Performance of 50 Summilux-M at different apertures

[ray_moth]

Dear All,

 

<p>

 

I was browsing on the 'net and came across an intersting web site, titled "Rangefinder Camera Best Buys", URL:

http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/rangefinder.html

 

<p>

 

The site contains many links plus some information, further down the page, on Leica cameras and lenses, including the following information on the 50/1.4 Summilux-M, which I have pasted from the site:

 

<p>

 

"The lens test data below for a Leitz 50mm f/1.4 Summilux lens for the M series rangefinder may surprise some readers. This Leitz lens is clearly optimized for wide open shooting. If you are buying a very expensive fast lens over the cheaper f/2 and f/3.5 normal lenses available, you might prefer for the wide open apertures to be optimized too! Note that this lens also has more "excellents" for edge resolution (5) than center resolution (3). But the mid range aperture performance is rather less refined per these tests. A majority of 50mm normal lenses stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 would excellents in both center and edge in similar tests.

 

<p>

 

"I grant you that lens resolution is not the sole criterion for lens selection, and undoubtably the Leitz lens has very good distortion and other characteristics. Still, you can find many modest lenses on lesser cost cameras that will perform better in the overall center and edge resolution parameters than this Leitz optic.

 

<p>

 

"Leitz 50mm f/1.4 Summilux for M Series

 

<p>

 

f/stop center lpmm edge lpmm

 

<p>

 

1.4 excellent excellent

 

<p>

 

2 excellent excellent

 

<p>

 

2.8 very good good

 

<p>

 

4 very good good

 

<p>

 

5.6 good very good

 

<p>

 

8 excellent excellent

 

<p>

 

11 very good excellent

 

<p>

 

16 very good excellent

 

<p>

 

Source: Modern Photography, July 1970, p.93"

 

<p>

 

The results surprised me. I don't know how much reliance can be placed on this test and would be grateful for other people's comments.

[john_collier2]

The original design has exactly this compromise. The thinking

being that why else would you buy an f/1.4 lens? The design has

been tweaked over the years and is supposed to perform better

in the mid ranges now.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Ray,

 

<p>

 

I don't know the degree of reliability of this test.

 

<p>

 

However I saw in many tests a much better appreciation of the

Noctilux even as an all around use lens than the Summilux and the

real "jack of all trades" seems to be the Summicron anyway. I even

read the lowly Vogtländer Nokton is a better lens than the Summilux.

 

<p>

 

It seems the Summilux which is a 40 year old design now and has

never been improved shows its age.

 

<p>

 

I know many people here will disagree with me but Leica is the only

manufacturer to carry no less than 4 different 50 mm lenses in its

current range. There were many discussion here to know if each has a

really different fingerprint which can justify such a range.

Personnally I feel no particular need to have more than one 50 mm in

my outfit. The Noctilux is obviously something unique but the fact

it is very cumbersome (by Leica lens standard)and very exepensive so

it jusrifies well to have another samller aperture lens in the

range. The Summicron is a splendid lens from maximum aperture to

rather small ones and a handy lens. But I always wondered why Leica

maintanins a F/1.4 Summilux which has not the reputation of being an

extraordinary lens by today standards (which seems to me a remanant

of the time of the original Noctilux design price and performance

for a gain in maximum aperture which was not so big: f/1.2 and the

fact many Japanese camera makers where then issuing f/1.4 50 mm

lenses as their flagships) and a collapsible F/3.5 lens which is the

kind of lens which will be far from fool proof in use as I

experimented with a fixed 50 mm collapsible mounted on very

lowly "Babylynx" camera, which was my first 35 mm camera experience.

It is SO easy to forget to extend the lens :))... It might be a

traditional old fashioned lens (and it may be a very good lens by

the way) but who is still using the ever ready bag so traditional

from the 1930's to the 60's ? And consequently, who relly needs now

a collapsible lens ?.

 

<p>

 

If Leica wants to have more than the two really useful 50 mm it has

in its range (Noctilux and Summicron) why they don't study a new

version of the double scale Summicron with "ears" to give us at

least some small magnification macro-photography capabilities up to

1/2 the subject? It would certainly be appreciated when trekking and

more useful than a collapsible or an old f/1.4 lens...

 

<p>

 

Friendly

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

[mike dixon]

If the performance of the Summilux isn't "extraordinary" enough that

it's limiting the quality of your photos, you're a much, MUCH better

photographer than I am. (But I have to admit, I've never photographed

a test chart.) Shot below was taken at its (according to the data

above) worst-performing aperture.

