A lens scenario: what would you do and why?

[Ben Z]

A lens scenario: what would you do and why?


To that end, my wife has checked off on my getting a new Summicron 90mm ASPH. So that’s Option #1: buy a new Summicron 90mm ASPH (cost=$3,695).

Why not pick up a used 90 APO-ASPH for half as much? You don't need it coded.

On a personal opinion, I've had that lens and an Elmarit-M but prefer the pre-APO Summicron to either. From f/2.8 nobody could honestly tell them apart, and at f/2 the pre-APO gives a to me nicer look on portraits than the APO, which is scalpel sharp but, again to me, not the look I want with portraits.

Then again I also much prefer the pre-ASPH 50 Summilux,35 Cron ,28 and 21 Elmarits to the ASPH versions.

 

[ramosa]

ben:

i understand your logic--and may end up doing that. my current plan is to purchase a lux 50mm, sell my cron 50mm ... and then get a 90mm ... either used elmarit or cron pre-asph. i have heard great things about the 90 elmarit, but the prices have risen dramatically over the past year. i have also heard great things about the 90 cron pre-asph, and its pricing is more in line with my plans. but we'll see ... as that purchase may be months down the road (as there are no lux 50s in stores).

 

[menos]

A sound plan on the Lux vs. Cron.
Some people find the Cron to be sharper by a hair under certain conditions.
Keep the Cron for a while after buying the Lux - you might want to have it as a second 50mm for it's lighter weight and (possible) sharper drawing under certain circumstances.
I never tried a 50 Cron, but love my 50 Lux - the best lens, I ever tried.

The Elmarit-M was a kind of hush, hush tip for a very good price some months ago.

Word got around and samples get more scarce, while prices grow up.
I paid 600,-EUR for a lens with slight marks on the sharp edges of the focussing ring (not mint, but excellent).

Prices now are 10 − 15% higher for similar lenses around here.

The pre ASPH Summicron seems an absolute bargain these days.
I picked an absolute mint copy (without box), which I can not distinct from brand new for 700,- EUR.

The APO is 1.000,- EUR more expensive in user condition (not mint).
It also did not feel as nice to me, as the pre ASPH (aperture, focus, size).

One advise: this is a lens, that is best bought used in a shop, which has several copies available.
The 6 samples, I tried and decided upon where ALL different in focus adjustment and feel (aperture + focus).

 

[Richard Marks]

Richard: yea, i end up using a 50 so often (street, portraits, etc.) ... for me, it really (after having "talked" with you all today) becomes the matter of the 50 cron or lux. and then, as a second priority, i'll pick up a used 90. it's interesting how things 'turn around' ... which speaks of how i have benefited from this today.

simply put ... thank you all.

Hi

Just try a lux if you possibly can before swapping over completely. Huge difference in price and for me not a huge benefit. One other thought if you want faster than f2 would be the pre aspherical lux. It does not have the harshness of the aspherical design which was a bit over the top for me. Another possibility without breaking the bank would be a 50 f1.5 Sonar. This is a seriously decent option and enough money left over for a used 35 f2, your 90 option or M9 savings!I dont regret owning the 50 lux but neither do i miss it now!!

best wishes with what ever!

Richard

 

[Ben Z]

Hi

Just try a lux if you possibly can before swapping over completely. Huge difference in price and for me not a huge benefit. One other thought if you want faster than f2 would be the pre aspherical lux. It does not have the harshness of the aspherical design which was a bit over the top for me.

+1. I shot the Lux-ASPH next to my pre-ASPH and definitely like the pre better for my usage. I don't need or want biting contrast and corner sharpness when shooting a 50 (or 90 or 35 for that matter) wide open. Typically the clinical sharpness goes against the look I'm after, and the corners are typically out-of-focus areas anyway, so the creamier the bokeh the better. For me it's about getting the look I'm after, not so much owning the lens that surpasses the others in optical testing.

 

[jaapv]

Ben is quite right, it depends on your preferences. With me it is just the other way around, I like maximum separation of the subject, so that must be optimally sharp and the DOF must kick in steeply. That means my preference is the asph.

 

[Richard Marks]

Ben is quite right, it depends on your preferences. With me it is just the other way around, I like maximum separation of the subject, so that must be optimally sharp and the DOF must kick in steeply. That means my preference is the asph.

Fair point, but I also get an impression the 50 lux is better on an M9 (full frame 50mm) than on the cropped sensor of the M8. Pictures i have seen posted look less harsh (your African portraits spring to mind?)

Richard

 

[Ben Z]

I should probably have mentioned, I sold all my ASPH lenses (at one time had 21, 35/2 and 35/1.4, 90AA and 135 APO) before getting the M8, and my experience with the 50 Lux-ASPH was on film too (b&w ASA400 in a jazz bar in New Orleans...50 ASPH lent me by Tom Abrahamsson who was sitting next to me). The subjects were very sharp and the DOF fell away quickly as Jaap said. What I didn't care for was the rendering of the OOF, it was sort of jagged vs soft (best I can express it). This might be different with M8/M9, but given the current prices of these lenses even used, I don't forsee me repurchasing any.

 

[Richard Marks]

I should probably have mentioned, I sold all my ASPH lenses (at one time had 21, 35/2 and 35/1.4, 90AA and 135 APO) before getting the M8, and my experience with the 50 Lux-ASPH was on film too (b&w ASA400 in a jazz bar in New Orleans...50 ASPH lent me by Tom Abrahamsson who was sitting next to me). The subjects were very sharp and the DOF fell away quickly as Jaap said. What I didn't care for was the rendering of the OOF, it was sort of jagged vs soft (best I can express it). This might be different with M8/M9, but given the current prices of these lenses even used, I don't forsee me repurchasing any.

I think we are in agreement about the 50 lux ASPH Ben! However I did try a pre aspherical 50 lux and found it optically very similar to the 50 'cron. What was left was the f1.4 vs f2, and this did not offset for me the difference in price and the extra heft of the faster lens.

best wishes

Richard

 

[Symeon]

Go for the 1,4/50 Asph if you really want shallow depth of field, also great for landscapes. I keep both my 2/50 and 1,4/50, they have the same focal length but their writing is different. All M cameras are built with 35mm and 50mm in mind, despite the crop factor of the M8.

 

[Ben Z]

I think we are in agreement about the 50 lux ASPH Ben! However I did try a pre aspherical 50 lux and found it optically very similar to the 50 'cron. What was left was the f1.4 vs f2, and this did not offset for me the difference in price and the extra heft of the faster lens.

best wishes

Richard

Which version of the 50 Cron, Richard? I had the model 11817 (1969-78) at the time I got my pre-ASPH 50 Lux and I too found them very similar. Sold the Cron (I'd paid $600 for the Lux and sold the Cron for $500 so the extra stop was $100 and I felt it worthwhile). Later on, wanting a lighter weight 50 I picked up the "Tabbed" Cron (same optically as the current version), which I find sharper farther afield in the f/2-f/5.6 range. I find I need to stop the Lux down to about f/8 to not tell them apart.

 

[Richard Marks]

Hi Ben
I have the current 'Cron version minus six bit coding. I have previously owned the 3rd version (no tab but really nice detacheable metal hood) which was also wonderful but a long throw on the focus. I agree a pre apherical lux for an extra $100 was pretty good going!
Regards
Richard