everything I noticed: dof...Bokeh quite does not exist, every thing is in focus or very very in close up."

 

Leica's lens designers are magicians, they have defied the laws of physics/optics! A 50/1.4 which has more DOF than any other 50/1.4 is worth $2500! I'm going to have to start saving up for it.

[joe_pelizza_salusso_di_vol]

I will use onother film, and a filter probably (but I do not use filter with any other Leica lenses).

I have to say that I used every aperture, from 1,4 up to 16. But even inside the museum, where I was shoting, with natural (from the windows) and indoor lights, the diaphrgram 1,4 was not only very impressive, but cold too. Outside the museum the old ruins I shoted given a stunning effect: they were living and massive, with a dof never seen before.

Joe

[stephen_w.]

"Bokeh quite does not exist, every thing is in focus -'OR'- very very in close up."

 

C'mon guys, English is his second, or third, or fourth language. How good are you with Italian (assumption)?

 

My interpretation: cold, hard, bitingly sharp resolution, quite generic computer designed performance, with little character/signature, doesn't have the Leica "look".

[sparkie]

Not at all surprised. Typical Leica ASPH characteristics.

[eliot_rosen1]

"Leica's lens designers are magicians, they have defied the laws of physics/optics! A 50/1.4 which has more DOF than any other 50/1.4 is worth $2500! I'm going to have to start saving up for it."

 

I think he means that the lens has excellent close-up performance, whereas the previous 50/1.4, like most, are soft in the close range. The new 50/1.4 has a floating element mechanism that significantly improves close-up performance. It was one of the specific design objectives for this lens. It is quite a feat to produce a 50/1.4 that performs really well in the 5 m and closer range.

 

BTW, separation of colors and 3D appearance of images is something that Erwin Puts described in his review of the new 50/1.4. He was saying that even in low light situations where the colors are often muddied, this lens produces clear bold colors. Sounds good to me. Now if they could only do something about the price...

[feli]

If you took all of your test shots at 3 p.m. on a iced, brilliant, clear day with 100 asa film,

you are obviously never going to get down to f1.4, because the M shutter only goes to a

1000th. So, yes all of your shots would have lots of DOF,

 

Unless Leica has found a way to defy the laws of physics, you should see a very shallow

DOF at f1.4.

 

 

feli

[frank_horn]

One wonders how a lens can be "too sharp." Can the human eye be "too sharp?" Don't they make softening filters for instances where one desires a softer effect?

 

As for the lens being "cold," does this mean that the image captured looks cooler than it originally appeared to the eye? My 1968 90mm Elmarit (M) seems to add about 10% more warmth to a shot, while a 35mm 2nd style 'cron and a 50mm (1979) 'cron capture colors just as they appear.

[joe_pelizza_salusso_di_vol]

For Stephen W.

 

Me vjen shum렫eq q렴i nuk me ka kuptu, mor burr묠por, ti duhet me e di, q묠noshta edhe ti nuk e di shum렭ir렡nglisht, pse ti ke b⠮ji gabim.

Mir렵 pafshem

[joe_pelizza_salusso_di_vol]

This system does not use special latin types I am used to.

Joe

[mark_ng]

I'm not sure Frank

When I take my glasses off, everything seems a little blurry

Perhaps it's better that way?

[frank_horn]

I have the same problem, but it is due to aging eyes. I wonder what the marketing people at Leica think when they get complaints about their lenses being "too sharp!"

[eliot_rosen1]

Sharpness is only evident in the precise plane of focus. What increased sharpness does is set the focal plane image apart from what is in front and behind. The net effect is that in some photos using the latest Leica lenses, the main subject is so sharp that it looks like it is etched into the image. You can see this with some of their wide angle lenses, like the 24/2.8-Elmarit ASPH. I personally find this type of image appealing, but not everyone likes it.

[andrew_hall1]

Joe, that's the whole point of re-desinging the 'lux. (It does sound like the sharpest 50/1.4 in the world, especially at close distances.) But I think you'd be happier with the pre-ASPH version.

[andrew_hall1]

I mean "<b>re-designing<b>"...

[michael_kastner]

Frank, I myself don't wonder how a lens can be "too sharp" or "too cold". Optical physical perfectioning is sometimes fine, but not always. Years ago, one of us -- I think it was the great Al Smith -- said that the un-portrait-ness of a 2/90AA would unfortunately bring out every single wrinkle and/or whisker on his face. I no like dat. Of course, for medical and/or dental documentation that might be neat, but not for me...

[michael_kastner]

</b>Hmm, the boldness of it all must have derived from Andrew above.

[michael s.]

</b>A less bold statement, if I may. Not long ago I took indoor photos at close distance (across the restaurant table) of friends using a borrowed Summicron 35/2 asph. It's a sensational lens, without doubt, but I found the extraordinary sharpness unflattering to adult skin.

[stuart_richardson]

Sharpness issues are easily solved by upgrading to more attractive friends.

[Allen Herbert]

undoubtly, but, Impo, with a Zeiss pecularity

 

Buy a Contax G2, if you like the Zeiss look. You can buy the whole deal, times 2 for the price of that lens.

 

Post a few photos; lets have a look. I'll post some Zeiss stuff so we can compare.

[Allen Herbert]

There, a few Carl Cows and Bollocks. Your turn.<div></div>

[wayne_murphy8]

The illusion of better depth of field is probably due to better field curvature

correction in the new lens. Using a macro lens also gives the same

impression.