50/1.4vs50/1.5

[leo_m_leo_m]

Any one knows a commendable side-by-side comparison between the Summilux 50

pre-asph, latest, and the new 1.5 Zeiss for Ikon?

What's the difference between the lenses at full aperture? Closed down?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Leo

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

Hello Leo!

 

The fairly new LEICA-M Summilux ASPH 1,4/50mm, is at present optical at fully f/stop the best lens money can buy! But, who is using always the f/stop 1,4? At f/stop 5,6, which is regularly mostly in use, under general daylight conditions, you will see absolutely no difference between these two excellent standard lenses.

 

Regards

[matthew_silberstein1]

Both are great, though the non ASPH M 1.4 is not as "techinical" looking. More "artsy"

some would say. A trend towards higher contrast lenses makes the non ASPH M 1.4 look a

bit dim in outer edge areas, yet there is a look-a signature thumbprint-that stands out

with this older design. I am one of those who really apprecates the M 1.4 non ASPH's

fantastic grayscale rendering, risistance to flare and out of focus zone display. It also has

a smoother focusing cam. Both the ASPH M and Zeiss are better with geometry and micro

detail. The non-ASPH displays, when wide open until f5.6, a mild bowing at the bottom of

the frame. This can be cropped out or adjusted in photoshop. If architecture is your

main thing you might want to pass on the non ASPH. For people and landscape pictures

using limited depth of field the non ASPH is striking. All of these designs make for

superior results as long as you: select lower ISO for film and digital, prevent camera shake,

stay properly focused and nail exposure. - Good luck!

[matthew_silberstein1]

Both are great, though the non ASPH M 1.4 is not as "technical" looking. More "artsy"

some would say. A trend towards higher contrast lenses makes the non ASPH M 1.4 look a

bit dim in outer edge areas, yet there is a look-a signature thumbprint-that stands out

with this older design. I am one of those who really apprecates the M 1.4 non ASPH's

fantastic grayscale rendering, risistance to flare and out of focus zone display. It also has

a smoother focusing cam. Both the ASPH M and Zeiss are better with geometry and micro

detail. The non-ASPH displays, when wide open until f5.6, a mild bowing at the bottom of

the frame. This can be cropped out or adjusted in photoshop. If architecture is your

main thing you might want to pass on the non ASPH. For people and landscape pictures

using limited depth of field the non ASPH is striking. All of these designs make for

superior results as long as you: select lower ISO for film and digital, prevent camera shake,

stay properly focused and nail exposure. - Good luck!

[leo_m_leo_m]

I've hade the 50 'Lux. A bit soft wide-open; my 35/1.4ASPH is much better in this respect, but without any "clinical" sharpness people sometimes complain about.

What I'm thinking about is to get a Zeiss 1.5, if it is a bit sharper and a bit more homogenous from coner to coner then the pre-asph lux. (I'm not thinking of the 50ASPH for the moment).

[feli]

A friend of mine has both the pre-ASPH Lux and the new 1.5/50 Sonnar.

 

Overall the Lux is the stronger performer, especially wide open, but the Sonnar has a look of

it's own that many people are very fond of.

[matthew_silberstein1]

Leo,

 

Consider a Summicron or Elmar. The Elmar is flat field with little light loss in the corners.

Inexpensive used or new. The Summicron is sharper-maybe too sharp. I own the Summilux

pre ASPH and an Elmar. Once had the Summicron. Sold it and got the Elmar instead.

[leo_m_leo_m]

Feli,

This is a crucial point indeed: if Zonnar is weaker wide-open, then I'll probably return to the Summilux pre-asph.

 

Matthew,

I had a Cron, the latest one. F2 is not enough for me, and the lens itself is too flare-prone.

[feli]

I own the Lux pre-ASPH and I can tell you that it is an excellent lens. Wide open it certainly

performs better than my Canon EF 1.4/50 and short of the Lux ASPH, there isn't much

around that is as good, let alone better. The Lux is also highly flare resistant, which makes

for crystal clear pictures in high contrast (night time) situations. Bokeh is smooth as butter

and the lens is known for it's long, smooth tonal scale. It is exceptionally good for black and

white work.

[jeff_drew4]

I owned and used the Nokton 50mm f/1.5 on VC bodies. It was a beauty! When I moved to Contax G2 I sold that lens, regrettably . . . but at about $350 new, it's not out of reach if I want another. The Nokton 50mm is a terrific value!

[frank]

"I owned and used the Nokton 50mm f/1.5 on VC bodies. It was a beauty!"

 

Yeah! Because of that particular lens I sold my pre-aspherical Summilux 50/1.4 without hesitation. In a direct comparison you can SEE that the Nokton is much better. I only regret the Nokton's near focus of 3 ft.