50 Summilux soul seaching

[Avotius]

So after much consideration, image hunting, a little fondling and what not I have narrowed my choices to two fast 50 lenses. I have to have one or the other.

The choices are either:

50 Summilux pre asph

50 Summilux asph

Now why I need one or the other is first and foremost I absolutely need to have the close focus shooting. 0.7 meter close focus is very very much necessary, as is the 1.4 fast aperture so please dont recommend anything else.

So I got this choice on my hands and its driving my gf (a photographer) nuts. Do I get the pre asph, the one that has the image character that I really love, the smooth and sparkling images? Or do I go for the lens that I know is the absolute best resolution that I can possibly get in a fast 50.

Pictures, personal experiences about flare, close up performance, character, lens design, whatever! Pictures are a big plus though, I am really interested in character of lenses, so please show something off!

Thanks to all.

 

[Biggles]

All three pictures below were taken with a 1964-vintage, chrome, version 2 50mm Summilux, on the day I acquired it. I'm fairly certain they were all shot at wide-open, as that afternoon's photography was more or less one long lens test, and I recall making a conscious effort to shoot at maximum aperture to see what I'd get.

The film was one of the Neopans, either 400 or 1600. Don't remember. No hood, no filter. Direct-negative scans.

Pictures from this particular lens are really quite different from the crunchy-hard stuff my version 5 50mm Summicron gave me on the same emulsions; they come across noticeably smoother and better-mannered. I can in no way call this thing soft, though; neutral's a better word.

I've never worked with its aspherical descendant or any other fast fifty, and I honestly don't feel a need to- from an optical standpoint. But I like lightweight, low-drag kit, and this lens isn't some. In chrome, it's a pig of a lens, weight-wise; exactly 300 grams. Makes a CL handle like a 48" chainsaw.

Given money and hindsight, I'd get the same optic in a black, hopefully lighter-weight format. But I'd definitely be happy to stay with the same optic.

 

[kbg32]

At the moment I am loving my CV 50/1.5 Nokton. It's bokeh is beautiful. I am amazed by its sharpness, color rendition, and contrast. Maybe one day I will get to try out a Summilux, but at this time I can't see how it could be much better. Might not be the best example , but this was shot wide open under a tungsten lamp.

 

[kbg32]

Sorry. One more.

 

[Avotius]

I did very seriously consider the nokton but in the end I still need that extra 20 cm close focus, I have been using an old elmar these days and its a great lens but I need faster, and closer focusing, its become rather rudely apparent in a few shots.

They are nice shots though, the lens seems to have a nice solf color when used in the right hands.

 

[Honus]

This is a job for the M-Mount Group 😀

Seriously, take a look at these two links. The 50mm Summilux ASPH section has 57 images and the 50mm Summilux II (pre-ASPH) section has 140 images (thanks to Gabriel). There are plenty of wide-open close focus shots to view on both film and digital RF cameras.

Leica Summilux 50mm f1.4 ASPH

Leica Summilux 50mm f1.4 II

I am partial to the ASPH (because I own one), but any Summilux is a fine optic.

Good luck with your search.

 

[nksyoon]

I've never tried the Asph, but am regularly reminded of the quality of my early 70's pre-asph. Some samples on R-D1:

 

[J. Borger]

I use the 50 asph and owned the non-asph before.
The non-asph is a gorgeous lens ... with beautiful fingerprint and tonality BUT .... if you realy consider to shoot a lot close-up (you mention specific the .7 m is cruicial).... that's the only weak spot of the 50 pre-asph: wide open close-up!

 

[.JL.]

Summilux 50/1.4 II is my primary lens. If I am bringing only one lens for general purpose, this would be it.

My pics shot with this lens can be found here.

While I appreciate and often use the 0.7m close focusing range, I found that barrel distortion becomes quite noticeable anywhere 1m and closer. This is especially apparent in portraits when you get that close. The VF never shows distortion, so I was surprised a few times when I see the results. I recently bought an Elmar-M 50/2.8 to see whether it performs better in this respect, but I haven't had a chance to use it.

If you read Sean Reid's review on the 50mm lenses, I would say that the Summilux 50/1.4 II performs closer to the Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar than the aspherical lenses offered by Leica and Voigtlander.

Have fun shopping!

 

[Harry Lime]

Here's my take on differences between the two.

Pre-ASPH Lux.

After having shot Zeiss, Canon and Nikon 1.4/50's I must say that the Lux is the best of the classic highspeed lenses out there. It has the best bokeh, the smoothest tonality and is very sharp at 1.4, except closeup where like all high speed designs without a floating element, it gets a little soft (but far from unuseable). The Zeiss 1.4/50 Planar is a close second. Overall the pre-ASPH Lux delivers superb images with a classic look.

Lux ASPH

The Lux ASPH is the best 50 money can buy. Imagine a current generation 2/50 Summicron opened up one stop, with better close up performance (due to the floating element) and flare supression. This lens delivers a crisp, high contrast image at any stop and has a modern fingerprint.


I have the last pre-ASPH Lux and am very happy with it. If I had $3000 laying around I would probably buy the Lux ASPH, but frankly I need another 50 like I need a hole in the head. ;-) Besides, I've pretty much settled on the Summicron DR as my main lens.

 

[Paulbe]

Hello--when I was in NYC last December, I dropped by PhotoVillage. Jim Lager was there with his bag full of Leica stuff, including the M8 etc etc. I had my M6TTL and E43 50mm Summilux--the "real" pre-asph 🙂--- and Provia 400F loaded in my camera. Jim let me try any lens--unfortunately he didn't have the 75/1.4--but he did have the 50mm asph. So I shot a few pix out the window of PhotoVillage with the 50asph and then my own Summilux. After viewing the slides with a genuine and very old Pradovit--I can truthfully say I saved about 1500 bux by getting the non-asph. That was only one test--maybe there are more compelling reasons--but for $1500 I can get a second M6.. YMMV. The lens that was REALLY impressive was the 90mm Summicron---at least to me. Extraordinarily sharp! On the "to get" list now.
Paul

 

[nikon_junkie]

I loved the first version Summilux. I think I paid $800 for it and it was as mint as a 50 year old lens could be. Sadly I sold it.

I finally fgured out uploading images and I posted four in my gallery.

 

[vrgard]

FYI - a very nice looking pre-ASPH lux was just listed in the RFF classifieds... Looks tempting but I'm gonna have to pass.

-Randy

 

[Tom A]

If close up performance is critical, there is no choice. The 50f1.4 Asph, is the best there is! Most of the modern medium to high speed 50's are excellent, but the 50/1,4 Asph stands above them all. The question is price/performance. It is very expensive, but it is somewhat analogous to bying a Porsche 997, which is more than fast enough to scare you ****less. The GT2 or GT3 is even faster and requires that you really know what you are doing. But if you do not drive it to the limit, why bother.
The 50f1.4 Asph is propapbly a better lens than most of us will ever need. It will outperform the film you are using. But shooting it at f5,6 or even f2,8 is a waste of money. At thise apertures there are plenty of contenders.
I have older Summiluxes, Sonnar 50/1,5 from ZI, Nokton f1,5, Nikon Millenium 50/1,4 (rangefinder Nikon) and the 50/1,4 Asph. The only lens who really comes close in terms of sharpness and resolution is the S3 millenium Nikkor 50/1,4, but it lacks that close focus performance.
The Summilux Asph is not a "smooth" lens in the classic sense. It has high contrast and a bit "jagged" out of focus performance. Ideally you should try to find someone who has one of them and run a quick film through it.
All this said, my walk around 50 'speed" lens is either the Sonnar 50/1,5C or the Planar 50 for the ZI. The 50/1,4 is a bit 'gritty' for that kind of shooting. Beware of using it for portraits as it shows things you did not think was there and the subject might not appreciate "total honesty".

 

[peter_n]

I use an E43 pre-ASPH Summilux and would not swap it for the ASPH. It renders beautifully as others have attested above. To deal with the 50mm close-up issues I got a 75/2 Summicron recently. Something you might want to consider...

 

[ugly bokeh]

I use an E43 pre-ASPH Summilux and would not swap it for the ASPH. It renders beautifully as others have attested above. To deal with the 50mm close-up issues I got a 75/2 Summicron recently. Something you might want to consider...

I too have the e43 pre-asph, ltm pre-asph and the e43 asph summilux and I have to admit the e43 pre-asph version is my favorite, in fact it is "welded" to my m6.

 

[dreamsandart]

I was in the same decision making place not too long ago. I picked up the newest version pre-ASPH Summilux, but was tempted by the ASPH at the same time.

The lens has been living on my M4 a couple months now and looks like its here to stay. Why no ASPH? I didn't want to give up any of that familiar beautiful Summilux look, the aperture moves just right, and focus is liquid smooth. By getting the last pre-ASPH version I got a lens with the newest coatings, closer focus mount and a short focus throw (the built-in hood I'm still not sure about, but at least you can get it out of the way quickly).

As for close in work, for anything under a meter or so I'm usually stopping down just to get some depth of field. And for anything in the medium to long focus range even opened up I've not been disappointed with the pre-ASPH Summilux. The areas the ASPH is better I just don't feel I need, and any pre-ASPH is a lot less in the funds department.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

pre asph:

it's a great lens in any formula, I like mine, good luck choosing 😉

Todd

 

[awilder]

Other than closer focus, shorter throw and hood difference was there any improvement in optical performance between the E43 and E46 pre-asph. Summilux? I know they are slightly different in formulation, but enough to see any difference on comparison? I bring this up because even though I take Popular Photograpphy's reviews with a big fat grain of salt, there seemed to be a big improvement with E46 black paint version tested in 2003 over the E43 in 1994.

 

[dreamsandart]

I know Leica did improve their coatings around the time of the pre-ASPH Summilux 46, but there isn't any word about glass I've heard of from reliable sources. There's always the possibility that glass types were changed or adjustments for an improvement. Leica/Leitz rarely mentioned any 'minor' changes let alone major ones unless it was obvious, or for promotion. No one heard about the very different glass of the 1st-2nd version 50 Lux change for years. But with the second version 35 Summicron you read about "improved contrast with even fewer glass elements" to show how good the Leica lens designers were I assume.