davidgao
David Gao
Sorry for the delayed reply. I had a trip in Europe during the end of 2009.It was so cold in north Germany so I flied to Czech ,Italy and Switzerland. I didn't take my 50/1.4A but 8-element for the light weight and small size.
I bought the 5000ED also by second hand from a Shanghai photographer with a low price. And I am always waiting for a sutiable Digital Leica M. R-D1 is a good choice which I had borrowed from my friend for a short period ,the color is impressive. You got nice photo! Why is it so clean in ISO1600!?
Attached is picture at LaoMaTou in ZhongShanNan Road.
Attachments
BartmanSA
Newbie
Ronald M
Veteran
There is no apsh 50 by name. There is a 50 Summilux which Leica says is APO, that is not in the name either.
In any case, it is the sharpest 50 i have ever used. Nothing else is close.
Downside is cost and weight, both high.
In any case, it is the sharpest 50 i have ever used. Nothing else is close.
Downside is cost and weight, both high.
timpppa
Member
In my opinnion the only downside is that you can't get the d*** lens anywhere...
I made an order last year but still don't have it.
matt335
Well-known
In my opinnion the only downside is that you can't get the d*** lens anywhere...
I agree, I've never seen one in Sydney.
timexchen
Established
little garden last summer. All pics were directly from R-D1s JPEG files.
Krosya
Konicaze
Since Leica Summilux 50 ASPH is supposed to be the best of the best 50mm lens - I wonder how come different people get such different results? I mean some photos do look like they came from a top lens, yet others -- too soft, too flary, something my Jupiter -8 lens could compete with. What gives? Are so many Luxes having QC problems? It cant be just user error so many times, can it?
If I was considering to get this lens and looked at the photos in this thread - I'd be more confused about it after looking at the pics tha before. Too inconsistent for my liking. Just check other similar threads for different lenses - like CV 35/1.2 - very clear and consistent shots from different users give a good idea about how lens performs, yet nothing of that kind here. I'm puzzled. Anyone cares to clarify this to me?
If I was considering to get this lens and looked at the photos in this thread - I'd be more confused about it after looking at the pics tha before. Too inconsistent for my liking. Just check other similar threads for different lenses - like CV 35/1.2 - very clear and consistent shots from different users give a good idea about how lens performs, yet nothing of that kind here. I'm puzzled. Anyone cares to clarify this to me?
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
Krosya - I'd chalk it up to scanning and post processing. I would be shocked b.espahbod's dog pictures didn't have some extensive sharpening going on (not that it looks bad). Likewise, Renzsu's wonderful photos look like the black point could be set higher if you wanted too.
To be clear, I'm not criticizing either set of photos. Just different scanning and post processing procedures.
To be clear, I'm not criticizing either set of photos. Just different scanning and post processing procedures.
Renzsu
Well-known
I shot on slide film, which I find a lot harder to scan and get super crisp and sharp results with, especially compared to low iso b/w silver film.
Also these shots are post processed for an extra summery look, so I've added flare in post, especially with that last shot.
Never trust what you see and judge that as a straight out of camera shot. I would never post a straight out of camera shot if I was doing a model photo shoot.
Street photography, now that's a different story.
Also these shots are post processed for an extra summery look, so I've added flare in post, especially with that last shot.
Never trust what you see and judge that as a straight out of camera shot. I would never post a straight out of camera shot if I was doing a model photo shoot.
Street photography, now that's a different story.
Krosya
Konicaze
Ok, so could you please tell me more about your pics in post #107 - B&W pics - street photos, -to me they look like they came from ANY other lens BUT Lux ASPH. Was there some post processing there? I'm just trying to understand this lens and what it can do - how much is the lens and how much is added later in post-processing. Cause , while those photos are not bad, I just expect a lot more from a lens that costs over 3K USD.
Last edited:
MikeL
Go Fish
Krosya, are you trying to spoil a thread?
What should images from a lens that used to cost $1800 or so, and now costs $3000+, look like on the internets?
I think you know what you are doing here, and it's kinda sad.
What should images from a lens that used to cost $1800 or so, and now costs $3000+, look like on the internets?
I think you know what you are doing here, and it's kinda sad.
ederek
Well-known
M9, ISO 1600, 1/15
From gallery of Szimpla, a "ruins" bar in Budapest (pretty sure entire gallery is with 50 lux, there's camera info on the images): http://bit.ly/9MT1a1
Krosya
Konicaze
I think you are taking things a bit too personal. Or seeing something in my posts thats not there. I didnt say that ALL images dont look like they came from such expensive lens. Some do lookvery good. But than there are some that look a LOT different. So I wondered why - not that I OWE you ANY explanation.
aizan
Veteran
different films, exposure, and post-processing can give extremely different looks from any lens, especially when all you're looking at is a jpg. nothing mysterious going on...or is there?
Renzsu
Well-known
I assure you, they were made with the Lux ASPH. I'm not sure WHAT exactly you are looking for. It would help if you could quantify it or at least put it to words..
How much a lens can do is a vague statement, it depends on who's using the lens, what film he's using, what developer, scanner settings, etc. etc.
I'm not using an M9, so you have to keep in mind that a lot of character comes from stuff that has nothing to do with the lens.
In this case I only adjusted the curves and contrast a bit in Lightroom, perhaps a little bit of sharpening.
The shape of the aperture changes a lot between shooting wide open (completely round), to smaller apertures where you almost get a star shape.. so wide open you can expect smooth oof effects, yet stop down a bit and things can get a bit busy.
Finally, sorry but your statement 'the photos aren't bad, but I expect a lot more from such or such a lens'... I would be offended. Whatever.
Renzsu
Well-known
different films, exposure, and post-processing can give extremely different looks from any lens, especially when all you're looking at is a jpg. nothing mysterious going on...or is there?
That's what I was thinking.
MikeL
Go Fish
Krosya, not taking anything personal. Just mentioned this regarding the thread.
I thought it was well established that the 50mm summilux is better than anything from 1 meter and closer, at f1.4. And that's when you can prop the thing on a tripod and use slow film or digital. Outside these parameters it is difficult to tell this lens from other modern lenses. His photos were not shot at f1.4, hence my assumption you had an axe to grind or something.
The moment I get below 1/60th second, farther than 1-2 meters, or above f2, I can't tell images from the f1.5 Nokton, summilux asph, or Millenium Nikkor apart. Even side-by-side it would be difficult.
Maybe spare this thread, and start a new one on this?
I thought it was well established that the 50mm summilux is better than anything from 1 meter and closer, at f1.4. And that's when you can prop the thing on a tripod and use slow film or digital. Outside these parameters it is difficult to tell this lens from other modern lenses. His photos were not shot at f1.4, hence my assumption you had an axe to grind or something.
The moment I get below 1/60th second, farther than 1-2 meters, or above f2, I can't tell images from the f1.5 Nokton, summilux asph, or Millenium Nikkor apart. Even side-by-side it would be difficult.
Maybe spare this thread, and start a new one on this?
I think you are taking things a bit too personal. Or seeing something in my posts thats not there. I didnt say that ALL images dont look like they came from such expensive lens. Some do lookvery good. But than there are some that look a LOT different. So I wondered why - not that I OWE you ANY explanation.
fbf
Well-known
Deja vu? I believe most people have seen enough on the noctilux thread. Can we keep pictures going instead of pointless argument ?
Krosya
Konicaze
My statement was directed at ONLY lens performance - not at YOUR ability to take photos or anything else. So no reason to be offended. I thought it was clear, but....Whatever.
I see people are getting sensative about my questions/critique of this lens, so I'll try to clear the air - when I do my research of the lens - I look at as many photos as I can find that were made with it. And thread like this usually helps. Thats when I noticed that so many images look different. I'd think that same lens has same performance - AGAIN not an artistic view, but pure technical stuff, and in this case it didnt look consistent. So I asked. If anyone can explain this - great! If not - well, I didnt mean to hurt anyone's feelings. Geez - God forbid I ask questions about the lens at the camera forum.......
:bang: