MP/CLE
Established
Besides the focus ring, the more pronounced aperture control ring and the removable shade, what is the difference between the 50 asph 'lux and the LHSA 50 asph 'lux?
Noctilust Solved ...
- Thread starter Honus
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 63
- Views 4K
S
StuartR
Guest
Not all aspects of a lens's signature are apparent only at 40lpm. The macroscopic properties of a lens, such as overall contrast, bokeh, tonal transition, distortion, vignetting and three dimensiality are often visible in 200k web images. Many properties can be mimiced or obscured by good or poor reproduction, but by looking at a large sample of images it is certainly possible to get an idea of the character of a lens by viewing the images online. The old line that it is impossible to judge a lens based on web images is simply not the whole story. Obviously the true measure of a lens is in its output media -- whether print or projection -- but that does not mean we should give up all hope of getting a feel for a lens we do not own.
harmsr
M5 Nut
MP/CLE,
What you stated is about it. They are identical optics. The LHSA is the old styling without the tab, and no integral hood. Since their is no integral hood the filter size is 43 vs. 46 for the standard version. Focusing throw is identical.
I like them both. However, I REALLY wanted the classic styling and handling of the MP3 in chrome with all the advantages of the new MP and the reduced frame line finder. I therefore bought the MP3 set with the LHSA style lens and put my standard black one up for sale.
If you don't want to carry a seperate hood, get the standard version. I do feel that the LHSA seperate hood is a little more effetive.
If you like the focusing tab, get the standard version. If you don't, get the LHSA version. I personally prefer the lense without the tab.
Best,
Ray
What you stated is about it. They are identical optics. The LHSA is the old styling without the tab, and no integral hood. Since their is no integral hood the filter size is 43 vs. 46 for the standard version. Focusing throw is identical.
I like them both. However, I REALLY wanted the classic styling and handling of the MP3 in chrome with all the advantages of the new MP and the reduced frame line finder. I therefore bought the MP3 set with the LHSA style lens and put my standard black one up for sale.
If you don't want to carry a seperate hood, get the standard version. I do feel that the LHSA seperate hood is a little more effetive.
If you like the focusing tab, get the standard version. If you don't, get the LHSA version. I personally prefer the lense without the tab.
Best,
Ray
harmsr
M5 Nut
StuartR said:
StuartR,
Well said. Ultimate fine details and sharpness are difficult to tell on a 200K web image, but the overall signature of a lens can be seen.
Ray
Honus
carpe diem
sunsworth said:
Steve,
I made an observation regarding the potential quality of an A3 print by reviewing a 640x387 jpg. You agreed with me. Then you told me it couldn't be done.
I rest my case.
Robert
MP/CLE
Established
harmsr said:
Thanks, Ray... I appreciate the comprehensive response. The classic look of the LHSA is indeed gorgeous... particularly the scalloped focussing ring. Good choice.
sunsworth
Well-known
Robert, yes I did say that an A3 print would look good, but then I took the photograph that you refered to. I know what the scanned negative looks like. Call it insider trading if you will 🙂
Steve
Steve
Last edited:
S
StuartR
Guest
Hahaha, there's some synchronisity! I stand by my argument however! Beautiful photo, btw.
sunsworth
Well-known
So if I posted let's say an image from a late 70s 28-200mm f4.5-5.6 consumer zoom and a current Leica Summicron you'd be able to tell them apart and say which was which?
Steve
Steve
S
StuartR
Guest
I am not going to guarantee that I could, but I believe if the images were well scanned, left more or less as is (i.e. no post processing that greatly changes the contrast or sharpness etc), I could tell them apart.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
sunsworth
Well-known
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
ALmost impossibe lto say without full size samples and without assuming you used the same film on all three, a picture taken with a cheap ferrania film with a Leica lens will have that 70s feeling, I'll have a go anyway:
Egypt : cheap 1990s lens
Venice: Cheap 1970s lens
Girls: Leica
Egypt : cheap 1990s lens
Venice: Cheap 1970s lens
Girls: Leica
Last edited:
telenous
Well-known
Beautiful photos Steve. But is it not an exercise on futility to try to tell lenses apart when they are stopped down? Only the second picture is shot at a relatively wider apperture, or so it seems to me. Perhaps more proficient users will be able to judge better from colour rendition alone, I can't. But the 'lux Asph (if thats the Leica lens in question) would show itself if used wide open alongside all the other lenses, wouldn't you think?
Anyway, I 'll be game: My vote for the first picture being taken with a Leica lens.
Anyway, I 'll be game: My vote for the first picture being taken with a Leica lens.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Oops for 100s lens I meant 1970s lens, they did not make camera lenses at the time 😀
I corrected my post
I corrected my post
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Steve: 1,2: zoom; 3: leitz.
The perspective on the girls' shot is very much compressed. I expect you used a long focal length on that. DOF is shallow so can't say much about corner sharpness, it seems more logical that the Leitz shot must be a wider one. 😀
On the Egypt shot, the corners are not as sharp looking as the center, so i say that's another zoomlens-shot (stopped down).
That's my reasoning anyway, not having a Leitz lens myself.
The perspective on the girls' shot is very much compressed. I expect you used a long focal length on that. DOF is shallow so can't say much about corner sharpness, it seems more logical that the Leitz shot must be a wider one. 😀
On the Egypt shot, the corners are not as sharp looking as the center, so i say that's another zoomlens-shot (stopped down).
That's my reasoning anyway, not having a Leitz lens myself.
Honus
carpe diem
Steve,
Thanks for posting these. I am sure that if I tried to guess which lens was which, I would fail miserably. After all, I failed Ray's Lux/DR test.
If you look back at my original post, you can see that I like low-light, shallow dof black and white photography. I like photographs that can isolate a subject with a pleasing oof area. A lens that can transistion from focus to out_of_focus gracefully is one I prize. I would call it the fingerprint of the lens, for the lack of a better term. I think that Stuart has been able to articulate this much better than I have.
There is no question that the 50 Lux ASPH is capable of producing razor sharp imagery. There is plenty of technical literature available to support that fact. When I saw the subjective qualities of the lens handled so gracefully, however, is the point that I reached deep into my pocket.
Back to your 3 images - I don't see any qualities in the 1st or 3rd photos that I would use to evaluate a lens (this is not a critism of your photos, but a more selfish subjective pronouncement). I like the 2nd one (babes sucking pacifiers 😀 ), but not enough to either want the lens or reject it.
You've helped advance the conversation - so for that I will play the game:
#1 Cheap 90's zoom
#2 Leica glass
#3 Cheap 70's zoom
By the way - what were you doing with cheap SLR zooms?
Robert
Thanks for posting these. I am sure that if I tried to guess which lens was which, I would fail miserably. After all, I failed Ray's Lux/DR test.
If you look back at my original post, you can see that I like low-light, shallow dof black and white photography. I like photographs that can isolate a subject with a pleasing oof area. A lens that can transistion from focus to out_of_focus gracefully is one I prize. I would call it the fingerprint of the lens, for the lack of a better term. I think that Stuart has been able to articulate this much better than I have.
There is no question that the 50 Lux ASPH is capable of producing razor sharp imagery. There is plenty of technical literature available to support that fact. When I saw the subjective qualities of the lens handled so gracefully, however, is the point that I reached deep into my pocket.
Back to your 3 images - I don't see any qualities in the 1st or 3rd photos that I would use to evaluate a lens (this is not a critism of your photos, but a more selfish subjective pronouncement). I like the 2nd one (babes sucking pacifiers 😀 ), but not enough to either want the lens or reject it.
You've helped advance the conversation - so for that I will play the game:
#1 Cheap 90's zoom
#2 Leica glass
#3 Cheap 70's zoom
By the way - what were you doing with cheap SLR zooms?
Robert
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
When do we get the answers? I want to know how far off the mark I am 😀
