alan_wilder1 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I had an opportunity to try the 50/1.4 Asph and was shocked by the image clarity wide open. Except for reducing vignetting or boosting sharpness a bit, it's the first 50 I've ever used where f/1.4 could be used without reservation. Photos of various subject were extremely sharp with good bokeh. What I really like is that the sharp image plane really stands out well against the OOF image planes, more so than any other 50. One of the benefits with older 50/1.4 designs was their slightly improved performance(except field curvature) over their f/2 counterparts at f/2.8 or f/4, while f/1.4 was used for max. image isolation, low light last resort or to intentionally soften an image for effect. The main benefit of this lens is a gain in sharpness by about 1-2 stops over previous 1.4 designs or 1 stop over f/2 designs at their respective apertures. By f/5.6 this lens shows little advantage over the current Summicron. Build quality was great with no complaints of aperture looseness that others have experienced in the past. I guess it's a matter of taste. My only caveat is that one should be careful not to exert very much upward pressure on the underside of the lens when craddling the camera because it can cause a shift in focus due to backward motion of the lens cam against the camera's cam follower. Special thanks to Tony Rose for letting me try this lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Interesting review Alan ... can you post an example of wide open performance on the new aspherical lux? Would also love to see Nokton examples wide open. The following is an example of the 50 pre-aspherical lux's performance wide open.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furcafe Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Thanks for the report. Could you further explain your caveat?: "[O]ne should be careful not to exert very much upward pressure on the underside of the lens when craddling the camera because it can cause a shift in focus due to backward motion of the lens cam against the camera's cam follower." I'm just not sure how this problem could happen & why it would be more of a problem w/this lens as opposed to any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_wilder1 Posted June 17, 2005 Author Share Posted June 17, 2005 Eventually. I just picked up a film scanner but I'll need time to upgrade my computer and learn how to use the damned thing. Never used anything digital before except a phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_wilder1 Posted June 17, 2005 Author Share Posted June 17, 2005 <Chris> I can't explain exactly why this happens except for two things. The lens' focusing ring has slightly more dampening than other 50's causing me to grab it a little harder and as a result I may have been inadvertantly pushing up on it from the bottom. Secondly, and this only a guess, is that the increased complexity of the focusing mount from floating element mechanism may cause the focusing cam to move slightly with upward force on the lens' focusing mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I, too, am shocked, that a 50mm lens at this price point ($2495 at B&H) could perform so well. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
open Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 basically, you are repeating everything i read about the lens here: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/SummiluxASPH/s14-50.html I would just send people sraight to the source for a detailed review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton2 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Erwin Puts is not "the source." He's one guy with one set of opinions. He may be well-informed and educated with regard to (technical) optical matters, but i don't ever mind reading alternate opinions, or even those that are consistent with Puts'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_kieltyka1 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Irwin's review is fine & dandy, but I'm also a member of the "I must see it for myself" school. The new 'Lux is a lens I'd definitely like to check out. -Dave- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_wilder1 Posted June 17, 2005 Author Share Posted June 17, 2005 Part of the problem on price stems from Leica's current policy on new lenses is to enforce strict adherence to list price. I might be mistaken, but I think the regular Summilux use to list for $2200 a few years ago according to Popular Photography on their last 50 M Summilux review. In that context, the Asph. version is a 'bargin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey_edelstein1 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Of all the lenses a 50mm is the least difficult to design with todays ability to cheaply fabricate Aspheric elements (look at all the inexpensive lenses with asph elements) and special high index glass. I have not seen any rush however for redesign the existing designs of F1.4 lenses that could be advantaged by this technology because the current lenses satisfy most users expectations. I have never liked the 50mm look and so it was way down at the bottom of my shopping list. I finally bought a f1.2 AIS 50mm Nikon lens that is good enough wide open and easy to focus on an SLR even with 4" dof. IT has a nice bokeh due to well controlled flair and 9 blade iris. And when stopped down to F2.0 or smaller its well detailed. Best of all its built solid and finely finished and I got it mint for all of $260. Mark me in the club that feels that more than $2,500 for a normal lens is overpriced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_richardson Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Personally, I