chocy
Member
I had a C-Sonnar and I know about the portrait look and focusshift. Now I am interested in Summilux pre-ASPH. How do they compare in terms of how they draw images?
J. Borger
Well-known
Although the 50 lux pre-asph has an "older look" to it, it is in no way similar to the sonnar. Hard to describe in words how it differs .... but i do not know about any Leica lens having the same look as the 50 sonnar.... Probably a vintage 50mm 1,5 summarit comes closest...
awilder
Alan Wilder
I've owned both at different times and they are different but both are desirable due to their unique imaging. Wide open, the Summilux has more bite to the image due to less focus shift and higher contrast. Stopped down to f/2.8 improves sharpness of both considerably with the Summilux still sharper centrally but the new C-Sonnar extends it's zone of sharpness further out in the frame than the Summilux. By f/5.6, both are close in overall sharpness. In adverse lighting, the C-Sonnar will be much more flare resistant. Maybe someone with both lenses could post side by side comparison images of the same subject to illustrate imaging differences. I'm sure many would appreciate this.
Last edited:
jarski
Veteran
I wonder how much old Sonnars (or copies, e.g Jupiters) are still comparable with modern ones designed with computers, from the picture quality ? I probably could not judge if I see two photos from identical scene, done with these two.
summaron
Established
I have always wanted to own one of these lenses and look closely at comparison pictures that anyone posts, here and at Flickr.
My impression is that the newer Sonnar is sharper than the old, but the old has more interesting dissolve into out of focus. Also the new one also seems to have more color saturation, which is supposed to be a family characteristic of Zeiss lenses of the last twenty years.
The out of focus areas in the pre-Ash Summilux seem to me like melted stained glass, at least with color film. People look a bit too healthy and Kodaky for my taste, and look like they've just eaten a blood orange or a popsicle and it's still smeared around their faces. And though more saturated, the Sonnar may have more extended and sober color gradation. I would, however, certainly "make do" with a Summilux if one came my way at a modest price.
My impression is that the newer Sonnar is sharper than the old, but the old has more interesting dissolve into out of focus. Also the new one also seems to have more color saturation, which is supposed to be a family characteristic of Zeiss lenses of the last twenty years.
The out of focus areas in the pre-Ash Summilux seem to me like melted stained glass, at least with color film. People look a bit too healthy and Kodaky for my taste, and look like they've just eaten a blood orange or a popsicle and it's still smeared around their faces. And though more saturated, the Sonnar may have more extended and sober color gradation. I would, however, certainly "make do" with a Summilux if one came my way at a modest price.
chocy
Member
I thought this was more of Voigtlander Nokton look rather than summilux.
I had the C-sonnar, which I loved but the bokeh wide open to me reminded me too much of Canon "L" (this is subjective so no flaming) Anyway I am interested in Summilux pre-ASPH(v3) they are hard to come by..
benkelley
Established
Can't compare with the c-sonnar, but I picked up a pre-asph Summilux e46 (ver3 I think?) a bit back, and man do I like that lens, much better than my CV Nokton. The OOF is brilliant... everything just melts away. Plus I'm a big fan of the closer focussing, smaller size, and built in hood. The nokton is nice, no question, but I like this summilux better, for sure.
ferider
Veteran
I used the C Sonnar and now have a v3 Summilux, and feel they are quite similar. Except the Summilux has more resolution in the corners wide open, and shorter min. focus. But "bokeh"-wise they are both very, very smooth.
I have owned several classic Sonnars and their Japanese variants, and compromises between field sharpness, bokeh wide open, and close up vs distant optimization can be very different depending on which lens you pick. There can be stronger differences between two Sonnar types, than between C Sonnar and pre-asph Summilux.
Best,
Roland.
I have owned several classic Sonnars and their Japanese variants, and compromises between field sharpness, bokeh wide open, and close up vs distant optimization can be very different depending on which lens you pick. There can be stronger differences between two Sonnar types, than between C Sonnar and pre-asph Summilux.
Best,
Roland.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
What's actually wrong with your pictures?
Nothing? No change.
Contrast and sharpness? Stop pissing about with old lenses.
'Look'? Impossible to tell you. Almost any lens might be better -- or worse. FOR YOU. My favourite 50s, in no especial order, are current 50/1.5 Sonnar; current 50/2.5 Summarit; DR Summicron; Noctilux. Which is 'better'? None.
Cheers,
R.
Nothing? No change.
Contrast and sharpness? Stop pissing about with old lenses.
'Look'? Impossible to tell you. Almost any lens might be better -- or worse. FOR YOU. My favourite 50s, in no especial order, are current 50/1.5 Sonnar; current 50/2.5 Summarit; DR Summicron; Noctilux. Which is 'better'? None.
Cheers,
R.
chocy
Member
Now where do I get one of these Summilux ver 3 all of you guys seem to have? 
summaron
Established
ferider,
it'd be great if you could give a quick, albeit slightly off-topic, guide to the differences between the sonnar variations you mention--it'd help for many of us who can't quite afford a used pre-asph Summilux or C Sonnar. thanks.