Krosya
Konicaze
This lens is known as superb 50mm lens. Maybe even the best 50mm ever made.
While I would love to get one of these, there is no way I can afford one. So, I was wondering is there anything out there that has similar signature, maybe even a little slower lens, like f2, but a cheaper one?
While I would love to get one of these, there is no way I can afford one. So, I was wondering is there anything out there that has similar signature, maybe even a little slower lens, like f2, but a cheaper one?
Tim Gray
Well-known
I had the latest summicron and sold it and bought an ASPH. I'm not a big one to notice signatures, I mainly bought the ASPH because of its capabilities - faster, sharper, less flare. I don't know if there are many 50's that stack up well against. If you want sharp and cheaper, I'd look at either the latest Elmar which I've heard is a very good performer or the Zeiss Planar.
On the other hand, if you buy from a place like Robert White in the UK right now, you can pick up a brand new ASPH for less than $2k with the rebate.
On the other hand, if you buy from a place like Robert White in the UK right now, you can pick up a brand new ASPH for less than $2k with the rebate.
ferider
Veteran
You would have to find another 50 with asph, floating and apochromatic elements first.
Roland.
Roland.
Krosya
Konicaze
Doesnt rebate only apply to USA and Canada purchases?
Tim Gray
Well-known
There's a 15% off rebate in the UK, until Jan 31. I started a thread that detailed some of it called "Cheaper lenses" I think. It was just last week so it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Goldorak
-
Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 aspherical?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
What about the Industar? :angel:
Austerby
Well-known
This is correct - my new one arrived yesterday. Cost after rebate at current exchange rate is USD1900. I didn't get mine from Robert White's though. It is worth shopping around as I found some places were several hundred pounds pricier than I paid. Some have it pre-rebate at around £1850 (USD2500) upto £2090 (USD2800) but I see Adorama have them at a whopping USD3500 !!
It's a lens I've been thinking about for a long, long time and finally took the plunge: the price rise is upon us and the 15% discount is temporary so it was very much a matter of now or never.
I've taken the first roll with it today - Pan F at mostly f1.4 whilst picking up my supper at Borough Market in London (incidentally saw one chap there with a bp MP and another with a modern Alpa). I've just developed it in Rodinal 1+50 and it's hanging up to dry in the bathroom as I type.
I can't afford to keep it and other gear, so I've given myself a month to decide whether to keep it or not - if I like it then a few others will be sold off, if I don't it'll be in classifieds and I'd hope to get my money back on it.
Last edited:
MikeL
Go Fish
Krosya, if you don't mind using a Nikon body or M adapter, the Nikkor Millenium lens is very close for sharpness. It can't focus as close and has lower contrast wide open, but it's friggin sharp and the out-of-focus stuff isn't that different. Jon has had them here for $600-800.
troym
Established
I assume that if an American were to take the "UK option," any repairs under warranty would have to be done through the UK seller and not Leica USA?
thomasw_
Well-known
Hi Krosya,
I think you should save for the ASPH 50. It is analogous to the cv 35/1,2 in that there is nothing like it. Both are very special lenses, though the cv comes with less of a kick to the wallet. Even when I think of all the saving and financial hassles I had to bear, it was worth it.
--As an aside, I assume you find the pre-asph summilux 50 rendering too much like the cv 35/1,2 or 'too washed out' as I read someone describe it? It would be a viable alternative if you like the v2/3 signature.
respectfully, thomas
I think you should save for the ASPH 50. It is analogous to the cv 35/1,2 in that there is nothing like it. Both are very special lenses, though the cv comes with less of a kick to the wallet. Even when I think of all the saving and financial hassles I had to bear, it was worth it.
--As an aside, I assume you find the pre-asph summilux 50 rendering too much like the cv 35/1,2 or 'too washed out' as I read someone describe it? It would be a viable alternative if you like the v2/3 signature.
respectfully, thomas
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
My opinion is that the 50f1.4 Asph is one of the best, or possibly the best fast 50 ever made. The only rival in absolute resolution would be the Heliar 50f3.5 - but that one is much slower.