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/neal01.jpg">

[Robin Smith]

I think people are too obsessed with tests. The Summilux is still a

first class lens and better than most other manufacturer's

equivalents. It also produces a lovely look to its wide open shots.

Mechanically it is superb too. It is an old design, but this should

not necessarily put us off. Many lenses are actually old designs - the

double gauss lens type is a classic - the key is how well and to what

standards they actually put together the design - in this case the

'lux scores very highly. It would be possible to redesign this lens

along the lines of the current R Summilux, but the point is: is the

extra money you would have to spend worth it for the improvement in

performance? With the 35mm 'lux the improvement at full aperture is so

radical so people have accepted the terrible price and paid up, but I

suspect that the 50mm 'lux improvement would not be nearly so striking

- and Leica would have to charge over $2000 for it -- narrowing the

gap with the Noctilux. Personally, I would not hesitate to get a

Summilux if I needed the faster speed and had the money. The Nokton

may be even better - but its construction is not quite as good

(and it is bigger) and I suspect it has more variability between

samples (this is an assumption that may not be true).

[jay_.]

The 2nd version of the 50 Lux, especially the latest version with

0.7m close focusing and built-in hood, is a fine lens and outperforms

nearly all other 50/1.4 lenses ever made. It is heavier and twice as

expensive as the 50/2 and I don't appreciate the shallow DOF at f/1.4

so I don't own one, instead I have the 35/1.4ASPH which is smaller (a

bit)and can be handheld (by me) 1 speed slower than a 50 and gives me

a bit wider coverage, so that is my choice for a super-fast lens.

[Alex_Es]

My Heavens Everyone!

 

<p>

 

That shot by Mike Dixon! Wow!

 

<p>

 

Alex

[paul hart]

This thread comes as something of a relief. I bought a 50 'lux some

months ago, since when I have read nothing but comments about how old

and over the hill it is supposed to be.

 

<p>

 

However, I have disciplined myself to using it wide open and begun to

appreciate its strengths, with faster shutter speeds, better hand

held results, and very pleasing out of focus areas.

 

<p>

 

It's also not much bigger/heavier than the 'cron.

 

<p>

 

Seeing that photo by MD has reassured me even more than my feeble

efforts.

[andy_piper2]

I've noticed that the 50 'lux-M, the 90 'cron-M (preAPO) and the 180

Elmarit-R (preAPO) ALL have very similar fingerprints/looks. It's very

eerie how 'familiar' the images look if you've used one and try one of

the others (magnification aside).

 

<p>

 

Photodo.coms MTF charts reflect this (at max. aperture) - fairly high

(but not APO/ASPH) contrast, good (but not great) center sharpness (55%

contrast at 40 lpmm) falling off fairly quickly towards the edges with

a little kick up part way out.

 

<p>

 

They're all 'kissing cousins' from different stages in the Leitz/

Mandler era.

[steven_fong1]

I completely agree with Andy. I don't own a 90M-cron, but the 50 M-lux

and 180 Elmarit are indeed very similar in their 'look'. As MD has so

wonderfully demonstrated, it's not the resolution but how the lens 'put

you in the picture'. Now i know i am not doing my lux any justice.

Needs more practice. Cheers

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

Gret picture Mike, and example of the use of this fine lens, I made a

test on resolution on this lens at 1mt, subject was a map in the

wall, resulto were poor resolution at f/1.4, much better at 2 and up,

excelent at 8 but not up to ´cron standars.

 

<p>

 

On contrast I could be aware of this lens usage, great contrast at

1.4 and 2 and on, poor resolution OK, but 10lpm can make great

pictures too, specialy at that % contrast.

 

<p>

 

This lens is for sure very diferent to the 50 ´cron, in my opinion

one complements the other.

 

<p>

 

Would be interesting to know what the Elmar can do better than this

two.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Dear Mr. Watson,

 

<p>

 

As I understand things, any high end well designed lens has a kind

of proper fingerprint. I can understand, if you have already in

stock a lens you�d prefer to keep it instead of simply replacing it

by another one.

 

<p>

 

This said, I don�t think most of us can proceed this way� Both for

economical and practical reasons.

 

<p>

 

Economical because the re-sale value of � for example � a 50mm

Summilux is not negligible and we are far from being rich enough to

keep it and buy another lens of the same focal length. Very few of

us � I think � will have the money to own all the different versions

of 50mm lens produced by Leica, despite they�ll probably produce

each a different image which can be better suited for the rendition

of this or that subject. Many of us will be content to have one

superb Leica built 50mm Leica lens in their bag. And if they are

lucky enough to have two, I suppose they�ll prefer to own lenses

with the maximum difference of use between them.

