Is the 50 summilux ASPH worth the upgrade?

[monk3ym4jik]

Hey all,

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I still want people's opinion as to whether it's worth it to upgrade from a 50mm 1.4 pre-ASPH (Mandler, 46mm, ver. III) to a 50mm 1.4 summilux ASPH.

I already get great images with my summilux and my M9, but I really want the dedicated focusing tab (yes, I already spoke to DAG and he said he'd be able to put a focus tab on the v3; currently using a rubber one from lenstab/TAAB, but I really like the dedicated one on my 35 summicron IV) and I like the hood design on the ASPH more than the one on my current summilux.

Thoughts? Is it worth selling off my summilux to evilBay and dropping about $700 on top (after seller's fees, etc.) to upgrade? I hear so many good things about the ASPH and not as much about the old v3 that I have.

Thanks in advance for the input. I appreciate it.

P.S.: I have no problems with the supposed "clinical" look of Karbe lenses. I actually prefer it sometimes. I tend to like punchy, contrasty images, so I feel the modern lenses tend to fit my personality more... but they're also a good deal more expensive.

 

[jaapv]

Given your last sentence: yes, it is worth upgrading. Note though, that it can be a fiddly lens for focus and may need a trip to Wetzlar. (later examples less so)

 

[sepiareverb]

Absolutely worth it IMO. The pre-asph versions are so soft in the corners that I often found them unusable.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Worth it: as an upgrade over the previous version of the 'Lux. Yes. One of the sharpest lenses I own. I liked my older 'Lux, but it was as sepiareverb said: speed at the expense of soft corners. Some folks like that . . . it can be used to isolate a subject. But for me, the newer lens was really an improvement across the field. Basically, it was designed exactly for people who share your aesthetic. For me, this is a "lifetime" lens. I have older lenses, like a Summitar I love, for that not-quite-there-in-the-corners feel.

 

[Huss]

Listen to Ferris

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wALArd2rvo

 

[uhoh7]

These are as different as two 50/1.4s can be.

If money is an issue, forget them both and just use CV 50/1.5 in M mount, which plenty of people like better than either Leica.

 

[raid]

What is different in the CV 50/1.5 LTM?

 

[monk3ym4jik]

I've been blessed enough that the money to upgrade isn't too big an obstacle. As for the CV 50, thanks for the suggestion. I'll definitely look into it. I do like the ergonomics of the Leica focus tab and the built in hood though. Do you know if the CV has either?

 

[f16sunshine]

Personally I love the V3 but have only used it on film and the M8.

Can you keep it and compare for yourself with the asph?
It's really the best way to make a change. Get the new lens and compare with the existing one.
It requires some wallet and or credit card gymnastics but in the end you sell whichever you decide loses out.

FWIW
Having become extremely thrifty in the past few years.
The Nokton is a very legit replacement for the Summilux.
Comparing images it's really just right there.
Ergonomics are not as good. I preferred the Summilux focus ring.

 

[fotomeow]

OK, I'll be the nay-sayer: Not worth it.

Depends what you are looking for. the Pre-Asph has a 0ne of a kind character you won't get elsewhere.

The latest Asph version is sharper in the corners? I dont care about that. its not all about sharpness in the corners.

In these situations, I usually get both lenses and compare side by side. yes, it is expensive, but can be worked around. But at least your question will be answered

 

[albertospa]

I use for many years the wonderful Summilux 50 ver. III, a lens I would never change for aspherical. Blur is far superior in pre-asph, very gradual, never annoying. The blur of the aspherical version is, however, very abrupt.
I do not understand the softness of the corners. Are you landscape photographers at 1.4?
I recommend you buy a 50 Summicron and hold your Lux.

 

[jbhthescots]

For what it's worth, I've had both asph and pre-asph 50 Lux - but when I moved exclusively to film a few years back, I found that - on film anyway - the v2 pre-asph just shone with great character.

You can find plenty of examples on my blog by clicking here.

Best of luck deciding!

 

[rfaspen]

Clearly, from the OP, you like the modern look that you would get from the ASPH. I can honestly say its an absolute stunner, but obviously it performs near perfection as a modern well-corrected lens. So, I suspect you would appreciate the "upgrade".

Personally, I have a lens or two that already give me the modern look (but tops out at f/2), so I think I'd like to get a pre-ASPH for the change in character. Hmmm. Drop me a line when you make your upgrade move 🙂

 

[agoglanian]

I'm something of a contrarian here, I didn't really like the Summilux ASPH. I shot plenty of images that I was very happy with, but it just never really "wowed" me. I hate reading too much about different gear, especially when it gets thoroughly hyped up, because often times when I try it for myself, my own opinion and experience does not match the level of hype it has received.

I don't dislike the Summilux ASPH, or any newer ASPH lens, it just didn't really LOOK good to me for whatever reason.

For what it's worth, I prefer the rendering of the V4/V5 50mm Summicron.

 

[MCTuomey]

I had both for awhile, ended up keeping only the ASPH. More versatile.

 

[rscheffler]

These are as different as two 50/1.4s can be.

If money is an issue, forget them both and just use CV 50/1.5 in M mount, which plenty of people like better than either Leica.

The Voigtlander is technically pretty close to the Lux ASPH, though it does purple fringe slightly at times and I think the Lux is better at the edges... But while it looks neat with the retro design, IMO its ergonomics are poor. If you want a focusing tab, it's not an option with the Voigtlander. Is a focusing tab worth ~4x price premium...? That's for you to decide. 🙂 That said I thoroughly dislike the Lux ASPH's built in hood because it does not truly lock in either position. It's also only held onto the lens with one tiny screw and a few dabs of glue, which I discovered one day while walking along a street when I heard some metallic sounds at my feet. Looked down to see the hood and name ring on the sidewalk. Apparently because of the way I frequently handled the lens, often by the hood when removing it from the camera bag, it put a lot of stress on the hood and eventually caused this failure.

To me, the Lux pre-ASPH is more of a people/character lens and the Lux ASPH is an all-rounder. Also, I wouldn't say the Lux ASPH is overly clinical wide open, rather, it has a pleasing amount of residual SA combined with a smooth, Gaussian blur quality, given suitable camera/subject/background arrangement. One stop down and it becomes very sharp (this based on my copy, which may or may not be average).

 

[Timmyjoe]

If you can get a hold of a Lux ASPH and shoot something side-by-side with both the pre-ASPH and the ASPH, I think you'll be able to decide if it's worth the upgrade. I was fortunate enough to do that a few years ago, and for my tastes, I didn't find the ASPH worth the added cost. I really like the way the Mandler renders.

Best,
-Tim

 

[x-ray]

I owned two asph Summilux 50's. The first was a chrome and it never focused properly at infinity. It actually didn't focus to infinity on 7 M bodies I had. I purchased it as a LN used lens and had no warranty so I sent it to Don Goldberg. He evaluated it and said the mount was incorrectly manufactured and he could not repair it that the entire mount had to be replaced.

My second black one was purchased new and it worked perfectly.

I loved the images in the beginning but in time I felt they were sterile and harsh compared to other lenses. If you're into pixel sharp corner to corner then the might be the lens but if you like a little character and warmth to the image then it's not going to be.

Two things I never liked about the lenses. One the hood was not very effective and a poor design that wanted to collapse all the time. It was too small in diameter and didn't extend out far enough to be very effective. I've found the asph lenses can be more prone to flare than spherical lenses.

Second the focusing tab design Leica is using cuts into my finger. I like the older design much better in vintage lenses.

If you want pixel sharp with pleasing contrast and fantastic flare control then the 50 Planar is the answer. IMO it's the best blend of old and new.

 

[jaapv]

Don probably meant that the floating element shift was out of tolerance.
It has to be machined to 1/1000th of a mm and on early lenses that requirement was not always met. If you had sent the lens to Solms it would have been repaired free of charge. Germany has no guaranty restriction for second owners or grey import and has a habit of extending courtesy repairs in such cases.

 

[monk3ym4jik]

Thanks for all the info guys. It sounds like I need to procure an ASPH to try it out and then decide for myself.

Though after hearing all the info, I have a feeling I will like the ASPH lol... my wallet gently weeps lol...