would rather spend more on a lens that I am going to use all the time than one that I would use only 10% of the time or less. That's why I have the 50 summilux asph and the 21mm voigtlander...The summilux asph is well ahead of any 50/1.4 or faster lens I have ever used, and it is almost the same at 1.4 as the summicron is at f/2. <P>In any case, I agree with Alan -- the lens is a spectacular performer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey_edelstein1 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 So is the 50mm F1.2 and it cost is in line with overall portion of a complete system spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben z Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 My reason for buying a 50/1.4 M lens is to shoot in low light, where a tripod or other solid support is not practical, taking full advantage of the combination of high speed film, the M's lack of mirror slap, and the wide aperture. I had a chance to shoot the ASPH Summilux alongside my E43 Summilux under those conditions and there was not a "wow" difference, in fact there was virtually do difference. Am I saying the 50 Lux-ASPH wouldn't trounce my pre-ASPH shooting a flat chart? No, I'm sure the ASPH is much better. Am I saying the ASPH wouldn't trounce my pre-ASPH at wider apertures in the corners shooting a detailed landscape being blown up to 16x20? No again, I'm sure the ASPH would clearly outperform my Lux. But I've got a Summicron if I want to shoot those kinds of subjects, and the two lenses together cost me less than half the ASPH. If money were no object sure I'd rather have the ASPH than my two lenses, but money is an object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrich_messmer Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Ben Z., you've summed it up nicely... I'm sure it's a fantastic lens, but I still don't know where I'd need the 50 ASPH - corner sharpness at 1.4 for dimly lit landscapes? I got a pre-Asph two years ago and thought I'd upgrade to the ASPH when it comes out, but now I can't justify it for myself. Btw, didn't I read in LFI that the Elmar-M is still the best performer close-up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_neuthaler Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Good for you, Ben! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_wilder1 Posted June 17, 2005 Author Share Posted June 17, 2005 This may come as a pleasant surprise for those disinclined to spend $2500 on this lens. Critical testing of corner resolution at the extreme corner show better sharpness with the Summicron or Planar between f/2 and f/4 due to better correction of astigmatism. This is illustrated on Leica's published MTF graphs but for me, it's not relevant for the type of shooting I do. From everything I've read about the 50's, the Summicron and current Elmar are best for flat field full frame work but the Asph. version does a great job in elliminating the original version's field curvature for close work. This will come in handy in photographing museum paintings where tripods or flash are forbidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_richardson Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 We differ there -- 1.4 is as much a depth of field issue as a low light issue for me. I like to shoot wide open to isolate subjects, and the summilux ASPH is fantastic for that. One of the reasons it is so good is that it stays so incredibly sharp and evenly lit wide open. But beyond that, the color accuracy of the lens is extraordinary. It really reproduces colors very very well. If I want the more pastel pallete of the older summilux I will choose a film like Astia, but I cannot go the other way with the old summilux. I guess my argument is that the differences between the new and old summilux <i>do</i> come to play in real life photography. At least they have for me. But then again, you are an old summilux owner and I am a new summilux owner. Both of have tried the other and prefer the one we have. I don't see any harm in that. But I do think it is wrong to say it is not worth it for everyone when it is not worth it for you (its not so much that you said that, but others in the thread). I had the ability to choose between the two and took the ASPH -- I am very happy with my choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Barrel distortion was indeed the big crticique of the pre-aspherical, as I recall. Kudos to Leica for continuing to improve the technology, especially on a design that has remained unchanged for 44 years! If the new lens indeed provides flat field and corner to corner sharpness wide open, then it's providing something at 1.4 that hasn't been provided before, and it's great that it's out there if you need it. Otherwise, it seems the question is would you trade an older cron and preasph lux for the new lens? Maybe it's an easier decision to make if one is just starting out and is buying one's first 50mm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dale_edward Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 I have been shooting with the 50mm 1.4 Summilux ASPH quite extensively for the past few weeks and must say that I am quite pleased and impressed with its performance. The sharpness and contrast has a certain look to it that is different than compared to the current 50 Summicron lens. From the center to the outer edges of the negative, I can perceive a bit more consistancy with less distortion than compared to the Summicron. At 5.6, both lens perform quite well and I almost don't notice much difference except the 50 ASPH lens does seem to have a bit more overall sharpness. Dale Edward 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