 

<p>

 

Now, practically speaking, here are the focal lengths available to a

M or similar rangefinder cameras:

 

<p>

 

12mm (V-länder), 15mm (V-länder), 21mm, 24mm (25mm), 28mm, 35mm,

50mm, 75mm, 90mm, 135mm.

 

<p>

 

Hence no less than ten different lenses. As for today, all major

brands taken into account, and considering only the lenses in

current production these ten focal lengths are represented by a

grand total of 29 different lenses (not taking into account marginal

production like Kobalux).

 

<p>

 

I don�t think the famed compactness of a Leica (or similar) outfit

will indulge such a profusion in your bag without compromising

totally this important feature.

 

<p>

 

As far as the 50mm lenses are concerned, most of us will probably

look for the better compromise as their standard equipment. I have

recently decided my next buy will be a 50mm. Ideally, I would have

bought a Noctilux, because it illustrates for me one of the

specificities of the rangefinder concept: the ability to operate

properly a very fast lens wide open and it suits perfectly my vision

of the use of a 50mm lens as an indoor semi-selective field lens.

Unfortunately (and all economical considerations set apart),

operating it with a x 0.6 viewfinder seems to be tricky at best.

Considering the Leica lenses will be the best choice for a lens

which will be liable to be operated at full aperture more than

occasionally, I have the choice between a f/1.4 Summilux and a f/2

Summicron. Some will prefer the Summilux for having a one stop of

aperture gain over the Summicron. I never said by the way (this to

answer Mike � extremely nice shot by the way) the �lux� is a bad

lens. It is just something which is not so far apart from an average

high grade 50mm (and all the tests of V-länder lenses so far did not

indicate a particularly lowly finish by any standard, even if they

don�t equal the one of Leica, nor it is forbidden to test the lens

before definitely buying it, so to say the Nokton should not be a

bad investment at all instead of a Lux). On the contrary, the

Summicron seems to be a lens which still retaining a respectable

maximum aperture is much more versatile in use than the Lux (which

doesn�t seem to perform equally well when somewhat closed down). On

the economical side, I tend to agree with Jay, it seems to me paying

twice the price of a Summicron for a Summilux is not worth the

expense, perhaps because like him I would surely be more attracted

by the 35mm asph. as 35 mm is my �standard� lens. Perhaps also

because I�m still very attracted by the Noctilux if one day I can

afford a second body with which I can focus it properly with no

doubt. Perhaps, finally, because I don�t feel fit (for me) to accept

a rather costly compromise on such a valuable focal length.

 

<p>

 

So is it worth to buy a 50mm Summilux ? I think each of us will have

a different and mostly subjective and affective answer. However,

behind this kind of answer are objective facts we are mostly unable

to verify ourselves for lack of proper equipment (MTF bench for

example). As expensive a Noctilux is (and it is a very expensive

lens) it is unique and performs quite well even when closed down� So

from the witnesses of those who are lucky enough to have one, it

seems that with it you get both a super fast lens and something

usable in less extreme situations. This is confirmed by the MTF

graphs. The Summicron is ever depicted as a lens performing

extremely well nearly on all the currently used stops but when

compared to the Summilux it fails to reach the same maximum aperture

by one stop. Finally the Summilux performs very well at wide

apertures (though a bit flimsy at full aperture as far as resolution

is concerned) but seems to be much more akin an average lens from

mid to small apertures. No doubt it is a splendid lens (but my 35 mm

pre-aspheric Summicron too but not as the current 35 mm asph. does).

No doubt the Summilux was a superb performer when issued, but this

doesn�t imply it is still �state of the art� today (all aesthetical

considerations set apart). My point is: is it worth to pay twice the

price of a Summicron to have a lens somewhat backwards in design and

strictly oriented toward a wide aperture use ? My personal answer is

no� Unless your bank account is huge enough to authorize you to buy

whatever you want� If you really want something in the same league

as far as aperture is concerned, bu a V-länder Nokton it will

certainly ease the things to allow you to buy a Noctilux thereafter�

 

<p>

 

Friendly

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

 

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

Dear Francois; you´re so rigth about cost of leica lenses and real

usage of them.

 

<p>

 

Don´t you think I can afford new lenses, I bougth my 50/2 brand new,

but my 50/1.4 is a beat up one with excelent glass, for $440 USD, now

you can even get a cheaper one on ebay.

 

<p>

 

About the Nokton I have read lots of good coments, and also some poor

notes on french tests, I belive it is a lens that stays in betwen the

´lux and the ´cron, that´s because it gets so good notes for a f/1.5

but not so good as a f/2.

 

<p>

 

About Noctilux I understand it is a very specialiced lens, and I mean

it is not a lens to walk in the streets and raise in a second and

make a picture, it is fast for the ligth it allows to pass through

but slow to focus and handle, and this is not because I had owned

any, but because I have use my 50/2 a lot and know how fast it can

be, also have used the 50/1.4 and is definetively slower to focus

than a 50/2 with or without focusing tab, so if you want a fast using

lens the 50/2 in my opinion is the lens, but if you want fast by

ligth candels trough the Noctilux is the brigther one, for many the

50/1.4 is a great lens in the middle, the Nokton is in my opinion

more like the 50/2 at mid apertures, but soft wide open.

 

<p>

 

When I say that 50/1.4M and 50/2M complement each other is because

they work so diferent, at f/2 specialy, and also in mid apertures.

 

<p>

 

If I had to keep one I don´t know wich one will it be.

 

<p>

 

Thanks for share your opinion, hope mine adds something.

 

<p>

 

sincerely

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Dear Mr. Watson,

 

<p>

 

I appreciate the kindness your message.

 

<p>

 

However, I had no mean to appreciate your personal income and your

financial situation.

 

<p>

 

As I understand things, you tell me I can buy a Summilux at e.bay

for $ 440 (or even a tad lower) and you have bought a brand new

Summicron and have a well seasoned second hand Lux too. Without

presenting myself as a poor man, here (I mean in France) the way you

can get Leica gear and the prices to afford it are not in the same

league. Why ?

 

<p>

 

Some facts must be exposed to understand it. Suppose I buy a

Summilux for $ 440 at e.bay. I will have too pay the charges to see

it sent to France and then the customs will make me pay about 20% of

the price to let it enter the French territory. So this solution

might not be as economical as it is for a US resident.

 

<p>

 

Now to give you an idea of the prices to be paid here (all taxes

included� in fact the V.A.T.) I will simply give you some extracts

of the price list from �La Maison du Leica� in Paris:

(� 1 = $ 0.9)

 

<p>

 

As new:

 

<p>

 

Summilux-M 1,4/50 black : 2 178.69 � ($ 1960.83)

 

<p>

 

Summicron-M 2/50 black 1 257.81 � ($ 1132.03)

 

<p>

 

Second hand lenses as available in their list (extract):

 

<p>

 

Summicron-M 2/50 serial 1925206 � 385.00 ($ 346.50)

 

<p>

 

Summicron-M 2/50 m (leitz) serial 1301172 � 258.00 ($ 232.20)

 

<p>

 

Summilux-M 1.4/50 m leitz 1844702 � 650.00 ($ 585)

 

<p>

 

As you can see a relatively old Summilux (Leitz built) is still much

higher than a leica made Summicron� Not a single of these lenses are

under guarantee of any kind (excepts the legal one of course).

 

<p>

 

Please, let me emphasize the gap between the $ 440 you consider an

average price on e.bay and the actual $585 to pay for here� No less

than $145 more !�

 

<p>

 

Actually I have not a single Leica lens bought as new in my outfit�

I have two Leica lenses which are a 35mm f/2 Summicron Canadian

built and a 135mm F/4 Tele-Elmar (with separate hood so the first

model). Both are excellent lenses and the Tele-Elmar is in a totally

mint condition and was paid (for once) a fair price ($ 257.15)� My

third lens is a 90mm F:2.8 M-Hexanon bought as new (in fact an

exchange between my 135mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit with ears and this lens

as the Tele-Elmarit �ears� were unsuited for the 0.6 magnification

of the Hexar viewfinder). So to say, I know too well what a limited

budget means� I�m seriously committed to buy a second hand 50mm

Summicron which seems to me more appropriate to my budget than a

second hand Summilux� Anyway, even should my situation improves a

bit (as I hope it will) I see no reason to spend my money on buying

(at least with any kind of priority) two or more lenses of the same

focal length� I would prefer to buy a 12mm, a 15 mm, a 21 mm, a 28

mm and a 75mm and substitute to my Hexanon (not a bad lens but not a

Leica) a 90mm f/2 and even to substitute to my 35mm f/2 �old�

Summicron the superb 35mm f/1.4 asph. � I think in so doing I would

add much more to the capabilities of my system to translate in

actual images all the subjects I imagine in my brain� Notice that

not all these lenses will be Leica ones anyway�

 

<p>

 

I was under the impression, some of us on the forum were going a bit

to far toward a very costly nitpicking� To be able to appreciate

each lens in the system through the commentaries of people on the

board, the tests (when reliable) and your own experience is one

thing� Then, I think most of us can only hope to chose the best for

their work (according to their budget limitations).

 

<p>

 

Now, about the wonderful Noctilux� I was considering this lens as it

seems you do until I read from testers and from people having

actually used it on the forum another tune� It seems this lens is

not as a special application lens as you think but performs equally

exceptionally well when closed down� If so (and provided you can

afford it and have the proper viewfinder magnification to use it�

Which means for me at least a 0.72 Leica M), it seems to me a lens

with a greater potential than I anticipated as it appears to be able

to fulfil equally well the role of a very low light ultra-fast lens

and the one of a more classical � Summicron like � standard lens. It

seems the reputation of a special purpose lens of the Noctilux dates

back to the first f/1.2 model which didn�t performed so well when

closed down. From what I heard about the Summilux, it seems it

performs exceptionally well from f/2 to f/5.6 with a limited

resolution at full maximum aperture and a distinct loss of

performance when closed down more than f/5.6. Something the f/1

Noctilux doesn�t seem to be affected by (at least to the same degree)

� Again, I have no personal experience with it (unfortunately) but

the information from different sources seems to be consistent on

that point. Hence my rationale: better to buy the super-fast

Noctilux than to spend your money on a Summilux and if you have to

wait to do so, then it might be more rewarding (and saves you a

respectable amount of money) to buy a Summicron to have a 50

mm �general purpose� lens which have better all around performances

than the Lux because it can be stopped down without losing any of

its remarkable performances as does the Lux�

 

<p>

 

Now, I think M mount rangefinder cameras are lacking some important

capabilities they once had. Leica did address the question of low

magnification macro-photography with the dual range Summicron� They

don't produce it anymore and I sometimes feel uncomfortable not to

have when I have to carry a lightweight equipment. As to have two

lenses of similar focal length, I would probably appreciate more the

return of such a close up lens. Knowing close up lens are to be

finely tuned with a different correction which favors the close up

instead of infinity, a new version of this lens (even with a single

scale making it a unique �myopic� lens) would be a blessing� And

something I consider far more useful than a collapsible f/3.5 50mm

and even an aging f/1.4 lens� In the same order of idea, I think a

180 or 200 mm wide aperture tele-lens with ears (provided you can

change the ears magnification to suit the one of your M body) would

probably permit the 35mm rangefinder camera to cover all the

frequently used focal length in 35mm format� As a side benefit, a

bit more standardization (or rationalization) in the model range

would probably permit some scale economies and slightly diminish the

price to pay�

 

<p>

 

Friendly.

 

<p>

 

François P. WEILL

 

<p>

 

 

 

[ray_moth]

Thank you all for your interesting and informative responses. The

question inevitable arose as to which particular 50mm lens is the

best to own; although it wasn't my intention to raise that particular

issue, it was still interesting to read people's informed opinions.

 

<p>

 

I came into possession of a 50mm Summilux late version, c. 1973 with

separate metal shade, more by accident than design. I was collecting

a new 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M lens and 28-35-50 f/4 Tri-Elmar lens that

I had ordered, when the dealer mentioned that he was expecting a used

50mm Summilux to come in and asked if I would be interested. I had

not considered this but, since the 3E and 90 Elmarit were my only

lenses, it made sense to buy something faster for low light use. The

idea of a 50 'lux appealed to me because it was 3 stops faster than

the 3E and 50mm also happened to be my personal favourite focal

length for indoor use. So I agreed to look at the lens once he had it

in stock. It was in excellent condition and I bought it for $650.

 

<p>

 

I asked the above question about the performance of the 50 'lux at

different apertures because I was surprised at the test results from

Modern Photography and I wondered if anyone had experienced similar

performance with this lens. The Modern Photography test results were

published in 1970 and I presume the version of the lens tested was

the same as mine which, optically, is the same as the current version

(apart from the minimum focus distance).

[sparkie]

Why woyuld they design a lens which was sharper at the edges

than the centre? I mean, most pople look at the center of a photo

most don't they? Now I'm confused. Nice shot btw Mike..

[albert_smith]

Ray, Your information from the 1970 magazine is a bit different than Popular Photography's review from April 1994. It shows a weak wide open performance and by f/4.0, it is very strong.

 

But then again, according to this test, we shouldn't like Mike Dixon's great shot. I guess the only test that matters is, "Do you like your photos?" If I read Pop' Photo's report, I'd never use f/1.4, and that would be a shame.<div></div>