Newest Summilux 50mm f1.4 ASPH – some feedback please

P

PhotoJ

Newbie
Local time
2:30 AM
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
7
Hi,

In addition to my question about the M7, I also would like some feedback on the performance of the latest 50mm f 1.4 Summilux ASPH. I would really like the extra stop, but have some concerns about the sharpness of the lens (I know I know, sharpness is relative). I am aware that with the older design of this lens it was necessary to stop down to f8 to get good sharpness across the field. Is this still the case?

If anyone has any personal experience with this lens I would love some feed back. I am particularly interested in how the lens handles colour and black and white. What about contrast? For arguments sake, how does it compare to the newest Summicron f 2.0?

Regards,

PhotoJ
 
they say that the new 50 1.4 asph is as perfect as it gets. Ive seen some shots, its freakishly sharp without stopping down and a real step above the last pre asph version.
 
Leica's official site has a MTF pdf you can download. The lux-asph's MTF is on par with the summicron's, which is to say, it is about as good as it gets in a lens :)

Neither the pre-asph nor the asph have sharpness problems. Erwitt, Depardon and countless others have used the pre-asph for years without problems.
 
PhotoJ said:
I am aware that with the older design of this lens it was necessary to stop down to f8 to get good sharpness across the field. Is this still the case?
Click to expand...
Where did you hear that?
 
Avotius said:
they say that the new 50 1.4 asph is as perfect as it gets. Ive seen some shots, its freakishly sharp without stopping down and a real step above the last pre asph version.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I purchased the summilux asph in Feb. of this year and have shot probably fifty rolls of Adox KB25 with it. I also used the summicron, various versions, since 1968. My experience also includes Nikkors RF and SLR, canon , Zeiss and Takumar. Without any question this is the sharpest 50 I have ever shot. Even at 1.4 it will cut you. Compared to the late summicron it makes the summicron second rate (personal view of the summicron). The closest I've found to this lens is the Nikkor 50 1.4 RF on the new S3 2000's.

As to whether this sharpness is of value in general shooting is another thing. Most lenses now are so sharp even wide open that the only way to see a real difference is to enlarge to very large sizes. I don't think there would be much difference in final prints untill you get over 16x20 inches and then the differences might not be obvious. If you're not shooting on a tripod and using film like KB25 the differences are even less. I generally enlarge to 14 inchs or so and can see very small differences in sharpness from various brands and generations of lenses.

Zeiss, leica and CV all roduce lenses that are stunning in contrast and sharpness and will be difficult to tell the difference in sharpness between the brands. I just added a CV Nokton 50 and am pleased how close the Nokton is to the image and build quality of the asph summilux. Under close examination the summilux has the advantage at 1.4 / 1.5 but it's not dramatic. I would not hesitate to shoot wide open with the CV.
 
peter_n said:
Where did you hear that?
Click to expand...

hello,

thank you for all your replies. this is very helpful. peter, i read that in leica's lens guide which i downloaded from their web site:

"On stopping down the overall contrast improves rapidly. Very fine details are rendered crisply in the center only, and rendition in the field is quite dull, if not fuzzy You need to stop down to f/8 to get very good image quality over the whole field."

now here of course they are talking about the Summilux 50mm 1.4 M - not the ASPH (sorry it had been a while since i read it). they went on to talk about the Summilux 35mm 1.4 ASPH and how it compares, but they noted that the performance in the outer zones is a bit low at all apertures for the 35mm ASPH, so was wondering if this was still the case for the newer 50mm.

regards,

photoj
 
Last edited:
:D All lenses have an optimal aperture which often seems to hover around the f5.6 to f8 mark. AFAIK sharpness does not equate with optimal. At f8 DOF may make everything in a picture look sharp, but when you open a lens up the out of focus areas are not sharp and the features of these out of focus areas are a bone of contention among many online forum members. There's no question that the 50/1.4 ASPH is sharper than anything else that Leica makes in that focal length so maybe the OOF areas are "sharper" too... :) But also remember it was HCB who said "sharpness is a bourgois concept". ;)
 
I don`t love 50/1.4 asph because of sharpness, I love it for the look, the way it renders image! very elegant,deep,smooth,creamy,sharp,textury,sparkly,highlighty,catchy,classy,contrasty
 
Magus

You are honestly trying to punch well beyond your weight. I live in london and remember a really pleasing deja vu when I saw X ray's pictures for sale in a gallery on Pimlico road (A big deal, it's the richest part of London). I especially value the fact he doesn't try to egg people into spending $3000 on a lens if they don't really need to. I accept you are entitled to your opinion, but I honestly feel it must be backed up with credentials or empirical evidence, I think you're in all honesty a nice guy, and trying to voice an honest opinion, but you are so persuasive in your writing that I worry that if your opinions are dubious or based on hearsay you are egging on people to spend money that they don't need to, I'm in no way a gearhead or a leica expert so I don't have any really cogent opinions on the difference between various lenses. What I can say is that the better the lens the more it will expose the limitations of a photographer's technique. The quality of a lens will only truly come to the fore if everything else in the chain is perfect. In other words if you can handhold a your chosen shutter speed perfectly,if you can focus accurately. if develoment is ok, if you use a high quality enlarger, if you use a top notch enlarger lens and you are a good printer then the summilux will make a difference. But it is only a step in the process and cannot be viewed in isolation, most advice tends to omit these caveats. I've long held that gear lust is a cancer within the amateur photographers community because it implies that essential problems in technique can be solved with money rather than hard work. I remember that just after I finished my post grad, my lecturer advised me to buy a medium format camera, because of the type of work I was doing. I expected a quantum leap in quality, what I got was a wake up call that I needed to get more skillful. Since then I've tried (often unsuccessfully) to moderate my gearlust, and I've always tried to put the importance of equipment into some kind of personal perspective. I guess that my philosophy is quite possibly diametrically opposed to most of that on the internet, but it is honestly held.
 
The 50 mm Summilux ASPH is widely regarded as the most optically advanced 50 mm lens available. Your questions can be answered based on the technical details. As others have mentioned, this lens has a reputation of outstanding technical and subjective performance. There are other lenses (notably the Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.5) which offer excellent performance at a lower price.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml

http://www.leica-camera.us/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_158.pdf

http://www.leica-camera.us/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_122.pdf

Random bonus link because I can't help it.

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar2.0_50mm_ZM_e/$File/Planar2.0_50mm_ZM_e.pdf
 
Last edited:
Toby said:
I've long held that gear lust is a cancer within the amateur photographers community because it implies that essential problems in technique can be solved with money rather than hard work. I remember that just after I finished my post grad, my lecturer advised me to buy a medium format camera, because of the type of work I was doing. I expected a quantum leap in quality, what I got was a wake up call that I needed to get more skillful. Since then I've tried (often unsuccessfully) to moderate my gearlust, and I've always tried to put the importance of equipment into some kind of personal perspective. I guess that my philosophy is quite possibly diametrically opposed to most of that on the internet, but it is honestly held.
Click to expand...
Well spoken. Or written. Either way, I agree with your observations, with caveats that I won't get into here. There is a big difference between being able to assess one's needs, wants, and abilities, use those assessments to properly utilize the tools that best fit, and being able to just buy something because "it's good" implicitly and believing that they will "fix" perceived problems by themselves.

This is what leads to many pointless brand-related word wars. I am somehow reminded about the "kitchen knife" thread, where various knives are discussed. In the end, the knives don't make the food, the cook does. The knives only make the cook's life easier, if the cook is at the very least competent. Spending $10,000 on a knife set is not going to make my tomatoes fresher. Nor would it magically make the butter knife cut my steak any better. Some seem to forget that although butter knives should be used for spreading butter, or the like, some people just have a gift for using them to cut just about anything. Some get the diamond cutter for the utmost T-bone cut. Overkill?

Oh, and yeah, it's a "flawed analogy" again. My bad. :p
 
quattro98 said:
Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to convey. Is sharpness not a characteristic of lenses? :confused:
Click to expand...
Sharpness is a characteristic of an image. Lenses render images. He's having a bit of fun about the typical faux pas. He's trying to "convey" that lenses are not sharp. If they were, we'd be cutting ourselves often just like we would if we were handling sharp razor blades. Or pencils.

Hence X-ray's response.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Sharpness is a characteristic of an image. Lenses render images. He's having a bit of fun about the typical faux pas. He's trying to "convey" that lenses are not sharp. If they were, we'd be cutting ourselves often just like we would if we were handling sharp razor blades. Or pencils.

Hence X-ray's response.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. :eek:
 
Toby:

You're a man of wisdom.

Thanks for the heads up on the gallery. I suspect the images came from my New York gallery, Winter Works on Paper. David Winter has really gotten my work out lately. In the past couple of months he's gotten some in some Discovery Channel promos and two feature films with the current one starring Uma Thurman. My work will appear in her bed room.

Anyone in the Atlanta area is invited to a show opening the 15th of Dec. at the Atlanta Photography Groups gallery. The show is curated by Julian Cox the photography curator of the High Museum and five of my appalachian series prints will be in the show. Hope to see you there!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom