leica 50 1.4

[jay_nowakowski4]

Does anyone have experience using the new leica M 50 1.4 asph versus the older

non asphe model and if so what is your experience? How do the images compare

wide open and stepped down? Rate both if you will on a scale of 1 to 10 that

way I can get a sense of the difference. Thanks.

[adrian bastin]

Jay, how can these lenses be rated 1 to 10 and what sense would you be able to draw from such a rating. Be better to just ask peoples' experience of them.

[paul hart]

Jay: the differences have been thoroughly explored on this forum and on Erwin Puts' site, where he has an article <A HREF=http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/SummiluxASPH/s14-50.html">that you can read here</A>.<p>His conclusion was that "The previous Summilux-M is clearly outclassed on all counts."<p>It just so happens that last weekend I was able to borrow the ASPH version from Eric (of this forum) and compare it with my pre-ASPH version. As you'd expect, the later lens is extremely sharp even wide open. Its rendition of out of focus areas is a matter of subjective taste. I happen to prefer the softer OOF rendition of the older lens.

[frank]

Maybe the 50/1.4 ASPH. is the sharpest lens, it's focussing ring does not work very smooth. I didn't like it at all.

After using the pre-aspherical Summilux 50/1.4 and the Nokton 50/1.5 for al long time I sold the Summilux: The Nokton is visibly better, especially at full aperture. Meanwhile one of my favourite lenses.

[jason_b.]

I've has both lenses and got to know the previous one quite well. I'm still getting used to the

ASPH. Overall, the old lens was a little muddy wide open and close up. And had less contrast

at all times than the new one. The ASPH though isn't TOO contasty or anything like that, it

just has a better feeling of "clarity" or whatever that means. Up close it is great - my portraits

with it are so much better than with the old ones. It also seems totally flare resistant. The old

one was great in this regard, but the ASPH is just rediculously good. Ergonomically they were

both nice - I like the E43 old one more than the E46 because of the detachable hood. There

were some problems with early ASPH lenses being a bit stiff in the focusing ring, but that

sould be mostly ironed out and the new one I've got is great.

[mpo]

Jason, you are comparing the Aspherical with a non-aspherical version that is not the latest. I have the pre-aspherical version and is E46 not E43, perhaps the optical formula is the same... I don't know.

[35mmdelux]

I don't have experience w/ the Asph version but I've been shooting w/ late model pre-asph, Wow. Made me a believer.

 

What I need now is photographic vision worthy of the gear.

[alan_wilder1]

I did a post a while ago with sample images from both lenses. The non-asph. version is towards the end. Here's the post: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D3fJ

[frederick_muller]

{His conclusion was that "The previous Summilux-M is clearly outclassed on all counts."}

 

Sorry, but Erwin tends to examine only clinical criteria. The Asph is a clinical lens. Dynamite for sharpness and detail, but the older pre-aspherical lux has a lovely character that can't be evaluated quantitatively. Put another way, no one is going to compare these lenses on a scale of 1 to 10 unless you specify some criteria for evaluation.

[Troll]

The price of the Asph is obscene! The price of a pre-Asph is only absurd.

[stephen_w.]

$550 from here absurd? ;*)

[karl_keung]

i don't know where erwin puts got information that one cost of one element of the new asph

summilux is equal to all the elements in the old summilux, but if it is true, then it might be

worth every penny.

 

i also like the c sonnar 50 from zeiss zm very much, the bokeh is quite unique, it is shorter

than the cron too.

[jay_nowakowski4]

Mr. K. what has been your experience with this lens?

[35mmdelux]

paid $950 for my late model pre-asph 50mm Lux (here). Worth every penney of it, no regrets at all. This is one fabulous lens.

 

i can't quantify the results but I was mesmerized by its clearity, sharpness, and its color rendition (K64, Portra 160). Although the Asph might be the big dog on the block, the pre-asph 50 is no ugly duckling.

[35mmdelux]

the imagery of my 50 ZM kept in line w/ my Leica images - can't tell apart. I didn't like the large lens shade nor the ergonomics, which may have more to do w/ shooting w/ Leicas the past decade. I Did like the ZM 1/3 stop aperture increments.

 

Traded it off for late model 50mm Summicron, which I found more compact travel companion. YMMVV