Comparing six 50mm lenses for Leica M

[blakley]

After a request on Photo.net, I recently shot a comparison test of 50mm Leica-mount lenses. The lenses were: 50/1.2 Noctilux, 50/1.4 Non-ASPH (latest) Summilux, 50/2 DR Summicron, 50/2 Summitar, 50/1.4 LTM Nikkor, and 50/3.5 CV Color Heliar.

My summary, with a link to the photos, can be found here.

Enjoy.

 

[blakley]

By the way, see this thread for a comparison of two more fast 50s I didn't test.

 

[MCTuomey]

Favs that I culled out without looking first at the info proved to be taken with either the summilux or the noct.

But none of them disappoint.

Thanks for doing and posting the very interesting comparison!

 

[nrb]

IMHO all are good glass, but I find the Summicron more pleasing.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

I liked the Noct and the summilux.

thanks for the test Bob

regards

 

[J. Borger]

Great test ... love the Noctilux shots best .... followed by the summilux (which i own myself).
The 50 1.2 is unfortunately a collector's lens with a VERRRY heavy pricetag ....

 

[raid]

I don't have any of these 50mm lenses tested. I tested twelve other 50mm lenses in Leica mount. Wouldn't it be useful to combine such test results and build up a test bank at RFF? There would be 18 different 50mm tested in Leica mount.

Good work!

Raid

 

[back alley]

that was what the optics forum was about.

it didn't seem very popular and i think some complained quite a bit actually.

😉

 

[blakley]

I think that would be useful, Raid, and I read your post about RFF lens testing with a lot of interest too. I very much like the idea of "real-world lens testing" - that is, testing with pictures rather than numbers.

It would be pretty useful to have a database of good photos taken with various lenses in specific conditions - "low light portrait", "high-contrast landscape", "color-saturated still-life", etc...

You can get MTF graphs, distortion tests, etc... in the magazines, but what you can't really get there is a reasonably extensive collection of good images like the ones you want to take, taken with the lens you're interested in.

 

[raid]

that was what the optics forum was about.

it didn't seem very popular and i think some complained quite a bit actually.

😉

Joe: I guess, the Optics Forum was not so popular because it had little traffic.
I mostly tried to post test results and so on in the General Discussion Forum because more people would respond there.

Raid

 

[raid]

I think that would be useful, Raid, and I read your post about RFF lens testing with a lot of interest too. I very much like the idea of "real-world lens testing" - that is, testing with pictures rather than numbers.

It would be pretty useful to have a database of good photos taken with various lenses in specific conditions - "low light portrait", "high-contrast landscape", "color-saturated still-life", etc...

You can get MTF graphs, distortion tests, etc... in the magazines, but what you can't really get there is a reasonably extensive collection of good images like the ones you want to take, taken with the lens you're interested in.

I also prefer the basic "how does this lens render a face/scene" testing.
Typically, it is lack of free time that limits my testing.

Raid

 

[back alley]

Joe: I guess, the Optics Forum was not so popular because it had little traffic.
I mostly tried to post test results and so on in the General Discussion Forum because more people would respond there.

Raid

and i moved them to get some traffic into the optics section. they were both on the front page.
but you are right, they did seem to get less traffic there.

too bad, i liked the optics sections but it was my recommendation to jorge that we remove it and just keep the lens chat to the appropriate camera/mount section.

joe

 

[raid]

Joe:The important thing is that many people on RFF are outspoken about liking the recent changes. Life goes on,and such issues are relatively unimportant.

Raid

 

[telenous]

I saw this excellent test while travelling; the dial-up connection didn't allow proper viewing of all the photos; so I am adding my reaction to the photos now. Once again I am surprised at how miniscule the differences are when it comes to first rate optics. But also by the fact that there are differences, and indeed, discernible enough.

My preference is for the Summicron DR. I think that the model's fair skin is rendered better by the lower contrast of that lens. The drawing of the Noct seems to me to be a curio of optical engineering. I like the fact that it is available but I am not sure it could lure me into owning that lens. The Noct and the Nikon lenses in particular add warmth, or so it seems to me; while the preasph. 'Lux and the 'Cron have a cyan underpaint - which I much more prefer.

Blakley, once again thanks very much for this excellent testing. It really helps to decide what sort of look works for you and what not.

 

[ampguy]

others

others

since you have one 3.5 in there already, you should consider the I-22, and I-50 collapsibles in your testing.

After a request on Photo.net, I recently shot a comparison test of 50mm Leica-mount lenses. The lenses were: 50/1.2 Noctilux, 50/1.4 Non-ASPH (latest) Summilux, 50/2 DR Summicron, 50/2 Summitar, 50/1.4 LTM Nikkor, and 50/3.5 CV Color Heliar.

My summary, with a link to the photos, can be found here.

Enjoy.

 

[rich815]

since you have one 3.5 in there already, you should consider the I-22, and I-50 collapsibles in your testing.

I would agree with that. I just picked up a rigid I-22 that performs beautifully. And while we're at it why not the Jupiter-8? A 50/2 Sonnar knock-off that is one great lens (example posted).

Richard S.

 

[rich815]

Oh, and here's an I-22 example.

 

[raid]

I have the J-3 and the J-8, and both are excellent 50mm lenses. It really is great that we can still buy such lenses for almost nothing. The J-3 has risen in cost though.

Raid