kennylovrin
Well-known
hey guys
a sudden severe attack of gas just hit me.. i've been thinking about this for a while, and i think i will start putting things in motion now..
so i'm going to sell off my 35mm and 50mm zeiss lenses i think, and get only a 50mm 1.4.. i always use the 50mm anyway and it would be nice to have only one lens. but anyway..
i can't really tell the difference between the different summiluxes..
when people say "pre-asph", is that specifically the version before the current one, or does that mean all version before the current one?
does the pre-asph one(s) focus shift? are there any other "big" differences compared to the asph version? the thing is, i like clean looks, but i still would like that extra stop. but when i try to look at shots on flickr it's like people just mix up there shots in several pools so i can't really tell which lens shot what image.. i sense the asph is more what i am after, but i don't know for sure, and it is not cheap, so wanted to investigate a bit.
and then of course the question is, perhaps the voigtländer 1.5 is an option, but there is one thing i really dislike most of all, and it is distortion, but perhaps there is just as much distortion in the summilux?
also considered the c sonnar as i do like zeiss, but i am a little bit unsure if i can handle the focus shift on that one, or rather if i want to. been thinking i might be able to rent one for a weekend though to experience it.
generally, i am really fond of my planar, but it would be nice with that extra stop at times, and perhaps slightly more life to the bokeh as the planar is quite "sterile" in a sense.
i'll be using it mainly on an m9, but also some film shooting on my m2.
thanks,
kenny
a sudden severe attack of gas just hit me.. i've been thinking about this for a while, and i think i will start putting things in motion now..
so i'm going to sell off my 35mm and 50mm zeiss lenses i think, and get only a 50mm 1.4.. i always use the 50mm anyway and it would be nice to have only one lens. but anyway..
i can't really tell the difference between the different summiluxes..
when people say "pre-asph", is that specifically the version before the current one, or does that mean all version before the current one?
does the pre-asph one(s) focus shift? are there any other "big" differences compared to the asph version? the thing is, i like clean looks, but i still would like that extra stop. but when i try to look at shots on flickr it's like people just mix up there shots in several pools so i can't really tell which lens shot what image.. i sense the asph is more what i am after, but i don't know for sure, and it is not cheap, so wanted to investigate a bit.
and then of course the question is, perhaps the voigtländer 1.5 is an option, but there is one thing i really dislike most of all, and it is distortion, but perhaps there is just as much distortion in the summilux?
also considered the c sonnar as i do like zeiss, but i am a little bit unsure if i can handle the focus shift on that one, or rather if i want to. been thinking i might be able to rent one for a weekend though to experience it.
generally, i am really fond of my planar, but it would be nice with that extra stop at times, and perhaps slightly more life to the bokeh as the planar is quite "sterile" in a sense.
i'll be using it mainly on an m9, but also some film shooting on my m2.
thanks,
kenny
Monz
Monz
Lots of info here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f14.htm
I have the pre 1991 one with a separate hood and close focus distance of 1m (which can be limiting for portraits). The later lenses can focus down to 0.7m.
It's a good mix of size, speed and sharpness. It works well with film M cameras and the M9.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f14.htm
I have the pre 1991 one with a separate hood and close focus distance of 1m (which can be limiting for portraits). The later lenses can focus down to 0.7m.
It's a good mix of size, speed and sharpness. It works well with film M cameras and the M9.
mfogiel
Veteran
There are 4 versions of Summilux 50:
1st - this was in reality a modification of the Summarit, did not stay in production for long - nice lens for portraiture, but not very sharp by today's standards
2nd - a proper Summilux pre asph, with a 1m minimum focus distance and clip on hood
3rd - last version of the same lens, with an extensible hood and a 0.7 m min focus - this is the most sought after version, which I have. These lenses are not clinically sharp at any aperture, particularly in the far corners, but they are very versatile, sharp enough for people and street photography, and the bokeh is nice, and typical Mandler style : with some "character" reminiscent of Summilux 75.
I use mine on film, and have not had any focus shift problems.
4 - Summilux ASPH - this is an apochromatic lens of notable sharpness wide open, with a floating lens element for close up correction, and with a very nice bokeh, but more of a Gaussian "neutral" type. This lens is also somewhat bigger and heavier than the pre asph. Preferences will be personal, but typically people who like portraiture stick with the pre asph, which on digital is sharp enough anyway.
Here is a typical application photo wide open:
20112005 by mfogiel, on Flickr
and another
20125552 by mfogiel, on Flickr
this one at f 2.8
20123724 by mfogiel, on Flickr
this one at f 2.0
20097936 by mfogiel, on Flickr
1st - this was in reality a modification of the Summarit, did not stay in production for long - nice lens for portraiture, but not very sharp by today's standards
2nd - a proper Summilux pre asph, with a 1m minimum focus distance and clip on hood
3rd - last version of the same lens, with an extensible hood and a 0.7 m min focus - this is the most sought after version, which I have. These lenses are not clinically sharp at any aperture, particularly in the far corners, but they are very versatile, sharp enough for people and street photography, and the bokeh is nice, and typical Mandler style : with some "character" reminiscent of Summilux 75.
I use mine on film, and have not had any focus shift problems.
4 - Summilux ASPH - this is an apochromatic lens of notable sharpness wide open, with a floating lens element for close up correction, and with a very nice bokeh, but more of a Gaussian "neutral" type. This lens is also somewhat bigger and heavier than the pre asph. Preferences will be personal, but typically people who like portraiture stick with the pre asph, which on digital is sharp enough anyway.
Here is a typical application photo wide open:
20112005 by mfogiel, on Flickr
and another
20125552 by mfogiel, on Flickr
this one at f 2.8
20123724 by mfogiel, on Flickr
this one at f 2.0
20097936 by mfogiel, on Flickr
kennylovrin
Well-known
Thanks, I have read that but I have a hard time stomaching his style of writing, so it doesn't stick very well. 
But as I understand it then "pre-asph" can be any of the non asph versions then? And there is no optical difference between those, and therefore no image quality differences either?
But as I understand it then "pre-asph" can be any of the non asph versions then? And there is no optical difference between those, and therefore no image quality differences either?
mfogiel
Veteran
The 2nd and 3rd versions are optically the same, perhaps only the coatings could be better in the last version, the first version is optically different.
kennylovrin
Well-known
Thanks! Good that you reminded me about the focus distance - now I remember why I stopped considering the c sonnar a while back, among other reasons.
I have been wanting a less clinical lens than my planar for a while, so from that perspective the version three might be it then. At the same time I don't want to give up too much sharpness either.
I guess I have to check out some more shots and try to figure out which one I'd prefer.
Thanks for the help!
kennylovrin
Well-known
Hmm.. I was lying in bed last night after posting here and thinking about this.. And a thought I had a while back popped up again; Because I like my Planar, perhaps I should just keep that and compliment it with a 1.1 Nokton for the times I want extra light and tiny DOF?
Does that sound like a stupid idea? I almost bought one a while back, but was unsure a about sharpness and size of it. At the time I was thinking of replacing my Planar, but perhaps if I keep both..
On the other hand, just some quick looks at Ebay it almost seemed as if the ASPH summilux is somewhat cheaper than the pre-asph? Does that even make sense?
Does that sound like a stupid idea? I almost bought one a while back, but was unsure a about sharpness and size of it. At the time I was thinking of replacing my Planar, but perhaps if I keep both..
On the other hand, just some quick looks at Ebay it almost seemed as if the ASPH summilux is somewhat cheaper than the pre-asph? Does that even make sense?
mfogiel
Veteran
No, Summilux ASPH should be about TWICE more expensive than the pre asph. In any case, if you want a fast lens for portraiture, you would be better off photographically and financially, buying an SLR with a good portrait lens - you will probably spend a fraction of the Summilux, whatever type. My suggestion for a cheap, but nice in use and high quality portrait solution, would be Pentax ME Super or MX, with Pentax M 50/1.4 or Pentax K 55/1.8. You should spend around 200 USD for a CLA'ed camera and lens.
YYV_146
Well-known
A good balance between draw and sharpness might be the new version 50mm f1.5 asph. The pre-asph Summilux is contrasty and sharp at the center, but at f1.4 the corners suffer, and its flare issue is quite significant - almost unusable under some light situation.
I'd just go with the 50mm Summilux ASPH. It is clean and modern, but certain not boring like a planar. This is a fantastic lens in all regards, wide-open sharpness is as much as could be desired for for current digital sensors, beautiful bokeh and micro-contrast. I have both versions, but have been seriously tempted to sell the pre-asph since now I've got the ASPH.
Size is a personal taste. I find the 50 1.1 more comfortable than smaller 50mm primes, but many would disagree.
The actual gain in light wouldn't be as much as you'd like - I have found that in practical shooting the 50 1.1 behaves more like a 50 1.4 due its relatively low transmission value. It's a nice lens, but applications are limited.
I'd just go with the 50mm Summilux ASPH. It is clean and modern, but certain not boring like a planar. This is a fantastic lens in all regards, wide-open sharpness is as much as could be desired for for current digital sensors, beautiful bokeh and micro-contrast. I have both versions, but have been seriously tempted to sell the pre-asph since now I've got the ASPH.
Size is a personal taste. I find the 50 1.1 more comfortable than smaller 50mm primes, but many would disagree.
The actual gain in light wouldn't be as much as you'd like - I have found that in practical shooting the 50 1.1 behaves more like a 50 1.4 due its relatively low transmission value. It's a nice lens, but applications are limited.
kennylovrin
Well-known
Hey guys
Well I am not getting a SLR, I've been down that road. Also, the one thing that I never shoot is portraits I'd say. All I want is slightly more character than my Planar, and the extra stop of light so that I can use lower ISO indoors and at night.
But the thing is, I was even considering a Summitar as another lens not too long ago (still keeping the ones I have) just to get a lens with some character. I actually like swirly bokeh and that stuff. Which is why it got me thinking again that perhaps I should just keep my Planar and go for the Nokton, I actually like the somewhat chaotic bokeh it produces.
But, it would also be nice to have only one lens (yes, I'm one of those guys).
Yesterday when I was looking at Flickr it does indeed seem like the lens I "should" get is the ASPH summilux. I am just not sure if I really want to pay that much.. I have to look more closely at what they actually go for..
Brand new it is as expensive as I paid for my used M9 here in Sweden, so not sure I am willing to put that money down (One reason I went with Zeiss is because I really like them and don't see the difference that explains the price difference for a Leica lens). But then again, here I am wanting that 1.4...
Crap..
Well I am not getting a SLR, I've been down that road. Also, the one thing that I never shoot is portraits I'd say. All I want is slightly more character than my Planar, and the extra stop of light so that I can use lower ISO indoors and at night.
But the thing is, I was even considering a Summitar as another lens not too long ago (still keeping the ones I have) just to get a lens with some character. I actually like swirly bokeh and that stuff. Which is why it got me thinking again that perhaps I should just keep my Planar and go for the Nokton, I actually like the somewhat chaotic bokeh it produces.
But, it would also be nice to have only one lens (yes, I'm one of those guys
).Yesterday when I was looking at Flickr it does indeed seem like the lens I "should" get is the ASPH summilux. I am just not sure if I really want to pay that much.. I have to look more closely at what they actually go for..
Brand new it is as expensive as I paid for my used M9 here in Sweden, so not sure I am willing to put that money down (One reason I went with Zeiss is because I really like them and don't see the difference that explains the price difference for a Leica lens). But then again, here I am wanting that 1.4...
Crap..
kennylovrin
Well-known
Just to clarify, you are referring to the Voigtländer lens? It does look nice and I have been tempted I have to say..
YYV_146
Well-known
Yes. My take-away is that it has some of the characteristics of the pre-a summilux, but better corner performance and less fringing.
Don't get me wrong, the Summilux is still a wonderful lens, but designed for film and not digital bodies.
Ansel
Well-known
Just get the summicron 50 - fantastic lens!
kennylovrin
Well-known
The reason I have the Planar is because I prefer it over the Summicron based on what I've seen.
And the reason I want to swap it now is because I want 1.4 instead of f/2, so the summicron isn't an option in my specific case.kennylovrin
Well-known
I think I will look closer at the voigtländer again, perhaps it is an option. The upside with that one is that I can handle psychologically to buy it before I sell my Zeiss lenses. With the Summilux not so much, it's too much money just to "see if I like it".
Roger Hicks
Veteran
How much difference will a new lens make to your photography? What EXACT differences are you expecting?
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
kennylovrin
Well-known
Probably not much, I am all for confessing to the fact that I find it fun to buy a new lens. It's a hobby, I don't need to justify it.
But sure, it probably will change nothing, it would just be nice to gather a little more light and save a stop of ISO when the light is low.
I see your point, and it is a valid question. But if we'd all live by "do i need it" I think many Leica owners could just as well shoot with their mobile phone? For many hobbyists it's very much about "I want this so I will get this", or at least that is my assumption. For a professional I can totally see how it is different, as the camera becomes much more of a tool rather than something purely for enjoyment.
I might very well end up buying nothing, but I might also very well end up buying something that I absolutely don't need, but will enjoy anyway.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You are of course absolutely right. But I'd suggest that if it's just buying a new toy, why not buy something that is something other than a (probably insignificant) incremental improvement on what you already have? Why not buy something interesting or challenging or unusual, such as a 50/1.2 Canon or 50/1.5 C-Sonnar or Dreamagon or Subjektiv or Thambar or Jupiter-9 or... Well, almost anything, really. THAT'S what I meant about making a difference: a real difference, not a tiny difference.
Cheers,
R.
mfogiel
Veteran
If you want a 50 mm lens with "character" and you do not shoot portraits, then I do not know exactly what character are you speaking about.
If you want to obliterate the background, get the C Sonnar optimized for wide open - it draws like a 0.7 lens, so you can spare yourself a couple of Noctiluxes, on the other hand, if you want a character in the way the out of focus draws, then get the Rigid Summicron, or the Noctilux 1.0. Planar is a great lens, when you want to show something in good focus, it is a 99% Summicron ASPH at 10% of the price.
If you want to obliterate the background, get the C Sonnar optimized for wide open - it draws like a 0.7 lens, so you can spare yourself a couple of Noctiluxes, on the other hand, if you want a character in the way the out of focus draws, then get the Rigid Summicron, or the Noctilux 1.0. Planar is a great lens, when you want to show something in good focus, it is a 99% Summicron ASPH at 10% of the price.
kennylovrin
Well-known
Yeah that is a good point (one reason I was thinking about that Summitar some weeks ago). At the same time, I like it simple, so ideally I would find that "perfect compromise" between character and sharpness/modern-ess so I can stick to one lens.
I know it might sound ridiculous to some people, but I am the kind of person that likes everything to "look the same". I never enjoyed swapping lenses, and it kind of annoys me when I use my 35 and I look at the photos and think "well it doesn't look like my 50!!!".
Like I said, i understand it might sound strange to some, but I would ideally have only one lens..
Yet here I am talking about having several, and the same focal length at that! So perhaps all I just wrote in this response is a load of crap anyway hehe..
I love thinking about lenses, looking at photos of different lenses etc. Not so much pixel peeping, but looking at the different feels etc, I guess it is just something I enjoy doing, and that leads to having a hard time deciding I guess.