skimmel
Established
I am thinking very seriously about buying the new summilux-M ASPH 50 mm f/1.4. It's a lot of money to spend, but I want the speed of the lens. However, I don't really know a lot about the characteristics of the lens.
Specifically, I don't want it to be too contrasty or harsh. I currently use a Contax G2 and find the 45mm-G lens too contrasty for what I shoot.
For those who've used the lens, how does it compare, contrast-wise with the Summicron 50 f/2? If you know, how would you compare it with the contax G-lens?
I like the way the Summicron pictures look and would like to get a sense for how the Summilux compares.
Thanks.
Specifically, I don't want it to be too contrasty or harsh. I currently use a Contax G2 and find the 45mm-G lens too contrasty for what I shoot.
For those who've used the lens, how does it compare, contrast-wise with the Summicron 50 f/2? If you know, how would you compare it with the contax G-lens?
I like the way the Summicron pictures look and would like to get a sense for how the Summilux compares.
Thanks.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
I haven't used the asph version, I have the last e43 version which has good contrast stopped down and smoother wide open. Erwin Puts thinks the 50 1.4 asph is the best lens Leica has, for what that's worth 
Todd
Todd
Last edited by a moderator:
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
jdos2
Well-known
I've read the review and lusted after the lens. The local Evil Camera Store called to let me know they had one in stock, only $2,500. After buying the MP, 90mm AA, and 35mm Summilux ASPH, I can't rationalize it.
Especially since I do indeed already have the Contax G2 45mm, and the CZJ 50mm 1.5 for Contax, and Medium Format rigs that are awaiting their next weddings...
I want it. I've had some private discussions with people about the Summicron/Summilux, and I think the Summilux is really what I'm looking for, if not a Noc (though I think I'd prefer THAT, honestly). My gripe with the 'cron isn't that it's not sharp enough, as it is very much so. It's that flare I got with mine. Brian could answer, if he's shot with it at all, whether he's seen the same thing. Flare is a big bugaboo with me and rangefinders because there's really no way to detect it before the film is taken. What I like about both the Noctilux and the Summilux, particularly the new Summilux, is that the lenses are very hard to get to flare, much like the lenses I already have. It's a pleasure of the G2 system that none of the lenses are known to generate nasty ghosts when one least expects it.
To keep it on topic, though, I also understand that the new Summilux is not only sharp but very contrasty. I personally like that- it fits my photographic style, and I use my films and developers to increase or decrease the contrast to something I can scan (or my lab can print). I do understand that the contrast makes for extra work, care and planning at times for the difficulties associated with bringing very high contrast ranges to something printable.
If you are looking for something that can be softened up, the new Summilux ain't it. It's sharp, and only wide open demonstrates any kind of veil to reduce contrast. At all other apertures, and even wide open, contrast is probably higher than the G2 45mm wide open. Older versions, down to about f/5.6 are lower in contrast and a better bet.
Especially since I do indeed already have the Contax G2 45mm, and the CZJ 50mm 1.5 for Contax, and Medium Format rigs that are awaiting their next weddings...
I want it. I've had some private discussions with people about the Summicron/Summilux, and I think the Summilux is really what I'm looking for, if not a Noc (though I think I'd prefer THAT, honestly). My gripe with the 'cron isn't that it's not sharp enough, as it is very much so. It's that flare I got with mine. Brian could answer, if he's shot with it at all, whether he's seen the same thing. Flare is a big bugaboo with me and rangefinders because there's really no way to detect it before the film is taken. What I like about both the Noctilux and the Summilux, particularly the new Summilux, is that the lenses are very hard to get to flare, much like the lenses I already have. It's a pleasure of the G2 system that none of the lenses are known to generate nasty ghosts when one least expects it.
To keep it on topic, though, I also understand that the new Summilux is not only sharp but very contrasty. I personally like that- it fits my photographic style, and I use my films and developers to increase or decrease the contrast to something I can scan (or my lab can print). I do understand that the contrast makes for extra work, care and planning at times for the difficulties associated with bringing very high contrast ranges to something printable.
If you are looking for something that can be softened up, the new Summilux ain't it. It's sharp, and only wide open demonstrates any kind of veil to reduce contrast. At all other apertures, and even wide open, contrast is probably higher than the G2 45mm wide open. Older versions, down to about f/5.6 are lower in contrast and a better bet.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I know there are all kinds of ins and outs about this -- but just for the benefit of any newcomers who might run across these threads, I feel that someone needs to clarify that no lens can ADD contrast!
In other words, all lenses reduce contrast somewhat, compared to the brightness values of the original scene. It's just that some lenses reduce it less than others.
And... the way a lens reduces contrast is to scatter non-image-forming light into dark areas of the image, so reducing contrast is actually reducing the amount of information transmitted by the lens.
In theory that's all bad -- although in practice, a certain amount of contrast reduction can make the lens "friendlier" to the contrast limitations of your image-capture medium (film, imager, etc.)
But it explains why lens designers always seem to be striving for the highest image contrast possible... even when photographers might prefer a lens that produces lower picture contrast.
In other words, all lenses reduce contrast somewhat, compared to the brightness values of the original scene. It's just that some lenses reduce it less than others.
And... the way a lens reduces contrast is to scatter non-image-forming light into dark areas of the image, so reducing contrast is actually reducing the amount of information transmitted by the lens.
In theory that's all bad -- although in practice, a certain amount of contrast reduction can make the lens "friendlier" to the contrast limitations of your image-capture medium (film, imager, etc.)
But it explains why lens designers always seem to be striving for the highest image contrast possible... even when photographers might prefer a lens that produces lower picture contrast.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
jlw said:
Very informative. Thanks for the clarification.
skimmel
Established
Thank you for everyone's input.
I have a follow-up question: I took a series of photos with the Summicron f/2 and compared with the G2 45mm, and very much liked the Summicron better.
I guess then the question is: is the "fingerprint" of the new 50 Aspheric more "Leica-like" or closer to "zeiss-like"? (I realize these are subjective issues and also that I may not be using the correct terms, but hopefully this makes sense. I'm relatively new to the whole rangefinder scene, having just "discovered" it after about 30 years of photography as a hobby.)
I have a follow-up question: I took a series of photos with the Summicron f/2 and compared with the G2 45mm, and very much liked the Summicron better.
I guess then the question is: is the "fingerprint" of the new 50 Aspheric more "Leica-like" or closer to "zeiss-like"? (I realize these are subjective issues and also that I may not be using the correct terms, but hopefully this makes sense. I'm relatively new to the whole rangefinder scene, having just "discovered" it after about 30 years of photography as a hobby.)