Let's see your Leica 50mm Lux Pre-ASPH Photos!

This is the black anodized version of the second version of the Summilux 50mm f/1.4. This version starts in about 1968 and was made for a long time. This particular lens is from 1981.

Erik.
 
Thanks for that Erik. It certainly was a good one - compact and light for a 1.4. I wonder who's got it now? Maybe someone in RFF :)
 
mcfingon said:
I have read that there is a lot of curvature of field with the Summilux so that could account for the lack of sharpness of a flat object, even if stopped down, Dirk. And maybe the coding you've had done to your lenses is changing the barrel distortion in software to answer Erik's question. I had a Summilux in 1993 on an M4-P, but sold it. I would like to get another similar one, but I'll have to find out what type it was from the serial number when I find a picture of it. I've got a slide of it somewhere...
Click to expand...

This really made me curious and I checked back about the distortion of the photograph.
I apologize, my memory tricked me here: there is in fact no manual distortion correction applied in post processing.

I did correct a slight bit of vertical shift for falling verticals as I stood at a too low level to photograph the building.
There can be seen a slight bit of barrel distortion in the image though - it is apparent in the bottom edge.
I can imagine though that the 6-bit coding indeed has taken care of some in camera correction indeed and the barrel distortion has been almost eliminated in camera (this is good to know for the question sometimes coming up for which focal lengths this coding is indeed useful when using a digital M - for the pre ASPH 50/1.4 it seems to be).

Erik van Straten said:
Thank you Dirk, for your comprehensive reaction. I too have the latest version of the Nokton, but I did not encounter yet the effect you discribed. When I see it, I will let you know, but maybe I will not see it, as I work only on film.
I can see that you are happy with your Summilux, your pictures are, like always, superb! And you are right that small optical imperfections have a charm all their own. I too love to work with old lenses. On film however these things work out differently. Maybe because of that I enjoy the use of modern optics too.

Erik.
Click to expand...
Thank you certainly Erik, thats too kind.
I see this a lot from either comparing digital vs film based photographs and old vs. new lenses.
I feel personally that there is just some things that should be dictated by either the medium or the lenses used that should influence the look of a photograph.

We do not only have all those many different lenses just to vary the focal length, but to actually be able to decide about a look about a photograph.

I do not enjoy to tinker with images, using filters and photoshop and such, but instead I absolutely love the power certain lenses or film types have to provide a certain look to an image entirely different to the one another lens or type of film or even a different digital sensor provides.

The more perfect modern lenses become, the cleaner and more color accurate image sensors become, the less this is a factor in an image and the more we either have to use digital technique to "imitate" a look we foresee or become entirely overruled by a perfect, crystal clear, realistic look.
The pre ASPH Summilux does have a certain look to it, I like in my images which more modern lenses do not have (and so it goes for all the wonderful vintage lenses there are, every one of them special in some way).


Here is the same 50/1.4 E46 BP:

Untitled by teknopunk.com, on Flickr
 
Just developed the test roll with the Lux. I know what you mean, Dirk. I've had Lux ASPH and Nokton 50/1.5 (both old LTM and new M), and they are definitely superior in terms of "performance" and got that extra creamy ASPH bokeh which I do like quite a bit. With that full acknowledgment, I must say there is definitely something charming about the Pre-ASPH.


Illuminated Frame by Suguru Nishioka, on Flickr

Summilux 50/1.4 Pre-ASPH E46 on M4-P, F1.4 blind hipshot.
 
For the sake of completing my test I posted above, I did a quick test shots on film.

Please note this shouldn't be taken as a serious test or really show off the technical performance of the lenses. My "testing environment" is super lousy, but that's pretty much how I do things when I actually go and shoot/develop anyway so it's a realistic test for me. ;)

Left: Lux, Right Nokton.

Lousy 23ºC Rodinal dev of expired TriX. They were scanned in using X-E1 and Elmar 50/2.8 LTM via BEOON. Identical LR adjustments. Vignetting look on the right corners isn't from the lenses.
Both shot at wide open with same shutter speed and ISO (also identical manual scanning exposure) so like the digital test, Nokton is F0.1 worth darker.

24325726683_0bfd79d5ec_b.jpg

(Larger image HERE)

24325727853_0e18655b5e_b.jpg

(Larger image HERE)


• You can see the barrel distortion on Lux that Erik was talking about. (I personally don't feel bad or distracting)
• Sharpness deference isn't really obvious as you are looking at a lowish res scan of a grainy film, but also note the focus was at the dead center of the frame so Lux does it well there anyway.
• Softness of grainy film again eases the double-lined look of the OOF rendering.
• Further confirms Lux is ever-so-slightly longer.
• Personally liking the mid-tone rendering of Lux over Nokton.
 
m6, BP Summilux 50 E46 pre asph, Tri-X @1600, Diafine

[THE IMAGE HAS BEEN DELETED]


The contrast in this image is amazing...an instant favorite.
Save
Save​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom