Summilux 50 PreAsph V2 vs. modern Summicron 50

T

TJV

Well-known
Local time
10:22 AM
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
595
Another silly question / observation from today:

To recap, I've been toying with the idea of trading my modern (and coded) Summicron for a very clean, newly CLA'd by DAG Summilux PreAsph V2. I'm into both the modern and vintage look, so don't have a preference in that regard either way. I would really just appreciate the extra stop.

So after a few test rolls I'm wondering if I've either got a bad sample or if the V2 Summilux is VERY soft and low contrast at f1.4. It improves after f2.8 but the overall look is very low contrast. Lower than I expected, having been told it does have low contrast by many here. These seems to be no depth to the colours and at f1.4 the OOF areas seem distorted, kind of circular like the Noctilux, the corners especially seeming to round off. The colours are probably the most concerning aspect, they just have no real depth and appear lifeless.

Could be good for Black and White, I don't know. Could it be something to do with older lens coatings etc?
 
It might be helpful to post some of your test images so we can see with what your basing opinion. I've owned both lenses and can honestly say the modern 'cron, stop for stop will visibly outperform the 'lux anywhere outside a 6-8 mm central zone until about f/8. This is especially true if subject contrast is low to begin with and your working with apertures wider than f/2.8. Imaging with the 'lux really starts to come into it's own from f/2.8 and smaller. It's unlikely you have a bad sample given that it's a V2 and it's had a CLA by DAG. Can we assume that it's rf calibration is accurate with your body?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the rangefinder is spot on. I did a nerd like test between the two lenses shooting at a ruler at 45 degrees. Actually, the cron that had a CLA at Leica only 6 months ago marginally front focuses compared to the Lux which is perfect. I think what I'm seeing is what you're talking about, a low contrast subject combined with wide aperture. On the same roll I shot also with the 35 Lux ASPH and the wide open results were obvious even on a digi 8R proof print. Mid range, the Lux 50 was sweet but the colour was not quite as punchy or crisp, maybe even slightly muddy.

It's weird to be so picky because I'm no gear head. I just find that I'm often shooting at slow shutter speeds wide open and an extra stop, or two if I look at a Nocti, would be well worth my while. If I'm loosing a lot of contrast and, effectively looing a feeling of depth through lack of stronger shadows and highlights, It's perhaps better to stick to modern lenses. Not that I can afford an ASPH lux or Nocti (which is no modern lens either, I suppose, although I had better results testing one of those than the V2 Lux.)

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I too have a v2 pre-ASPH 50/1.4 that was CLA'd by DAG and I've also seen peculiar OOF rendition at f1.4, but I had read about it elsewhere so I wasn't so surprised to see it myself. Sometimes it is fine at f1.4, but depending on light/shadow and the distance between the in-focus main subject and the background you can get some very ugly effects. I don't think you have a bad sample, more like you've been encountering situations where it doesn't work that well. I love mine, BTW. A wonderful lens.
 
pfoto said:
I too have a v2 pre-ASPH 50/1.4 that was CLA'd by DAG and I've also seen peculiar OOF rendition at f1.4, but I had read about it elsewhere so I wasn't so surprised to see it myself. Sometimes it is fine at f1.4, but depending on light/shadow and the distance between the in-focus main subject and the background you can get some very ugly effects. I don't think you have a bad sample, more like you've been encountering situations where it doesn't work that well. I love mine, BTW. A wonderful lens.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I think it is a beautiful lens overall but probably doesn't make sense as my only 50mm if I'll use it wide open or near to it most of the time. Better to load some 800Z and shoot with the Cron. Looking at shots taken with my other modern Leica glass beside those made with the 50 Lux Pre-ASPH in the same situation it was too obvious a difference in contrast and tonality to justify the swap.
I like the weight and feel of the Summilux, although the longer focus throw would probably take a bit for me to get used to, especially since the V2 doesn't have a focus tab. I'm actually a bit miffed the lens didn't work out for me. I have been searching of a good example locally for over a year as I thought it would be just the ticket - especially judging by a lot of picture examples I've seen here and elsewhere. Oh well, I'm obviously a lucky guy with a lot of tools to be thankful for. :eek:
 
TJV said:
Yes, I agree. I think it is a beautiful lens overall but probably doesn't make sense as my only 50mm if I'll use it wide open or near to it most of the time.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Expensive and worth trading a few items for, but maybe the 50/1.4 ASPH is the answer. The ASPH lenses are quite incredible wide-open. Check flickr for the 50/1.4.
 
Perhaps a step in the exact opposite direction considering the nature of the lens, but how is the modern Zeiss C-Sonnar in comparison to the old Lux? From reading the pages here you'd think that it was a lens unusable except at the calibrated aperture. In the real world photographing people I expect it to be a non point. I see a thread in the M8 forum dealing with the same question - how do the two lenses compare.

Anyone got an opinion?
 
None of the pre-ASPH Summilux lenses were that great. And optically there wasn't much difference between any of them. I've owned at least 3 or 4 and was never that impressed with any of them wide open. The current ASPH blows them all away. I cannot believe the price people are paying for the older lenses.
 
TJV said:
Another silly question / observation from today:

To recap, I've been toying with the idea of trading my modern (and coded) Summicron for a very clean, newly CLA'd by DAG Summilux PreAsph V2. I'm into both the modern and vintage look, so don't have a preference in that regard either way. I would really just appreciate the extra stop.

So after a few test rolls I'm wondering if I've either got a bad sample or if the V2 Summilux is VERY soft and low contrast at f1.4. It improves after f2.8 but the overall look is very low contrast. Lower than I expected, having been told it does have low contrast by many here. These seems to be no depth to the colours and at f1.4 the OOF areas seem distorted, kind of circular like the Noctilux, the corners especially seeming to round off. The colours are probably the most concerning aspect, they just have no real depth and appear lifeless.

Could be good for Black and White, I don't know. Could it be something to do with older lens coatings etc?
Click to expand...

I would stay with the lens you have unless a faster lens is required for the work you do. f2 is fine for me but I appreciate that it is a personal thing. But go with what it does not what it looks like
 
the more modern asph version was developed for the growing demand for super sharp images at low light, and thus "optimised" for f/1.4-f/2... while the v2 will be soft wide-open, but is a lot more pleasent to use when you hit f2/8-f/4, compared to the asph.

the latest cron is somewhere between the 2. it manages to maintain pretty good sharpness wide open (nowhere near the asph, but better than the v2), but more pleasing when stopped down, similar to the other pre-asph 50s (although i prefer the rendering of the pre-asph luxs).
 
TJV said:
Perhaps a step in the exact opposite direction considering the nature of the lens, but how is the modern Zeiss C-Sonnar in comparison to the old Lux? From reading the pages here you'd think that it was a lens unusable except at the calibrated aperture. In the real world photographing people I expect it to be a non point.
Click to expand...


you can always tell the people who actually use these lenses and the ones that just like to talk about them. In use, %95 of what you have read on the internet about the c sonnar is exactly that, a non point. Ive shot a few hundred rolls of flim with the lens at this point and my only comment on it is that in a documentary situation it is damn hard to use a 1.5 but whatever. The look you are stuck with is far more of a subject to discuss (which rarely occurs) as opposed to how easy or hard the lens is to use, which for some reason people seem obsessed with. If you are shooting statues I cant imagine why anyone would knock the lens...

I see differences between my e43 and e46 summilux, as I suspected I would. It was suggested here that the lenses are the same formula and perhaps thats the case, I dont know, but the e46 definitely looks like a higher contrast lens compared to the e43. sample variation, the way the wind blows, whatever. The e43 photos look "older" than the photos from my e46.

I got the summilux as a reaction to the sonnar. The thing about the sonnar at 1.5 is that well, its a sonnar at 1.5 Everyone thats ever used a sonnar at that aperature knows what I mean. Its not that the lens isnt so sharp (its not that sharp at 1.5 but thats not the point) its just that the look can be totally overpowering if you dont want dreamy pillowy cloudness going down all over your photograph. When you want that, there is no lens that rules more than a sonnar. And when you dont you get a summilux. The lux wide open looks just like it does at f4 just with less depth of field. Its a far far far more practical lens, owning a lux and a sonnar is for me, totally not redundant. The lux is also sharper at 1.5 than the sonnar but for me, this is such an irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant subtext I hate to mention it. The lux is not "better" at 1.5, its just that the bok doesnt totally overtake everything like the sonnar does. For some situations this is wonderful and for others, its super disappointing. One thing, the ZM sonnar is very "glassy" while the lux is very "chalky" in comparison. No lens does what a sonnar does to someone's eyeballs, its a really interesting thing. Its modern sharp and has more character at all stops than people give it credit for. The problem is, it has character at all stops. The lux is more just a lens that take photos. Its a cool lens. There are lots of cool lenses. I prefer my cron over the lux but the lux is on the camera more often as Im usually shooting in the dark and the extra stop is helpful. I have not found the sonnar particularly useful for shooting in low light, for my taste I find the lens to suit my style much better wide open in a well lit scenario than in the dark where I prefer the lux.

So, you can make lots of comparisons between the two and while I think those comparisons can be fair and accurate, I would suggest that ultimately they are a waste of time. You either want the look of the sonnar or you dont. It may be sharper than this one or not as sharp as that one but it has a look that is unavoidable and that is what the lens is all about. That look. And that look has no bearing on the fact that the lux is sharper wide open. It is. And its also way more boring wide open, at all stops really, in comparison. And thats the point to really focus on. Another point, I have found the lux to have relatively the same amount of contrast at just about every stop, more or less. The sonnar increases contrast to my eye, through the entire movement of the f ring to the point where I really really dislike the lens completely stopped down, very hard to deal with contrast if you dont have a diffused light source.

Anyway, dont be afraid to buy a sonnar, most of the stuff you read about people knocking the lens are made by internet warriors who have never and will never handle the lens. Yes, shooting rulers, you had better believe that the focus shift is a real thing with this lens. Shooting people in the real world however, its just not that much of a big deal. The old summarit is comparable and you dont hear people jumping up and down about how useless that lens is... The focus shift only becomes real gnarly at the minimum focus, which at .9m I use mostly when I use the lens and its easy to overcome. Whats still the main issue which is never spoken about again is the look of this lens at 1.5. Tremendous changes in look between 1.5 and 2split and all anyone wants to discuss is the focus shift wide open, thats enough to know that the people griping are not users. If you dont want your photos to look like they were taken on Dagobah, you'll likely be using the lens closer to 2.8 and if your photos need to look like a jedi in exile then you have that option too... Its a wonderful wonderful wonderful lens. Its probably not the only 50 you'd want to have though.

When (if) you really get to know the sonnar, there will be a spot or two or three on the lens that you know, can anticipate and will use the lens at. Every stop the lens has its own character that is constantly changing and can be used to your advantage. The lux is just a lens that takes cool pictures and there really isnt any learning curve at all with it. To the original poster, a modern cron is orders sharper than either of my v2 lux's and much more modern looking in general as a result.

well, there's some opinion just based on my use with the sonnar over the last year or so. I shot a huge project with it, so feel a bit qualified to comment. Hopefully thats helpful. cheers.
 
Damn, for someone who had a Sonnar and Sold it and trying to decide whther to get Connar again and the lux.

I thank you.

That was comprehensive..
 
Thanks for the lengthy reply!

I think the C-Sonnar would be a lens I'd love to have but just can't rationalize as the max aperture is something I'd want to buy it for. I'd love to see some modern serious documentary work done on one though. I suspect there are hundreds of famous photo essays that were done with old Sonnar lenses, but I'm more interested in how the modern version looks with contemporary fine grain colour film stock. It's funny, the shots I took with the V2 50mm lux at f1.4 were strange to my eye, in the way they didn't have crazy swirly OOF areas, but a nothing kind of middle ground that didn't do anything to give the main focus point any real grunt - instead it detracted by way of moderate distortion and fall off. The Cron has always been beautiful to my eyes, just a stop too slow. I'm always blown away with my Lux ASPH 35mm so I suspect I'd also like the 50mm ASPH. It's a shame my pockets are all but empty!

Who else reckons the V2 and V3 Lux lenses produce different results? Do WoolenMammoth's comments ring true?

I actually feel ashamed of myself for pondering gear so hard, I'm used to just using what I have to the best effect I can. I guess I'm just trying to plan for the future and not waste money on something that's not quite what I want.

Tim
 
I just had a look on Flickr to see what examples of the C Sonnar there are to be found and the images there, by and large, look fantastic. Goes to show me that despite the shifts in focus, be them very small, it rewards if one puts the time into learning its quirks. Certainly a great lens at a bargain price. I just wish I could try one out to see if it would suit my style of shooting. Bummer I can't. The downside to living down under, I guess.
 
Think of the pre-ASPH Lux as a 3rd generation 2/50 Summicron that's a stop faster. I have a sneaking suspicion that the E46 version performs better that the E43. Could be do to better coatings, tighter tolerances, different glass or a tweak to the formula. No one really knows and Leica isn't telling.

The pre-ASPH Lux is my main 50 and I've shot hundreds and hundreds of rolls with it.
I also own several versions of the 2/50 Summicron, including the current version in M and R mount.

Below 5.6 the current Summicron packs more punch and without a doubt is better at f2.
Below f8 the Lux is lower in contrast, but stopped down you'll have difficulty telling the two apart. The Lux has a more classic finger print of the Mandler era. The Cron is a little more modern, because of the slightly higher contrast.

The Lux goes soft closeup (1 m / .7cm) at f1.4, but it is far from junk and portraits look very pleasing. This is typical behavior for any high-speed lens, without a floating element. F1.4 focused a few meters is very sharp. I'm always surprised by how good this lens is at 1.4. Not only is it sharp, but it handles flare very well and the delicate tonality it delivers at night is excellent.

For a 1.4 design the E46 Lux still is among the best lenses out there. Wide open it is better than my Canon EF 1.4/50 and certainly the equal to the Zeiss ZF 1.4/50 and Nikkor AI-S 1.4/50 (which I also own). Overall I have found the pre-ASPH Lux (E46) to display a perfect balance of contrast, sharpness, tonality and bokeh. The Canon, Zeiss and Nikkor fall short in one category or another (bokeh, tonality etc), but the Lux walks the line perfectly. It's one hell of a good lens and there is a good reason why it was in production for +40 years. When it was released back in the 1960's it must have been a revelation. I own many 50's from that era and none of them are even in the same ballpark.

That said the Lux-ASPH is without a doubt the sharper lens at any stop or distance. But it also costs a lot more money.
 
Last edited:
Depends on what you are after. The Summicron gives greater edge detail than the Summilux, but that comes at the cost of less wild bokeh. I use both, depending on the situation and what is needed.
 
I wondered about that comparison long time. I own 35lux preasph and 50 cron 3rd type. I always liked the look of the cron at any aperture and I hesitate if I get the same look from Cron at f1.4 from 50 lux preasph. Since its oof is way too smooth that resemble more of Sonnar for me. So I wonder if Lux Asph is more similiar to Cron at rendering f1.4 as Cron at f2.0? I think I care less and less for smooth bokeh now and I felt I need to have a different lens than 35lux preasph which has generally very smooth bokeh :) Price differences between Asph and E46 is much smaller than I'd like and I guess that some people rather prefer "smooth" lenses (look how many has a sonnar here :)). Cron is something else maybe thanks to microcontrast. Who know which lenses has high microcontrast? That is very interesting for me. It helps to find texture feeling. I never felt the same way for other lenses as Jupiter-3 or 35lux preasph.
 
Last edited:
I need to work on my flickr tags, but have a look at these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10229578@N00/tags/leicasummilux50mmf14ii/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10229578@N00/tags/summilux/

Those are some of my photos taken w/ the v. 3 pre-asph summilux. I've compared the 'lux with a 50/2 Summicron (latest), and while the Summicron has more contrast and sharpness, the 'lux is a great all-around lens, and is not far behind, imo. I love its smooth oof backgrounds and its much better flare-handling abilities than the Summicron. I have never felt it lacked sufficient contrast or sharpness.
 
AS for the Sonar look. I would describe it as bit feminine. It's sharp enough wide open but amazingly soft blurs. I really haven't seen anything like it and crazy overpowering. It reates bokeh that is very musy but colorful. at around f2 it has very sharp in focus with very gentle boke still very sesitive to the lines it creates.

Anyway it's nice but for me, the feminie looks made me desire for something more. Anyway, anyone selling their Lux V3??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom