visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
These days I'm thinking about a fast 50 mm lens. The undisputed champion of resolution and contrast among all these lenses must be the Leica 50/1.4 Asph. However, what happens in front of and behind the plane of focus matters to me. My question, dear readers, is how does this lens 'draw' an image? What do those out of focus areas look like? How do they compare to the pre-aspheric summilux or other 1.4 or 1.5 lenses?
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
The M-mount group of Flickr is a great resource for checking out examples of different lenses: http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/
jja
Well-known
Andrew, that is a very useful link, thank you. Comparing photos from the last pre-asph w/ the latest asph version, I think the differences are noticeable only when focus, development, and scanning/printing are absolutely nailed. 99.99% of those photos I could not tell which were done w/ the asph. or the pre-asph. I think Honus, the admin. of m-mount group on flickr, is a great craftsman w/ the entirety of his work flow, so I would look at his photos if you want to see what the asph. can really do.
Speaking for myself, I really love my pre-asph, and I'm not sure I could get rid of it, even if I could be convinced that the asph. is better.
Speaking for myself, I really love my pre-asph, and I'm not sure I could get rid of it, even if I could be convinced that the asph. is better.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
I'm glad the link was helpful to you. I agree that the difference between the two versions is rarely noticeable (especially when looking at images on the web).
The pre-asph Summilux has tempted me for the past few months. I have to keep reminding myself that I need better ideas/execution, not a better lens.
The pre-asph Summilux has tempted me for the past few months. I have to keep reminding myself that I need better ideas/execution, not a better lens.
marke
Well-known
What made it easy for me is that I recently picked up a brand new last pre-asph for about half the price of a asph.
awilder
Alan Wilder
I've owned both Summilux versions and had no complaint with the OOF imagery of the ASPH version. It's chief advantage is that at wider apertures sharpness is so good that the subject pops off the slide or screen giving it an extra degree of three dimensionality. Here's an example at f/1.4: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42321&d=1173759322
Last edited:
marke
Well-known
A pre-asph shot
A pre-asph shot
One taken with my pre-asph:
A pre-asph shot
One taken with my pre-asph:
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
Ron, a very important thing in favor of the Summilux ASPH is its close focus distance--.7m compared to the pre-ASPH's 1m--and its close focus performance--it has a floating element which maximizes close focus performance. When doing still life shots or coming in close to your subject, you might very much appreciate the 'lux ASPH.
Here's a fabulous shot taken with the 'lux ASPH shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eavis/2126236528/
Here's a fabulous shot taken with the 'lux ASPH shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eavis/2126236528/
jja
Well-known
The last pre-asph summilux w/ built-in hood also has a closest focusing distance to .7m. JJ, that photo you linked by Peter Eavis is really fabulous, but I would argue that it does not show the asph summilux at its greatest performance. Don't get me wrong, that picture "pops" (or whatever adjective works for you), but compare it to his photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eavis/2347043650/
The photo I just linked was also taken by Peter Eavis, and I would argue that it has even more 3D pop. It was taken w/ a 1970s 35/2 Summicron, a lens which I sold to Peter just a few weeks ago.
Edit: The reason I say the first photo does not get maximum performance from the lens is that it looks a little grainy and flat due too reduced tonal range, effects that I believe the photographer was attempting to achieve, and which help convey the mood of the photo.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eavis/2347043650/
The photo I just linked was also taken by Peter Eavis, and I would argue that it has even more 3D pop. It was taken w/ a 1970s 35/2 Summicron, a lens which I sold to Peter just a few weeks ago.
Edit: The reason I say the first photo does not get maximum performance from the lens is that it looks a little grainy and flat due too reduced tonal range, effects that I believe the photographer was attempting to achieve, and which help convey the mood of the photo.
Last edited:
marke
Well-known
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
Tonaility
Newbie
I hear some news on Grape Vine
I hear some news on Grape Vine
I heard some news that there is likely to be some new M lenses, about 6. One is apparently going to be a new f0.95 50mm to replace the Noci. Also another is a f1.4 28mm.
Keeping my fingers crossed.
I hear some news on Grape Vine
I heard some news that there is likely to be some new M lenses, about 6. One is apparently going to be a new f0.95 50mm to replace the Noci. Also another is a f1.4 28mm.
Keeping my fingers crossed.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
Thanks Darren, et al. I am really jonesing for a new fast 50 and it sounds like the latest pre-asph 'lux would be my choice simply based on cost and the 0.7m closest focus. Still, that 'lux Asph looks sooo nice!
thomasw_
Well-known
the lux asph 50 is a perfect lens in my view.
sharp and yet not harsh, even in difficult light:
Or allowing interesting out of focus areas and great shadow detail:
And its "bokeh" can be creamy if you wish it to draw that way, as I wanted in this portrait:
Hopes this helps. Good cheer, Thomas
sharp and yet not harsh, even in difficult light:
Or allowing interesting out of focus areas and great shadow detail:
And its "bokeh" can be creamy if you wish it to draw that way, as I wanted in this portrait:
Hopes this helps. Good cheer, Thomas
