50 Summilux pre-asph - deloverly

[Gabriel M.A.]

It may not be a secret to many of you that I had been looking at this lens. I sold the Summarit, and I was going to replace it with a 1959 (turns out it wasn't 1958) 50 Summilux. I had made the final purchase. It was a very very very difficult decision.

But I ended up getting the 1996 pre-asph Summilux; why? Fate: soon after the transaction was finalized, a faint spec showed up: fungus on the very edge of the inside of the front element had appeared. Faint, but it had expanded enough that I was afraid that it may have already declared it home; it had already been CLA'd once back in late August, it seems.

Although these pictures don't show the "creaminess" of the 1959 lens, by looking at these shots I see that, somehow, the "Leica creaminess" is the same as that found on my tabbed Summicron. And that's another debate entirely.

Now, for some shots (film: Konica Supra Centuria 200, all @ f/1.4, hand-held, no manipulation):

Note: I had to reattach these because they got lost last night when Jorge lost some forum thread attachments.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

(I apologize for the size of the previous ones; I forget about my fellow RFF'ers that don't have broadband 😱 -- my bad)

Now, this is what has me confused, look at these shots, all wide open, from, in order:
Summilux, tabbed Summicron, Canon 50 1.2

Note: Same note as above; I had to reattach these because they got lost last night (10/28/2005) when Jorge lost some forum thread attachments.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

What has me confused? There is virtually no difference between the Summilux and the Summicron shots, except of course for the DOF. I think I should make a 12x18 print of each for myself to look for other differences.

In the meantime, this is the only one I've scanned that can show how it would handle other textures (pardon the ecclectic subject matter); the first one is wide open, the one from the lake is stopped down at f/4:

Note: Same note as above; I had to reattach these because they got lost last night (10/28/2005) when Jorge lost some forum thread attachments.

 

[richard_l]

I wouldn't expect much difference between the Lux and the Cron except speed. Nice sharpness, but the OOF quality is such that I would avoid using it wide open unless the background is very simple.

 

[Nick R.]

Not sure what you're looking for Gabriel. These shots look fine. Look how sharp the lux looks in the corners wide open compared to the Canon. That's what you're paying for. Bokeh, schmokeh.

 

[Paul Connet]

What has me confused? There is virtually no difference between the Summilux and the Summicron shots, except of course for the DOF. I think I should make a 12x18 print of each for myself to look for other differences.

In the meantime, this is the only one I've scanned that can show how it would handle other textures (pardon the ecclectic subject matter); the first one is wide open, the one from the lake is stopped down at f/4:

I am not a bokeh man myself, but the shot of the lake is one gorgeous photograph, and if that was taken with the Summilux, I want one. 😀

Regards, Paul C.

 

[Trius]

In the shots of the trees, I definitely prefer the lux shot over the cron. There is a difference in density, but I think the lux shot is smoother and has better contrast.

Trius

 

[zeos 386sx]

I agree with Trius about the tree shots. I actually prefer the oof areas of the Lux. It looks like there might be a small difference in the exposures between the Lux and Cron shots - the Lux shot appears slightly darker. However, that might be a difference in the contrast between the two lenses wide open. It looks like your Lux is a wonderful lens.

Any chance we could get you to repeat the test with all lenses at f/2.8?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Any chance we could get you to repeat the test with all lenses at f/2.8?

That's actually a good idea! We've been having nice sunny days, I'd hate to wish for another overcast day again... :angel:

I appreciate everybody's input so far. The tree shots, with the 'lux, 'cron and the Canon: the lux and 'cron are the same EV exposure (i.e. f/1.4 1/500 and f/2 1/250 for example), but the Canon @ 1.2 took as much light as the 'lux @ 1.4 -- it may be explained by the fact that it has some haze (I'll be sending it to DAG next week).

What I was looking for with my test shots is the possibility (remote) that I may be able to replace the 'cron with the 'lux; maybe even then justify having a Collapsible Summicron, now that I have this 'lux, if I am to replace my tabbed 'cron. Decisions decisions decisions...

 

[back alley]

so, if i were to say i liked the canon shot best, would that make me a freak?

i looked at the pics before i noted which lens took what pic...

joe

 

[richard_l]

The Lux is certainly as good as the Cron and has the advantage of an extra stop. I would sell the Cron and replace it with the latest Elmar-M 50mm unless your heart is set on the collapsible Cron.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

The Lux is certainly as good as the Cron and has the advantage of an extra stop. I would sell the Cron and replace it with the latest Elmar-M 50mm unless your heart is set on the collapsible Cron.

The thought has crossed my mind, as a matter of fact. Perhaps trading it for a collapsible black Elmar? I don't know. I have no experience with the Elmar. I have seen shots taken with Elmars, and I think that it's basically the look of a stopped-down Summicron, but I think that's just blasphemy for many hard-core Elmarphiles.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

so, if i were to say i liked the canon shot best, would that make me a freak?

i looked at the pics before i noted which lens took what pic...

lol -- a freak? Just hardcore dedication. I'm surprised, though; you can see the haze when compared to the other two shots. It does have a nice "dreamy" artsy-f look.

 

[richard_l]

The latest Elmar seems to be less flare prone than the Cron. Also, the contrast of the Elmar seems a little crisper (some might say almost "brittle" but if so then it's a pleasing "brittleness") than the Cron, more like a Tessar. From the images I've seen, a collapsible Cron would likely give a more mellow "classical" look, which may be what you want.

 

[dcsang]

Now I got myself a hankering for a pre-ASPH lux.. damn you guys !! 😀

Dave

 

[paulh]

Hi Gabriel,
Didnt you post another thread on the Summilux? I was looking for it as I said I would post a picture but somehow I couldnt find it again! In any case the Summilux is a wonderful lens.
Cheers,
Paul

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hi Paul -- no, I don't think so. You're probably referring to a poll I posted; the choices were the Summilux, Nokton, Canon 50 f/1.2 or stick to the Summarit. Well, looks like I went with the Summilux and the Canon 50 1.2 -- although I'm sending it off to DAG. I'm a sucker for fast lenses, I guess.

I love shooting wide open; anyway, I think with Leica lenses it's a waste to stop down over a stop or two.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hi Paul -- no, I don't think so. You're probably referring to a poll I posted; the choices were the Summilux, Nokton, Canon 50 f/1.2 or stick to the Summarit. Well, looks like I went with the Summilux and the Canon 50 1.2 -- although I'm sending it off to DAG. I'm a sucker for fast lenses, I guess.

I love shooting wide open; anyway, I think with Leica lenses it's a waste to stop down over a stop or two.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hi Paul -- no, I don't think so. You're probably referring to a poll I posted; the choices were the Summilux, Nokton, Canon 50 f/1.2 or stick to the Summarit. Well, looks like I went with the Summilux and the Canon 50 1.2 -- although I'm sending it off to DAG. I'm a sucker for fast lenses, I guess.

I love shooting wide open; anyway, I think with Leica lenses it's a waste to stop down over a stop or two.

 

[paulh]

Hi Gabriel,

I see but I cant seem to find that poll as well. In any case, wonderful choices. Enjoy!

Cheers,
Paul