The 50f1.4 asph also has the advantage of the "enhanced" close up capability due to its floating element design.
Coming close to its performance would be the Millenium Nikkor 50f1.4, but by the time you have assembled one with adapters etc it gets expensive. It is actually cheaper to buy the S3 Millenium and the 50f1.4 than the 50f1.4 Asph (that was my excuse and I am sticking to it - even though I already had the 50f1.4 Asph!!!!). In M-mount, I would put the 50mm f2.0 Planar up there as a competitor. This said, my favorite 50 "fast" is the ZM Sonnar 50f1.5 - very pleasing rendition in bl/w - maybe not the resolution of the 50f1.4 Asph, but also less "aggressive" image.
The 50f1.4 asph also has the advantage of the "enhanced" close up capability due to its floating element design.
Coming close to its performance would be the Millenium Nikkor 50f1.4, but by the time you have assembled one with adapters etc it gets expensive. It is actually cheaper to buy the S3 Millenium and the 50f1.4 than the 50f1.4 Asph (that was my excuse and I am sticking to it - even though I already had the 50f1.4 Asph!!!!). In M-mount, I would put the 50mm f2.0 Planar up there as a competitor. This said, my favorite 50 "fast" is the ZM Sonnar 50f1.5 - very pleasing rendition in bl/w - maybe not the resolution of the 50f1.4 Asph, but also less "aggressive" image.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
I was agnostic about the 50 ASPH Summilux until I started shooting with one. Previously, I thought it was more hype than anything else. I have a tendency to bring out the 50 ASPH in low light and shoot it wide open.
In my own experience I find the boke exceptional and, important to me, the OOF areas do not turn to mush. The images I have gotten back have the tonality (some call it "glow") that built Leica's reputation.
I think the 50 ASPH might be a tad faster than given credit. Each time I am pushing my envelope, say at f/1.4 @1/15 I am amazed how clear and sharp my fotos turn out.
In my own experience I find the boke exceptional and, important to me, the OOF areas do not turn to mush. The images I have gotten back have the tonality (some call it "glow") that built Leica's reputation.
I think the 50 ASPH might be a tad faster than given credit. Each time I am pushing my envelope, say at f/1.4 @1/15 I am amazed how clear and sharp my fotos turn out.
Last edited:
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
I would like to repeat what Tom said because I think it is valuable, "In M-mount, I would put the 50mm f2.0 Planar up there as a competitor. This said, my favorite 50 "fast" is the ZM Sonnar 50f1.5 - very pleasing rendition in bl/w - maybe not the resolution of the 50f1.4 Asph, but also less "aggressive" image."
The one thing I would add from my humble experience is do not underestimate the 50mm Lux pre-asph. If total all out sharpness is not the most critical factor, the pre-asph is a strong player (and costs less than half the ASPH).
The one thing I would add from my humble experience is do not underestimate the 50mm Lux pre-asph. If total all out sharpness is not the most critical factor, the pre-asph is a strong player (and costs less than half the ASPH).
edhohoho
Established
If you are interested in the 50 Summilux ASPH, I would imagine that you want to have a lens that is fast and sharp--specifically, sharp when wide open at f1.4. To me, I don't think you can compare the 50/1.4 ASPH to the 50 Summicron because while the latter is reputed to be sharp, it can't achieve f1.4. Basically, I wouldn't consider the 50 Summicron an "alternative" to the 50/1.4 ASPH because for me f2.0 is no alternative when I need f1.4. If anything, the 50/1.4 ASPH is an alternative to the 50 Summicron because it is sharp at f2.0 but can also go to f1.4.
From what I have seen, the Nikon 50/1.4 Millennium does seem to be fairly close, but it seems to be hard to find those lenses readily and it seems like a hassle to get the adapter for M mount. The Zeiss 50 C Sonnar seems nice, but it's a Sonnar design with the typical Sonnar signature (which may or may not be to your liking, but is certainly different from the 50/1.4 ASPH signature). The Voigtlander 50 Nokton is also fast, but I don't know too much about its signature and whether it is particularly sharp wide open.
If you are only looking for a Leica alternative, the 50 pre-asph Summilux E46 is a great lens that goes to f1.4 but is not known for being extremely sharp wide open. Personally, the 50 pre-asph Summilux E46 is sharp enough for me. While a small number of people claim they don't see that much difference between the pre-asph and the ASPH, it seems that the majority of people feel that the ASPH is significantly sharper wide open. At this point, there doesn't seem to be a readily available alternative that is nearly equivalent to the ASPH, but there are a number of choices that require some degree of compromise.
From what I have seen, the Nikon 50/1.4 Millennium does seem to be fairly close, but it seems to be hard to find those lenses readily and it seems like a hassle to get the adapter for M mount. The Zeiss 50 C Sonnar seems nice, but it's a Sonnar design with the typical Sonnar signature (which may or may not be to your liking, but is certainly different from the 50/1.4 ASPH signature). The Voigtlander 50 Nokton is also fast, but I don't know too much about its signature and whether it is particularly sharp wide open.
If you are only looking for a Leica alternative, the 50 pre-asph Summilux E46 is a great lens that goes to f1.4 but is not known for being extremely sharp wide open. Personally, the 50 pre-asph Summilux E46 is sharp enough for me. While a small number of people claim they don't see that much difference between the pre-asph and the ASPH, it seems that the majority of people feel that the ASPH is significantly sharper wide open. At this point, there doesn't seem to be a readily available alternative that is nearly equivalent to the ASPH, but there are a number of choices that require some degree of compromise.
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
the nokton is supposed to be very good wide open. i half expect a new m-mount version to come out this year.
MikeL
Go Fish
I think the differences are small and likely only matter if you are at f1.4 a lot and really care, but from the engineer in me:
Pre-asph at f1.4- sharp in the center, less so in the corners buy not too bad, like many older lenses. Contrast drops relative to it at f2 and above. Backgrounds fuzz out less than with a noctilux, but similar otherwise
Asph at f1.4- sharp all across, contrast is higher and consistent and I think it influences perceived sharpness relative to the pre-asph. Out of focus stuff in the background is still 'together', not as abstract as the pre-asph.
Millenium at f1.4- not quite as sharp in the corners as the asph, lower contrast at f1.4.
For 50's I've been using the Millenium with an adapter, but had an asph drop in my lap recently for a decent price, so I decided to try it out. I'm likely going to stick with the Millenium, but the focus direction on the asph makes me want to keep it.
Pre-asph at f1.4- sharp in the center, less so in the corners buy not too bad, like many older lenses. Contrast drops relative to it at f2 and above. Backgrounds fuzz out less than with a noctilux, but similar otherwise
Asph at f1.4- sharp all across, contrast is higher and consistent and I think it influences perceived sharpness relative to the pre-asph. Out of focus stuff in the background is still 'together', not as abstract as the pre-asph.
Millenium at f1.4- not quite as sharp in the corners as the asph, lower contrast at f1.4.
For 50's I've been using the Millenium with an adapter, but had an asph drop in my lap recently for a decent price, so I decided to try it out. I'm likely going to stick with the Millenium, but the focus direction on the asph makes me want to keep it.
Krosya
Konicaze
Thanks for the responses. To answer some of you - well, I'm looking for general look or the Summilux 50 ASPH. What I mean by that - sharpness and contrast and OOF (bokeh) should be similar. It'd be nice to be f1.4, but f2 is ok as well. I dont really want anything slower. Also, while I like Sonnar look, I'm not looking for it this time. I also dont really want to dip into Nikons, even though I like them.
So, while I dont think there is anything from vintage selection of the lenses that would suit me here, I was wondering - in your experience how would following lenses compare to ASPH Summilux 50mm:
Nokton 50/1.5
Nokton 40/1.4 SC and MC
Summicron Current 50mm
Summilux Pre-Asph 50mm
Summicron/Rokkor 40mm
Planar 50mm
Hexanon 50mm
Etc - in case I missed something.
So, If you used one or more of these AND ASPH Lux 50 - please tell me how they compare. I already got a few comments and would appreciate more. I, also, used some of the listed lenses and know some things about them, yet since I have no experience with any Summilux - hard for me to judge.
Thanks
So, while I dont think there is anything from vintage selection of the lenses that would suit me here, I was wondering - in your experience how would following lenses compare to ASPH Summilux 50mm:
Nokton 50/1.5
Nokton 40/1.4 SC and MC
Summicron Current 50mm
Summilux Pre-Asph 50mm
Summicron/Rokkor 40mm
Planar 50mm
Hexanon 50mm
Etc - in case I missed something.
So, If you used one or more of these AND ASPH Lux 50 - please tell me how they compare. I already got a few comments and would appreciate more. I, also, used some of the listed lenses and know some things about them, yet since I have no experience with any Summilux - hard for me to judge.
Thanks
thomasw_
Well-known
Hi MikeL and Krosya,
MikeL: I think the Nikkor and ASPH are different enough to warrant keeping both with your different kits.
For Krosya's sake I want to emphasize what MikeL wrote above with a slightly different spin because I think it will appeal to a known lens. Where MikeL differentiates the contrast and bokeh of the pre-asph and ASPH, I think his characterization is very accurate and important: "...contrast is higher [in the ASPH] and consistent. Out of focus stuff in the background is still 'together', not as abstract as the pre-asph." The summilux 50 ASPH has similarities with the 75/2 and the rendering of your 35/1,2. The bokeh is not as 'abstract', though it has a pleasing haze to it but not a fogginess such as we'd see in a lux 75 or noctilux or canon .95. The 'haze' of the bokeh that the ASPH renders is very similar to the f1,2 nokton in that it has a dreaminess that is reminscent of what is there, and not just the foggy memory of what is there. Hence as you like the out of focus rendering of your 35/1,2 and don't feel there is a lens that could replace it, I reason that you'd feel the likewise about the ASPH in a 50. Here's a shot at f1,4 with my ASPH to illustrate...just check out that hazy but discernible garbage can bokeh:>
MikeL: I think the Nikkor and ASPH are different enough to warrant keeping both with your different kits.
For Krosya's sake I want to emphasize what MikeL wrote above with a slightly different spin because I think it will appeal to a known lens. Where MikeL differentiates the contrast and bokeh of the pre-asph and ASPH, I think his characterization is very accurate and important: "...contrast is higher [in the ASPH] and consistent. Out of focus stuff in the background is still 'together', not as abstract as the pre-asph." The summilux 50 ASPH has similarities with the 75/2 and the rendering of your 35/1,2. The bokeh is not as 'abstract', though it has a pleasing haze to it but not a fogginess such as we'd see in a lux 75 or noctilux or canon .95. The 'haze' of the bokeh that the ASPH renders is very similar to the f1,2 nokton in that it has a dreaminess that is reminscent of what is there, and not just the foggy memory of what is there. Hence as you like the out of focus rendering of your 35/1,2 and don't feel there is a lens that could replace it, I reason that you'd feel the likewise about the ASPH in a 50. Here's a shot at f1,4 with my ASPH to illustrate...just check out that hazy but discernible garbage can bokeh:>
Last edited:
Austerby
Well-known
OK, just scanned the first roll and I'm already a fan - this photo is just a bunch of carrots but it's different from any other bunch of carrots I've ever photographed and I rather like what it looks like.
I have the 40/1.4 Nokton SC too and to my eyes that lens has a really lovely look to it, not actually that far off the Summilux but the differences are in the smoothness of the out of focus areas, plus the special sharp effect of the in-focus parts by the Summilux. The Nokton has a similar modern look so I'd probably categorise it as being an excellent alternative, but it's not the real thing.
Leica M7, 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH at f1.4, Pan F, 50asa, Rodinal 1+50 11mins.
I have the 40/1.4 Nokton SC too and to my eyes that lens has a really lovely look to it, not actually that far off the Summilux but the differences are in the smoothness of the out of focus areas, plus the special sharp effect of the in-focus parts by the Summilux. The Nokton has a similar modern look so I'd probably categorise it as being an excellent alternative, but it's not the real thing.
Leica M7, 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH at f1.4, Pan F, 50asa, Rodinal 1+50 11mins.
Attachments
Last edited: