Apo-Summicron 50/2 Asph. Test!

BobYIL said:
- For some to pay $7.195 for a 50/2 lens while another one costing $768 to do 95% of the former seems utterly unjustifiable.

To decide about buying or not buying them is a personal choice, however to state what we think about them in a photographic forum is a personal right. So nobody needs to feel offended.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with that. Honestly all Leica M lenses are beyond what I'm willing to pay for a lens. I find the ZM lenses to be almost as good for a more reasonable price. Needless to mention that I am extremely happy that the Planar that I own fared so well in the comparison.

But, I will never allow myself to criticize Leica products for what they are not, or for what I think they should be, according to my own criteria. They are what they are, and Leica has always been very straightforward about their product placement.
 
BobYIL said:
- For some to pay $7.195 for a 50/2 lens while another one costing $768 to do 95% of the former seems utterly unjustifiable.
Click to expand...

The world of 50mm lenses is such (and the ambiguity of throwing out a phrase like 95% -- any numerical summation of a bundle of subjective as well as objective qualitie is such) that I could as easily say it's unjustifiable to spend $768 on a lens when you can get one for $76.80 that'll do 95% of it.

Obviously people who buy the new summicron are people for whom $8000 means a lot less than it does to me. Just as obviously (at least to me) they'll have a pretty sweet lens. After all, the reviewer does say there are many differences between the summicron and planar, all in the summicron's favor and that there is a perceptible advantage to the summicron. He also says technique & rangefinder calibration will make a bigger difference than that between the lenses but that's a pretty weak statement. Technique and rangefinder calibration can overwhelm the difference between an excellent lens and an average one.

The summicron really is an improvement over the planar. And when comparing the two you're really operating in a world where qualifiers like "modest" or "significant" or "slight" or "large" are really useless -- they convey information only about the writer's subjective belief as to whether those differences are worth it -- something over which there will be unresolvable disagreement.
 
I am not insulted; I am firmly in the Joe-Average camp ( in Leica terms) myself. And nor should any of my fellow JAs be. I I will not be shelling out Apo-Summicron or Noctilux money for lenses that would not add much to my photography. But I am getting pretty annoyed at people who go out and strain for “ arguments” to justify their non-buying. What is so threatening in accepting that a certain lens or camera is actually very good or even superior, but not a sensible proposition for oneself because of price?:confused: That way of thinking will make one spend one's days green of envy and make one’s (no particular member specified) posts sound like shrill put-downs.:rolleyes:
rdeleskie said:
So, where does this leave us? Yesterday, according to leica aficionados, the "classic" Summicron was the finest f2 50mm lens made, the reference against which all others were judged, impervious to changes in technology for more than thirty years because it was close to perfection. Today, it's okay for "Joe Average" because a new, exponentially more expensive lens has been released. A lens which so far in objective testing shows marginal improvement over the older one, let alone the lesser Zeiss that is manufactured in Japan and costs 1/10th the price.

I don't mean to insult you, but when I read words like this I don't hear a photographer talking, I hear a fetishish. And they seem to re-enforce the old stereotype that Leica fans will pay any amount of money, regardless of the real-world results, just to prove they are not Joe Average.

I will wait to see more results, but so far it looks to me like Leica jumped the shark with this one.
Click to expand...
 
7) People are very upset by how well these products perform.

I don't see anybody here making posts to that effect. I also do not see envy. What I see are two very interesting arguments, which really deserve to be divided into two separate threads. The first concerns the problem of what kind of shooting conditions would be necessary to take advantage of the indisputable (but perhaps marginal) improvement in IQ brought about by the 50 AA? The second concerns the problem of what constitutes meaningful innovation for active photographers?

I hope this helps.
 
If the two lenses were being given away free by Leica, and everyone in this thread could have either the "old" Summicron or the APO Summicron, who would take the "old" one?

I don't see any hands raised.

The expensive Summicron is also good marketing by Leica. For example, in the Asian market especially, having the "best" is important. Marginal image improvement in actual photos aside, they will sell plenty of them. The new money is in Asia now, and will be for a long time.
 
I Love Film said:
If the two lenses were being given away free by Leica, and everyone in this thread could have either the "old" Summicron or the APO Summicron, who would take the "old" one?
Click to expand...

Demonstrably wrong.

The Gen IV/V are technically superior to preceding Summicrons by at least as great a margin as the APO ASPH is superior to the Gen IV/V.

Yet there have been numerous polls here on RFF where MANY people have said they prefer earlier versions (rigid, DR, collapsible, v. III etc.) to v. IV/V, or even other technically "inferior" lenses from other manufacturers. There is absolutely no reason to think that the same will not be true of the 'cron AA.

For many people these are questions of art, rendering, and emotion -- not technical superiority.
 
rdeleskie said:
So, where does this leave us? Yesterday, according to leica aficionados, the "classic" Summicron was the finest f2 50mm lens made

(...)

I don't mean to insult you, but when I read words like this I don't hear a photographer talking, I hear a fetishish.
Click to expand...


Erwin Puts stated something to that effect, but then the 50mm Summilux ASPH came out, so the quote is rather dated.



semilog said:
... extracting that kind of performance from an M-body is antithetical to the Barnack ideal, and that (current) M bodies are far from ideally designed for taking the kind of picture that would highlight off the unusual qualities of the 'cron AA...
Click to expand...

The "Barnack ideal", if such a thing exists, was to sell a usable camera which could be carried around, without having to use ground glass or TTL focusing...early 20th century "live view", if you will. And getting a good image on a much smaller format required some pretty "sharp" optical engineering (pun malintended).

Again, knocking a $15,000 foldable, light-as-a-feather bicycle for not having four wheels, power steering and a radio just like that found on a cheaper compact car as an argument for not sticking to the "Tour-de-France ideal" is clearly a muddled point.
 
semilog said:
For many people these are questions of art, rendering, and emotion -- not technical superiority.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Same reason why some like to use optical/mechanical rangefinders to SLRs or ground glass. Some don't even focus/frame at all, like some "street" shooters do (and some of whom compensate with incredible amounts of contrast and vignetting).
 
BobYIL said:
I noted it too, a weird phenomenon just due to the higher transmission efficiency of the coating!? It simply turns the f2.0/50 Planar into something like f1.8 or f1.6/50 lens.. (Hard to conceive...)

Maybe those having access to both 2.0/50 Planar and 1.5/50 Sonnar can comment on the subject..
Click to expand...

FWIW, after reading about the alleged T stop differences between the Zeiss and the Leica, I tested this out with my ZM 50/2 and 50 Summicron (newest non-APO version) the other day, and, wide open at minimum focus distance and set to the 50 Summicron V coding, my ZM 50/2 only has about a +.15 EV advantage in the center portion of the frame. Nothing close to a .5 EV difference, from what I can tell.

The real advantage of the ZM 50/2 is less vignetting at the edges, so, while the center portion of the frame is only about a +.15 EV difference, that difference does increase a bit as you move towards the edges. I didn't measure the edges exactly, but I'd guess the difference in exposure at the edges of the frame, due to the vignetting, is around a third of a stop, or so.

The diameter of the lens elements of the ZM look a little larger, so its vignetting advantage doesn't surprise me, but it's not really a deal breaker for me with the Summicron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom