ErinMB
Newbie
Hello everybody - first post here, so be gentle 
When the M8 came out, I went right out and bought it together with the 35mm and 50mm Summilux lenses (current apsheric versions). I've had my history with Leica, shooting with them since the early seventies. Around 1995 I went over to single lens reflex, but I never got used to those. Alas, the M8 wasn't for me, since I'm really bad when it comes to post processing, and I found that using such software took away a lot of the joy of photography. Most of the time, I found that I was getting lost in all the the sliders and buttons, and making things worse. If I were good at it, I'm sure I would have stuck with digital. Anyway, I've never used the old 50mm Summilux, and recently bought a Zeiss Ikon and a 35mm Voigtlander f/2.5 lens. That brought a lot of fun back, I could use Kodachrome and Tri-X, and get results straight out of the camera. I have my own darkroom, and scan prints if I need digital versions.
Lately I have been longing for a 50mm, and a fast one at that. Since I sold the aspheric lenses, I no longer have anything but the 35mm from Voigtlander.
The previous version of the Summilux has a nicer price than the $3600 I have to pay for the aspheric one, so that makes it tempting. But is this old lens any good, by todays standards? Or would I be better off just paying the full price, and never look back? I know the resolution is bound to be better on the newer lens, but I'm simply not sure how much this matters when I shoot ISO400 films like Tri-X (shot at ISO250-1600), handheld.
I have used different Summicrons over the years (and Elmars), but never did I have the chance to try the Summilux-es, before I bought the ones with my M8.
If you have comparisons or experiences, I would very much appreciate hearing them (or seeing!).
When the M8 came out, I went right out and bought it together with the 35mm and 50mm Summilux lenses (current apsheric versions). I've had my history with Leica, shooting with them since the early seventies. Around 1995 I went over to single lens reflex, but I never got used to those. Alas, the M8 wasn't for me, since I'm really bad when it comes to post processing, and I found that using such software took away a lot of the joy of photography. Most of the time, I found that I was getting lost in all the the sliders and buttons, and making things worse. If I were good at it, I'm sure I would have stuck with digital. Anyway, I've never used the old 50mm Summilux, and recently bought a Zeiss Ikon and a 35mm Voigtlander f/2.5 lens. That brought a lot of fun back, I could use Kodachrome and Tri-X, and get results straight out of the camera. I have my own darkroom, and scan prints if I need digital versions.
Lately I have been longing for a 50mm, and a fast one at that. Since I sold the aspheric lenses, I no longer have anything but the 35mm from Voigtlander.
The previous version of the Summilux has a nicer price than the $3600 I have to pay for the aspheric one, so that makes it tempting. But is this old lens any good, by todays standards? Or would I be better off just paying the full price, and never look back? I know the resolution is bound to be better on the newer lens, but I'm simply not sure how much this matters when I shoot ISO400 films like Tri-X (shot at ISO250-1600), handheld.
I have used different Summicrons over the years (and Elmars), but never did I have the chance to try the Summilux-es, before I bought the ones with my M8.
If you have comparisons or experiences, I would very much appreciate hearing them (or seeing!).
Last edited:
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Even by todays standards the old Lux is still among the best fast 50's out there.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page57.html
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page57.html
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
the pre-asph lux is an insane lens. If the relative worth was equal I would never consider swapping one for an asph...
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
One of the best 50's made.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
dudes, doesn't he talk about the 35mm summilux??
edit: oops,i need a coffee.
edit: oops,i need a coffee.
cam
the need for speed
an incredibly gorgeous lens! i have one from the early sixties that i love to death!
however, if i was buying now, i would go for one of the later versions which have a closer focus distance. i also think there is slightly more micro-contrast which may be preferable for film.
however, if i was buying now, i would go for one of the later versions which have a closer focus distance. i also think there is slightly more micro-contrast which may be preferable for film.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
edhohoho
Established
At first I thought I overpaid for my pre-asph 50 Summilux, but after using it and seeing the results on my R-D1, I will never sell it. I am still curious to see what the ASPH is like, but if anything the ASPH will only be an addition and not a replacement to the pre-asph. I have heard that the ASPH is sharper wide open and more contrasty overall, but the pre-asph has handled everything from portraits to landscapes and both B&W and color with great results. If you like Mandler's designs and the signatures of such lenses as the 75 Summilux, 50/1.0 Noctilux, and pre-asph 35 Summilux, then the pre-asph 50 Summilux seems to fall along those lines. Sharp enough for me wide open, but with really nice and smooth out of focus rendering.
maddoc
... likes film again.
The 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH ( I had the latest version with sliding hood and E46) was my favorite 50mm lens (before I went for the Noctilux). As already said it is comparable to the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH, not perfect sharp at f/1.4 but very nice rendering. I had started a thread here at RFF about the 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH some time ago.
Edit: Welcome to the forum !!
Edit: Welcome to the forum !!
awilder
Alan Wilder
It really depends on your subject matter and film use as to which 50 Summilux you choose. The pre-aspheric versions were designed in the early 60's to provide more contrast wide open than their Japanese competitors which tended to favor
greater resolution rather than contrast. This made the Summilux a particular favorite with Tri-X users where resolution was more secondary. The Summilux tends to be very sharp and snappy within the central 1/3-1/2 of the frame but outside that zone it becomes a bit softer than the competition due to curvature of field and astigmatism unless stopped down to f/5.6 or smaller. This is the tradeoff Leitz had to make in those days to obtain the high contrast that made the Summilux one of the best fast 50's of it's time. OTOH, shooting Kodachrome 64 at larger apertures requiring sharpness over most of the frame like a landscape would be where the ASPH. version would really shine over the earlier version.
greater resolution rather than contrast. This made the Summilux a particular favorite with Tri-X users where resolution was more secondary. The Summilux tends to be very sharp and snappy within the central 1/3-1/2 of the frame but outside that zone it becomes a bit softer than the competition due to curvature of field and astigmatism unless stopped down to f/5.6 or smaller. This is the tradeoff Leitz had to make in those days to obtain the high contrast that made the Summilux one of the best fast 50's of it's time. OTOH, shooting Kodachrome 64 at larger apertures requiring sharpness over most of the frame like a landscape would be where the ASPH. version would really shine over the earlier version.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
I have the latest pre-asph E46 50mm and the Asph version. The Asph version has impressed me shooting at f/1.4 -- sharp areas tack sharp, and smooth transition to bokeh (did I say I was pickey?). The Asph is a lens that really shows its stuff.
Ive posted before I was amazed with the 50 pre-asph shooting in dim light 1/15 braced against a column inside a church in Costa Rica (K64). The color rendition was amazing and what I can only call ethereal -- a sharpness AND bokeh that I had never seen in fifteen years shooting Leica, much less taken.
The 50 Summilux pre-asph stood the test of time by demanding Leica photographers. Interestingly, I read that production of these lenses was quite low on annual basis (2000 per year) and they are more rare than people realize.
Edit: Welcome to the forum!
Ive posted before I was amazed with the 50 pre-asph shooting in dim light 1/15 braced against a column inside a church in Costa Rica (K64). The color rendition was amazing and what I can only call ethereal -- a sharpness AND bokeh that I had never seen in fifteen years shooting Leica, much less taken.
The 50 Summilux pre-asph stood the test of time by demanding Leica photographers. Interestingly, I read that production of these lenses was quite low on annual basis (2000 per year) and they are more rare than people realize.
Edit: Welcome to the forum!
Last edited:
faris
Well-known
I have been trying my pre-asph 50 lux ( e-46 ) and the first subject at
f/1.4 happened to be my grand daughter. Now I know how to handle it
at 1.4 and imho ( imvho ) i might leave behind my current asph lux in the old one's favor.
Oh, so so lovely is the lens.
This is with an M8, though at iso 1250.
Good luck with your decision.
f/1.4 happened to be my grand daughter. Now I know how to handle it
at 1.4 and imho ( imvho ) i might leave behind my current asph lux in the old one's favor.
Oh, so so lovely is the lens.
This is with an M8, though at iso 1250.
Good luck with your decision.
MCTuomey
Veteran
i owned the pre-asph 50 lux for about two years, using it on a couple of M bodies and an R-D1. once i found and had Sherry Krauter rehab a canon 50/1.5 and then shot it awhile, i sold the lux. call me crazy, or at least contrarian. the canon handled high contrast light conditions on the R-D1 much more smoothly than the lux. less dramatically so, but similar performance on film. and the bokeh of the 50/1.5 leaves me very happy. stopped down the canon's very nice too, imho. i know sonnars aren't supposed to be allrounders, but the canon 50 works for me as one.
edhohoho
Established
I have the Canon 50/1.5 as well, and have not been very satisfied with the out of focus rendering. Perhaps I should continue to use it under more varied conditions, but my first spin with it was unimpressive. However, I like the photos I see from other users of the 50/1.5 so I will continue to test it. To me, it does not seem to handle background foliage during the day and point light sources/reflections the way I like. I prefer smooth and abstract as opposed to swirly or "splotchy" (point light sources and reflections that look like flare spots). I wonder whether the Zeiss 50/1.5 C Sonnar or the Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton are any better, although I'm not sure if the Nokton is also a Sonnar design.
For me, the pre-asph 50 Summilux is a great all round lens for my uses and needs.
For me, the pre-asph 50 Summilux is a great all round lens for my uses and needs.
Last edited:
ErinMB
Newbie
Thank you all for your responses, seems like it might be worth checking out the old one before paying up for the aspheric version.
thomasw_
Well-known
Love both the v.2/3 and the current asph version. The current asph version is more versatile, perhaps being the finest all-round 50 I have used. But I love the bokeh of the lux 75 and v2/3 lux 50. I will give a sample of each:
ASPH:>
PRE-ASPH v.2/3:>
ASPH:>
PRE-ASPH v.2/3:>
