Buy 50mm lux pre-asph or stick with elmar-m

[swmlon]

I have been presented with an opportunity to buy a 50mm summilux pre-asph (serial number indicates its from 1982) but I am wondering if it would be worth purchasing it to replace (as i cannot afford to buy the lux without selling) the elmar-m f2.8 which has served me very well but makes shooting in low light conditions not an option.

aside from the advantages of being to shoot in lower light conditions with the lux, what advantages who i get picture quality-wise from the lux over the elmar.

thanks all for your help.

 

[sleepyhead]

I have the Elmar-M and the 50mm Summilux ASPH, but I previously used the E43 pre-ASPH Summilux that you're thinking about.

The Elmar-M is, in my experience, for "normal" handheld Leica M style photography just about as sharp as you'll ever get, even at f/2.8. The E43 Summilux at f/2.8 will be just about as sharp in the centre, but perhaps a tad (probably not noticible) softer in the corners compared to the Elmar-M. The E43 Summilux is of course larger, but it really is quite compact for its speed.

So in conclusion, IF YOU CAN ONLY OWN ONE of these, and if you can live with the larger size/wieght, the Summilux is a more versitile lens that will be noticibly a bit softer at f/2 and f/1.4 (especially at closer distances), but will perform very similarly to the Elmar-M once stopped down.

If you do careful, tripod-mounted photogrpahy, then I think the Elmar-M will win over the Summilux performance-wise even stopped down. The Elamr-M also focuses down to 0.7 meters compared to 1 meter for the E43 Summilux, so if close ups are important to you, then the Elamr-M wins there.

Both lenses are very resitant to flaring in my experience and I use/used both without a lens shade with no flaring issues.

I would try to OWN BOTH if I were you. Neither are VERY expensive. The little Elmar-M is such a joy ergonomically and collapses into such a small pocketable package. I couldn''t live without it personally.

Enjoy!

 

[MCTuomey]

i've owned the pre-asph E46 version and the elmar. aside from the lux's speed, i think there is no other advantage over the elmar. put another way: aside from its 2 stop speed deficiency, i prefer the elmar. nicer size, 3D rendering, sharpness across the field at any aperture, tonal qualities.

but the lux is a great one-lens solution because of its speed ...

 

[peter_n]

Two stops - big difference. I have both but haven't used the Elmar since getting the Summilux. It is a little softer but, at least to my eye, draws a very pleasing image. If you're frustrated in dim light I think it's a no-brainer.

 

[mfunnell]

I would try to OWN BOTH if I were you. Neither are VERY expensive. The little Elmar-M is such a joy ergonomically and collapses into such a small pocketable package. I couldn''t live without it personally.

While I can't afford both (and have never owned a 50mm Summilux) I can endorse the view that I just wouldn't be without the Elmar-M. There is something in the way it renders a scene, in colour or black and white, which is quite different from any other lens I've used. A "lightness" or something. I guess I'm a little lost for words.

I have other lenses. More expensive, certainly, "better", perhaps: but I just love that Elmar-M. As an either/or decision? I'd duck and weave, keep my Elmar-M, and hope for times when I could afford "it-and" rather than "it-but".

...Mike (my opinion only, of course, YMMV)

 

[peter_n]

The other major I think is the closest focus, as sleepyhead points out. If you want the f1.4 and the 0.7M the v.3 Summilux is the one to get so you might want to be patient...

 

[Ben Z]

I have the latest-optically Summicron (the first style with the focus tab) and it hasn't been out of the cupboard since I got a pre-ASPH Summilux. The Lux is such a versatile lens, and while you might tell the Summicron has the sharpness edge in deliberate testing, in everyday practical photography I doubt you would notice. I shot (practically, not a deliberate resolution test) the pre-ASPH against the ASPH and I prefer the pre for its rendering in low light, but that's just my own taste. The only drawbacks to the E43 version of the pre-ASPH are that you need a special 43mm filter mount to allow the hood to fit over and lock, and that it only focuses to 1m. The E46 version solves both problems, although since Leica didn't change the optics which were designed only to go to 1m, I would hazard a guess that stopping down would be a good idea for maximum results under 1m.

PS I did have the Elmarit at one time but I sold it. With the shade on it it wasn't that much more compact than my focus-tab Summicron.

 

[ampguy]

filters / hoods for e43 lux

filters / hoods for e43 lux

Ben, you're correct if using the expensive original 43 lux hood, but if you don't mind using alternatives, you can use the hood from the 43mm CV Noktons, or aftermarket 43mm hoods.

When I use a filter on mine (windy, possible rain or dust), it's a UV/IR B&W, and I'm not even sure if this model comes in a thin size that would accommodate the original hood, so screw in filters for 43mm are what I use.

I have the latest-optically Summicron (the first style with the focus tab) and it hasn't been out of the cupboard since I got a pre-ASPH Summilux. The Lux is such a versatile lens, and while you might tell the Summicron has the sharpness edge in deliberate testing, in everyday practical photography I doubt you would notice. I shot (practically, not a deliberate resolution test) the pre-ASPH against the ASPH and I prefer the pre for its rendering in low light, but that's just my own taste. The only drawbacks to the E43 version of the pre-ASPH are that you need a special 43mm filter mount to allow the hood to fit over and lock, and that it only focuses to 1m. The E46 version solves both problems, although since Leica didn't change the optics which were designed only to go to 1m, I would hazard a guess that stopping down would be a good idea for maximum results under 1m.

PS I did have the Elmarit at one time but I sold it. With the shade on it it wasn't that much more compact than my focus-tab Summicron.

 

[ferider]

I found the pre-asph Summilux (latest) too soft up to f2.8 or so. Beautiful rendering in most cases, but unless you shoot ASA 1600 in the dark, the results are almost useless to me. And no, not only test targets, it's hard to get a sparkle in a subject's eyes, when enlarging to 8x10 or bigger.

The Elmar-M is great, but not so small with the hood.

The v4 Summicron is for me a better all-rounder, and if I need speed, the Canon 50/1.4 which is a really great performer, also wide open. Note that the v4 Summicron (I now have the tabbed version) is smaller than earlier versions.

Best,

Roland.

 

[tbarker13]

Roland,
What's the closest focus on the Canon 50/1.4?
I assume it's 1 meter.

 

[ferider]

Yep. Unfortunately.

It's bokeh is a bit similar to the 40 Nokton ... which I like, but some people don't.

In most cases it's very nice, just keep the leaves out of the background:

One of these days I'll try one of Amedeo's converted Rollei 50/1.4 HFT lenses 🙂

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[ampguy]

Hi Roland

Hi Roland

Do you mean you found the E46/.7m version soft wide open to 2.8? Softer than the V2 E43 version?

I have only the V2 version with some samples here which I find sharp enough.

but reading the 1983 Dick Gilcreast lhsa article, it sounded like the V2 forumulation was designed to buck the trend and optimize for wide open, at the expense of field curvature stopped down?

I found the pre-asph Summilux (latest) too soft up to f2.8 or so. Beautiful rendering in most cases, but unless you shoot ASA 1600 in the dark, the results are almost useless to me. And no, not only test targets, it's hard to get a sparkle in a subject's eyes, when enlarging to 8x10 or bigger.

The Elmar-M is great, but not so small with the hood.

The v4 Summicron is for me a better all-rounder, and if I need speed, the Canon 50/1.4 which is a really great performer, also wide open. Note that the v4 Summicron (I now have the tabbed version) is smaller than earlier versions.

Best,

Roland.

 

[Ben Z]

Ben, you're correct if using the expensive original 43 lux hood, but if you don't mind using alternatives, you can use the hood from the 43mm CV Noktons, or aftermarket 43mm hoods.

When I use a filter on mine (windy, possible rain or dust), it's a UV/IR B&W, and I'm not even sure if this model comes in a thin size that would accommodate the original hood, so screw in filters for 43mm are what I use.

True enough about the aftermarket hoods, but those have only been available (in vented style) for the last few years. Leica made 2 kinds of E43 filters to fit that lens. The first type were thin and had no front female threads. The current type is standard but has a trough cut around the outside, so the hood locks onto the filter ring, not the lens. This second type however was/is only available in a few types, like UV and now UV/IR (that only in silver). However all of them can have the glass removed and put in whatever glass you want from any brand of 43mm filter. The older kind are plentiful, cheap (especially if the glass is cracked or scratched) and the glass is retained by a threaded ring that's easy to r&r, unlike the current type that uses an infuriating spring ring that's a press-fit. My Summilux wears a type-2 UV filter with Heliopan UV+IR glass, and on top of that a thin UV filter which I replaced with B+W MRC instead of the original single-coated flarey glass.

 

[awilder]

I've owned several versions of the 50 Summilux (E43) for a short time and currently own a 50/2.8 Elmar-M. I'll never sell the Elmar-M for two reasons; performance is great for it's speed and demand on the used market is low making it hard to sell unless you are willing to let it go for about $450-500. The 50 'lux is a decent performer centrally but astigmatism and curvature of field soften sharpness outside of the central zone of about 6 mm until stopped down to at least f/5.6-8 where sharpness extends to most of the frame. Leica's logic when designing this lens was to maximize contrast at the larger opennings to compete with the Japanese glass back in the 60's and 70's while trading off edge to edge resolution in the process. The current ASPH version nicely solved the resolution issue giving high sharpness and contrast at any aperture especially from f/2 on down.

 

[peter_n]

I must like soft. I have both the pre-ASPH and ASPH 50 and I think I like the look of the pre- better if forced to make a choice. I use the pre- if there are portrait situations and the ASPH for when I need detail.

 

[MCTuomey]

sharing views on fifties is my weakness ... well, one of them anyway.

having had and sold an E46 lux, an elmar, a DR summicron, and a summarit 1.5 in the last 2 years, i can say with confidence i have no idea what i'm doing

i regret selling the elmar and DR cron. replaced them with a rigid cron (Roland's actually). i don't regret selling the E46 lux, but missed the speed so located an canon 50/1.5. those are my fifties today. i will not let the canon 1.5 go, but could swap cron for elmar and be very happy.

 

[swmlon]

Hi, thanks everyone for your comments.

i think after much thinking I am going to hold off on buying the pre-asph v2. I tried my friends summilux v1 and though it does not have a great write up compared to the v2, there is something about the softness of the v1 that i really like. so now i am on the hunt for a good v1, which being cheaper means i can keep the elmar-m, though i am also looking into the canon 1.4.

the search continues i guess for a fast 50.