ferider
Veteran
50/1.4 pre-asph distortion
50/1.4 pre-asph distortion
Before barrel correction in PS:
Not so different from, say, the Nokton 35/1.4
Roland.
50/1.4 pre-asph distortion
Before barrel correction in PS:
Not so different from, say, the Nokton 35/1.4
Roland.
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
It's been a while (pre-Katrina New Orleans) and it was with film, but I shot the pre and ASPH (courtesy of Tom A) together in a jazz bar, which is the kind of environment I would use a 50/1.4, and the rendition of pre-ASPH better suited the effect I was going for. If I owned only one 50, I might have considered the ASPH (back before Leica inflated the price to the hilt) but I prefer to carry a light weight Summicron unless I'm specifically going to be shooting in available darkness. Plus my Cron and Lux together cost less than a new Cron costs today.
ampguy
Veteran
Thanks Roland
Thanks Roland
Interesting, I do see it here. I don't think it's as much as say the Hexar AF or some of the 35/1.4 shots taken off-angle though.
Also, could it be that the film was curled? perhaps during scanning?
Thanks Roland
Interesting, I do see it here. I don't think it's as much as say the Hexar AF or some of the 35/1.4 shots taken off-angle though.
Also, could it be that the film was curled? perhaps during scanning?
Before barrel correction in PS:
...
Not so different from, say, the Nokton 35/1.4
Roland.
Last edited:
tbm
Established
My standard 50mm Summilux was made in 1983, and last weekend I took it to a public park to shoot a Mark Twain event. I shot Tri-x in my M6 TTL and processed it in Microdol-X, and I got phenomenal results even though it was in the high desert, there were no cloud coverings, and the sunlight was blinding. What a phenomenal lens!
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
All,
What would you say is the big difference between the versions of this lens? Should I worry about any particular version? It sounds like the first versions are prone to fogging? Do all have the same minimum focus?
(From cameraquest)
What would you say is the big difference between the versions of this lens? Should I worry about any particular version? It sounds like the first versions are prone to fogging? Do all have the same minimum focus?
(From cameraquest)
- First version 1959-1961 Chrome
- Second version with an improved optical formula 1961 to 1968 aprox, chrome, from number 1844001.
- Third version, same optics but black anodized
- Fourth version, same optics but "50" on barrel
- Fifth version, same optics but built in shade from about 1995
- Titanium version introduced 1997, limited production future collectible for classic Titanium M6
peter_n
Veteran
Everybody has a different number of versions for this lens; I use three versions... v.1 lasted two years and is chrome, v.2 has improved optics and comes in chrome and black. Both of these versions take E43 size filters, have a long(ish) focus throw, and a 1M closest focus. v.3 may have improved coatings, comes in black anodized and black paint, takes an E46 filter, and has a short focus throw with a closest focus distance of 0.7M.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I have the ASPH version after giving up looking for a pre-ASPH .7m focus version for a reasonable price.
The ASPH doesn't have as much character (i.e. aberrations), but I'm ok with that. I get my fill of that stuff with a Nikkor 50/1.4. I only shoot film and haven't found the ASPH to be too sharp. I find it to be an incredibly consistent lens: up close, far away, wide open, stopped down, into the light, in bad light, good light, etc. It performs in all of these conditions.
I have a bunch of shots on flickr. Color, B&W, at various distances and apertures.
The ASPH doesn't have as much character (i.e. aberrations), but I'm ok with that. I get my fill of that stuff with a Nikkor 50/1.4. I only shoot film and haven't found the ASPH to be too sharp. I find it to be an incredibly consistent lens: up close, far away, wide open, stopped down, into the light, in bad light, good light, etc. It performs in all of these conditions.
I have a bunch of shots on flickr. Color, B&W, at various distances and apertures.
leicashot
Well-known
I have owned 2 asph copies. I sold them because for a 50mm I found it too perfect. hat I mean is that it performs so well that there is no character. Sharp wide open from corner to corner from f/1.4 and bokeh is rendered without any distortion, well not much that I can see. This ensures that the lens's character is 'perfection' which if thats what you're looking fo then go right ahead - "careful what you wish for cause you just might get it" is true with this lens. Possibly the best performing 1.4 lens ever made.
I find the pre-asph to be sharp enough wide open but with wonderful character wide open, giving the impression of 'less' depth of field due to the aberrations and not so flat field. They are very different lenses for different audiences and purposes. I find that my Noct 0.95 gives lovely character at 0.95 and acts like a Lux ASPH from 1.4.
My preference is for the pre-asph documentary purposes. If you're wanted perfectly sharp portraits wide open, or shooting architecture I'd go for the ASPH. I think a great situation is to end up with both if you can afford it, but I'd go for the pre-asph if buying a 50mm again - just for the character (E46 version)
I find the pre-asph to be sharp enough wide open but with wonderful character wide open, giving the impression of 'less' depth of field due to the aberrations and not so flat field. They are very different lenses for different audiences and purposes. I find that my Noct 0.95 gives lovely character at 0.95 and acts like a Lux ASPH from 1.4.
My preference is for the pre-asph documentary purposes. If you're wanted perfectly sharp portraits wide open, or shooting architecture I'd go for the ASPH. I think a great situation is to end up with both if you can afford it, but I'd go for the pre-asph if buying a 50mm again - just for the character (E46 version)
Last edited:
leicashot
Well-known
is the ASPH APO corrected?
Tim Gray
Well-known
Supposedly. That's what the lens designer said in an interview with David Farkas. However, what is APO or more importantly, how does Leica define it? I seem to recall seeing color fringing on shots from the 90 APO (M or R, I can't remember).
leicashot
Well-known
I thought Leica labeled their APO lenses on the barrel like the 90mm.
Last edited:
Matthew Runkel
Well-known
From the interview cited: "Here is a bit of a shocker… the 50 lux ASPH is an APO lens, containing an APO correction element. But, he thought the idea of an APO 50 was a bit silly so they never put it on the lens or in any marketing materials."
leicashot
Well-known
IC, thanks for the clarification
D&A
Well-known
leicashot said >>>" I found it too perfect. hat I mean is that it performs so well that there is no character. Sharp wide open from corner to corner from f/1.4 and bokeh is rendered without any distortion, well not much that I can see. This ensures that the lens's character is 'perfection' which if thats what you're looking fo then go right ahead - "careful what you wish for cause you just might get it" is true with this lens. Possibly the best performing 1.4 lens ever made."<<<
I couldn't agree more with this assesment and was just thinking the same thing the other day. The 50mm f1.4 asph borders on perfection but without flaws or a specific signature, it may lack character for certain types of subjects.
Dave (D&A)
I couldn't agree more with this assesment and was just thinking the same thing the other day. The 50mm f1.4 asph borders on perfection but without flaws or a specific signature, it may lack character for certain types of subjects.
Dave (D&A)
Freakscene
Obscure member
It's a poorly defined term. There is no industry standard that describes acceptable deviation from perfect correction for the designation.
If you use the absolute definition: i.e. an optical system corrected so that it gives three images of identical size for three different spectral lines or regions, you'll find that there are no APO lenses in current production, even including those made by Leica. There are, however, several lenses that are lens that has been corrected to a greater degree than in most other lenses for the three primary spectral colors, including the R&M 90 APO ASPHs. The differences in image size and therefore the 'degree' to which the Leica APOs are APO is an interesting study in itself. One thing is for certain, they are better colour corrected (closer to the absolute APO) than any other lenses manufactured.
Anyone with sufficient masochistic tendencies can calculate the (apo)chromatic error.
The other little-discussed fact is that the chromatic error decreases with stopping down, at least until diffraction makes it worse. At f5.6-8 or thereabouts, it is minimal, in 'APO' and other optical systems.
The true APO lenses for my microscopes cost about $20K each, are about the size of my thumb and are much more mechanically simple. It is very difficult to achieve with camera lenses and not really necessary. 'Good' correction, such as is offered by the Leica APOs (excellent, really) will very, very rarely show any chromatic aberrations in real-world picture taking scenarios.
Marty
If you use the absolute definition: i.e. an optical system corrected so that it gives three images of identical size for three different spectral lines or regions, you'll find that there are no APO lenses in current production, even including those made by Leica. There are, however, several lenses that are lens that has been corrected to a greater degree than in most other lenses for the three primary spectral colors, including the R&M 90 APO ASPHs. The differences in image size and therefore the 'degree' to which the Leica APOs are APO is an interesting study in itself. One thing is for certain, they are better colour corrected (closer to the absolute APO) than any other lenses manufactured.
Anyone with sufficient masochistic tendencies can calculate the (apo)chromatic error.
The other little-discussed fact is that the chromatic error decreases with stopping down, at least until diffraction makes it worse. At f5.6-8 or thereabouts, it is minimal, in 'APO' and other optical systems.
The true APO lenses for my microscopes cost about $20K each, are about the size of my thumb and are much more mechanically simple. It is very difficult to achieve with camera lenses and not really necessary. 'Good' correction, such as is offered by the Leica APOs (excellent, really) will very, very rarely show any chromatic aberrations in real-world picture taking scenarios.
Marty
kzphoto
Well-known
I forgot about this thread!
I kept the E46 Pre-ASPH lux for its look up close and wide open. Aberrations be damned, I love this lens.
I kept the E46 Pre-ASPH lux for its look up close and wide open. Aberrations be damned, I love this lens.
leicashot
Well-known
Agreed, my next 50 is NOT the ASPH, but the pre-ASPH
ampguy
Veteran
coatings
coatings
I've used the V2 and V3 E46 extensively, and agree that the E46 version could have different coatings, but I would not say better, if you were to compare a good clean v2 and v3 and pixel peep in the areas with color, flare, and CA.
Something in the soul of the pre-asph was lost in v3, along with build quality, optics, focus throw and damping. You can tell by weighing them. same size, same optical design?
Lighter weight = less heavy glass, maybe more plastics. The close focus is cool though.
The E43 v2 is perfect. Too perfect is not as good as just perfect
coatings
I've used the V2 and V3 E46 extensively, and agree that the E46 version could have different coatings, but I would not say better, if you were to compare a good clean v2 and v3 and pixel peep in the areas with color, flare, and CA.
Something in the soul of the pre-asph was lost in v3, along with build quality, optics, focus throw and damping. You can tell by weighing them. same size, same optical design?
Lighter weight = less heavy glass, maybe more plastics. The close focus is cool though.
The E43 v2 is perfect. Too perfect is not as good as just perfect
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
The E43 v2 is stuck at 1m minimum focus?
The E43 v2 is perfect. Too perfect is not as good as just perfect
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Having had just about every variation of the Summilux 50f1.4, this is my take on it:
Version 1 : Very much Leica's attempt to catch up with the Nikkor 50f1.4 and, to some extent the Canon 50f1.4 - both of which are better than the Summilux. It was a development, starting with the Xenon 50f1.5 through the Summarit 50f1.5. Soft, a bit flary - lots of 'character" - but not that great.
Version II was improved, better coating - similar formula, but still soft @ f1.4.
Version III: Much improved and better contrast. The sliding hood was stupid though as it would not lock in place. Very good all rounder - but no better than the Nokton 50f1.5!
ASPH version: Most likely the best 50mm lens made! The floating element makes a big difference in close-up. High contrast even @1.4. Not a "pleasing" image - very technical in rendering, but if you want bitingly sharp negatives - it is the one to get, at least if you want a fast 50. The Heliar 50f3.5 probably resolves a similar amount of lines and has a slightly different look to it. More of a 3D modelling than the ASPH.
I have kept my 50f1.4 ASPH, unloaded the rest of the 'lux'e. When I want to count hair on the gnat's eyebrows, thats the lens I use. For more moderate contrast and the "character" I use either the Nokton 50f1.5 or my C-Sonnar 50f1.5 (which has some of the best rendering in black/white of any lens made). Oh, when I want a 50's look to an image - and a sharp one, I use a Nikkor 50f1.4 LTM or a Canon 50f1.4. Cant say I miss any of the older Summilux'e either.
However, from an esthetic point of view - nothing looks better than the v1 Summilux with the crackle finished hood - but looks does not make it a better lens!
As for smoothness - the 50f1.4 ASPH needs a lot of exercise and then it is very smooth action. You will probably feel the cam engage for close-focus, but that is not a problem. Just a slight 'click" in feel. The early version had good damping - but a bit prone to picking up dust and specks in the helicoil and start squeeking.
Version 1 : Very much Leica's attempt to catch up with the Nikkor 50f1.4 and, to some extent the Canon 50f1.4 - both of which are better than the Summilux. It was a development, starting with the Xenon 50f1.5 through the Summarit 50f1.5. Soft, a bit flary - lots of 'character" - but not that great.
Version II was improved, better coating - similar formula, but still soft @ f1.4.
Version III: Much improved and better contrast. The sliding hood was stupid though as it would not lock in place. Very good all rounder - but no better than the Nokton 50f1.5!
ASPH version: Most likely the best 50mm lens made! The floating element makes a big difference in close-up. High contrast even @1.4. Not a "pleasing" image - very technical in rendering, but if you want bitingly sharp negatives - it is the one to get, at least if you want a fast 50. The Heliar 50f3.5 probably resolves a similar amount of lines and has a slightly different look to it. More of a 3D modelling than the ASPH.
I have kept my 50f1.4 ASPH, unloaded the rest of the 'lux'e. When I want to count hair on the gnat's eyebrows, thats the lens I use. For more moderate contrast and the "character" I use either the Nokton 50f1.5 or my C-Sonnar 50f1.5 (which has some of the best rendering in black/white of any lens made). Oh, when I want a 50's look to an image - and a sharp one, I use a Nikkor 50f1.4 LTM or a Canon 50f1.4. Cant say I miss any of the older Summilux'e either.
However, from an esthetic point of view - nothing looks better than the v1 Summilux with the crackle finished hood - but looks does not make it a better lens!
As for smoothness - the 50f1.4 ASPH needs a lot of exercise and then it is very smooth action. You will probably feel the cam engage for close-focus, but that is not a problem. Just a slight 'click" in feel. The early version had good damping - but a bit prone to picking up dust and specks in the helicoil and start squeeking.