Do I need summilux with the M8/M9? And other Q's

[ashrafazlan]

I have a 35mm Summicron ASPH, and a 40mm Nokton.

I love the summicron's rendering, but need the Nokton's speed.

I wish I can afford a summilux, but the Nokton will do for now

 

[thompsonks]

IMO the issue is a little more complicated than folks have said so far.

If you make only 11x14 prints, there's very little visible difference between M8 & 9. The difference in IQ is increasingly visible in larger prints; that's where you'd notice (as Roger said) that 'the way the M9 renders texture and tonality is a great deal better.' The lens you use will make more difference than the sensor sizes at this relatively small print size (Brian's wedding picture is an example of a high flare, low-resolution lens). You'd be more likely to notice the IQ difference –

1. If you crop a lot (i.e., too much);

2. If the file is noisy from underexposing or from shooting at too high an ISO (which raises the lens issue);

3. If you get tired of making 11x14s – which are now small prints from the standpoint of exhibiting them – & decide to print larger.

Barring these circumstances, an M8 (M8u, M8.2) will suit you well for the size of prints you make.

BUT: The M8 is pretty bad re: noise at higher ISOs, & M9 is a little better (less magnification/res-ing up, & apparently some NR at high ISOs built into the firmware). So if you do much available light photography, you'd benefit from the M8 + Lux combination, & a bit more from M9 + Lux.

My personal solution for M8u was: (a) 28 Summicron (35mm equivalent); (b) vintage 35 Summicron for daytime (ver 1 or ver 4, I use 1); (c) 35 CV Nokton 1.2 for low light; (d) 50 pre-aspherical Summilux. (When the new 35mm Summilux – with reduced focus shift – is available, I'll start using it on M9.)

If you buy an M8, do look for a used M8.2 (or M8u). The viewfinder is more useful and the newer shutter, while lacking 1/8000, has lower tension & should be more durable.

So my 2 cents of advice would be: just start with M8 & the Summicron from your M6 (I hope it's 35mm), & see if you need anything more than that. Find a good used M8.2 (or u), & you won't get stuck for a great loss if you later want M9. You mentioned you're parsimonious, & that would be an outlay of only $2.5K or so.

Kirk

PS, did anyone direct your to www.reidreviews.com ? You'll find extensive reviews of all the current lens options & 1 or 2 vintage ones.

 

[ramosa]

hard questions, ones that relate partly to technical aspects, but mostly (i think) to money. i have the M8--and no regrets. i had the cron 50mm, but recently "upgraded" to the lux 50mm. i have no regrets on either lens, though i do really like the f1.4 capacity of the lux.

 

[Alnitak]

I wouldnt necessarily jump into the Summilux world, ESPECIALLY if you are referring to the ASPH Luxes. If you try a CV lens, go for the ASPH ones since they reported dont have a propensity for focus shift on digital cameras like the non-Asph ones do.

that said, I would encourage several google searches for get links for many lens comparisons which show side -by-side comparisons.
good luck

FWIW, focus shift is not related to ASPH design (witness the famous focus shift of the 35mm Summilux ASPH); it's a floating element group that will eliminate focus shift--which is what the new 35mm 'lux has, and the 50/0.95 Nocti.

Jeff

 

[Ben Z]

I'm going to make the investment of digital and I have a few questions.

Currently the fastest lens I own is an F2 for use on my M6. I am constantly missing shots because of low light. When I make the jump to digital will the adjustment of ISO render the F2 lens just as usable as a 1.4?

I have about a dozen lenses (more if you count the LTM's w/adapters) for my M8. Only one of them is a Summilux, an older 50. I used to own a 35 Summilux ASPH but sold it (too early I'm afraid, I could've got 2x as much for it if I'd waited a couple years). I have never found myself wanting for faster lenses with the M8. Fast lenses don't make up for high-ISO noise in my case, because faster=less DOF.

In your printing of images 11x14 is there really that much of a difference in quality with the M9?

The five thousand dollar difference in price is hard to swallow. I could make either happen but I've always been conservative with money and a stickler for quality.

I borrowed an M9 and shot several hundred with it along side my M8, but I only printed a couple dozen to 13x19 (largest my printer will handle). Maybe with more experience in setting the post-processing parameters I could've wrung more of a difference out of the M9, but as it were, there was very little difference. Significant, as in, can it be seen? Yes. But subtle, not the monumental difference some people have said. $5K worth? Not to me. I'm not one of those who thinks so highly of himself as a photographer to pay thousands of dollars for subtle improvements in IQ. $4000 is my price-point for getting an M9, whenever that is. The M8 is good enough in the interim.

 

[Andy Kibber]

It's a crazy idea, I know, but you could trying using the f/2 lens you currently own on a digital M and see how you like it. Then you can decide if you need f/1.4.

 

[Andy Kibber]

I have never found myself wanting for faster lenses with the M8. Fast lenses don't make up for high-ISO noise in my case, because faster=less DOF.

Makes sense to me. Sometimes folks talk about f/2 and f/1.4 as if you gain a stop with no downside. Fact is, you'll have about 50% more DOF at f/2 than at f/1.4.

 

[ramosa]

we all define "need" differently. i had a 50 cron and then got a 50 lux. after some use, i have decided to keep the lux and sell the cron. while i don't think i really "need" the lux, it sure will help for shooting at 1.4, which is a big plus for my style of shooting. so--in concession--perhaps, i do "need" the lux