Pre-asph Summilux or Summicron?

[parasko]

I am about to purchase my first Leica, an M7, and I need advice on which lens to buy. I'm adamant it will be a 50mm Leica, so which one?

The latest ASPH lenses are very contrasty and I have seen many images with blown highlights so I was hoping for a lens where I can control the contrast more in CS3. I need at least f2 and I still do want the lens to be sharp.

Questions:
1. Are the 50mm pre-asph Summilux sharper than the Summicrons? Do they have similar contrast?
2. To what extent does the Summilux block the viewfinder due to its larger size?
3. Do the same lens characteristics of the Summilux/Summicron apply to the 35mm range?

Any help appreciated. Thanks.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

...I have seen many images with blown highlights so I was hoping for a lens...

Perhaps you should blame the photographer.

...where I can control the contrast more in CS3...

There's no lack of information on a properly exposed slide or negative taken with an ASPH lens, even with the 35 Summicron ASPH. On such a slide, contrast can be controlled nicely in CS3.

...1. Are the 50mm pre-asph Summilux sharper than the Summicrons?

I'd bet the current version Summicron outperforms the pre-ASPH Summilux.

 

[Dogman]

I'm only going by reputation since the pre-aspherical Summicron is the only one I have owned. The reputation was that the Summicron was a sharper lens overall than the Summilux because the Summilux design compromised overall sharpness to achieve the extra stop in speed. Again--that was the word on the street at the time without any confirming information.

 

[Hacker]

Questions:
1. Are the 50mm pre-asph Summilux sharper than the Summicrons? Do they have similar contrast?

No at comparable wide stops. If the Lux ASPH is too contrasty, why not consider the new Summarit? I think that it is a good compromise between the ASPH and non ASPH versions. Of course, f2.5 may be something you do not like but it is very compact.

 

[parasko]

The reputation was that the Summicron was a sharper lens overall than the Summilux because the Summilux design compromised overall sharpness to achieve the extra stop in speed.

Dogman, do you have any photos to post taken with the pre-asph Summicron so I can get some idea of lens characteristics (contrast, bokeh etc)?

 

[Dogman]

Dogman, do you have any photos to post taken with the pre-asph Summicron so I can get some idea of lens characteristics (contrast, bokeh etc)?

Sorry. I have no scanner and nothing digital that takes that lens.

 

[Frank Petronio]

When people talk about a lens being contrasty it isn't the same as the overall contrast in an image. Instead they are talking about the edges and separation of tones. The ASPH lens aren't responsible for blown highlights. If anything, they should probably control the highlights even better than the older lenses.

 

[parasko]

When people talk about a lens being contrasty it isn't the same as the overall contrast in an image. Instead they are talking about the edges and separation of tones. The ASPH lens aren't responsible for blown highlights. If anything, they should probably control the highlights even better than the older lenses.

From images I have seen online, the highlights, more than the shadows, seem to be ill-affected with images taken with the latest version of lenses (whether they be Summicron, Summilux or even the new Zeiss lenses). Hence, my interest in pre-asph Leica lenses, where images I've seen are slightly 'flatter' and not so contrasty...hence easier to manipulate in CS3.

Am I wrong in thinking this? Please clarify.

 

[SDK]

I shoot color negative film and don't have problems with highlights in printing, though I am doing my own optical C-prints. I do like lenses with low flare and high contrast, like the 28mm/2.8 ASPH and the Zeiss BiogonZM lenses and 50mm/2.8 Planar, but I tend to use films that compress the tonal range like Fuji Pro 160S and Pro 400H most these days.

What sort of film and processing are you doing?

 

[Mazurka]

Dogman, do you have any photos to post taken with the pre-asph Summicron so I can get some idea of lens characteristics (contrast, bokeh etc)?

ALL versions of the 50 Crons are pre-ASPH.

 

[Mazurka]

From images I have seen online, the highlights, more than the shadows, seem to be ill-affected with images taken with the latest version of lenses (whether they be Summicron, Summilux or even the new Zeiss lenses). Hence, my interest in pre-asph Leica lenses, where images I've seen are slightly 'flatter' and not so contrasty...hence easier to manipulate in CS3.

Am I wrong in thinking this? Please clarify.

Yes. Rather than lens quality, "blown highlights" have much more to do with dynamic range of the scene and medium (film/sensor) used, exposure, processing (film and digital) and printing. I strongly suggest reading up on these topics. Compressed jpegs on the web are not reliable indicators of lens performance anyway, especially when you have no idea if the author's monitor (or even your own) was calibrated, or how well the shot was digitally processed (scanned from print/negative/slide, jpeg from camera or processed RAW, photoshopping, etc), or what compromises/preferences were made therein.

OTOH, if you are looking for a lens with low contrast, try something made in the 1950s or earlier.

 

[parasko]

I shoot color negative film and don't have problems with highlights in printing, though I am doing my own optical C-prints. I do like lenses with low flare and high contrast, like the 28mm/2.8 ASPH and the Zeiss BiogonZM lenses and 50mm/2.8 Planar, but I tend to use films that compress the tonal range like Fuji Pro 160S and Pro 400H most these days.

What sort of film and processing are you doing?

I am planning to use the latest Provia 400 for colour and for B&W I was considering trying Tri-X plus DELTA 3200 for low light photos. Does this sound like a reasonable choice if I decided to purchase the latest 50mm Summicron?

BTW, Apologies for all the newbie questions 😱

 

[pphuang]

From images I have seen online, the highlights, more than the shadows, seem to be ill-affected with images taken with the latest version of lenses (whether they be Summicron, Summilux or even the new Zeiss lenses). Hence, my interest in pre-asph Leica lenses, where images I've seen are slightly 'flatter' and not so contrasty...hence easier to manipulate in CS3.

Am I wrong in thinking this? Please clarify.

The "look" of a certain lens or film is such a personal thing. Opinions will always be quite varied, and thus somewhat confusing, but they may help point you in certain directions. However, it will probably take a lot of experimentation on your own before you finally settle on something that you find personally statisfying.

If you want a lower contrast "look," then pre-asph and older lenses are the way to go, although these lenses may also be somewhat "softer" than modern lenses (which is not necessarily a bad thing). I've been shooting with a borrowed 50 summilux pre-asph, and have really fallen in love with the look of this lens. Here's one example, shot with Ilford HP5, with a relatively high contrast back-lit scene.

You may also want to try shooting with some Tmax, which some people do not like because it looks too "flat" However, it sounds like this is exactly what you want, and may help you avoid clipping the ends of your dynamic range when shooting high contrast scenes. Tmax scans real well, and those "flat" files really give you a lot of leeway with your post-processing.

Here's what tmax 400 looks like on a very bright, sunny, contrasty day.

 

[parasko]

That's it! Thanks! This photo is exactly the level of contrast I am seeking. I'm assuming this 'look' is achieved by a combination of film type as well as the lens type. But I have the impression that if shot with the latest Summicron for instance, the backlighting of the windows in this image would appear much more harsh and contrasty..instead there is a softening glow to this image, whilst the subject still retains sharpness.

 

[Peter Klein]

The old Summilux is a great lens for available light, and for much general photography. It's not so great for landscapes where you want sharpness at the edges of the frame. Even stopped down, the 'Lux loses a bit at the edges compared to the 'Cron. You can even see it with Tri-X, more so with slower film and slide film.

If you want a lens that also shines with landscapes, and don't mind giving up one stop, you might consider a Rigid or Dual-Range Summicron from the late 50s - early 60s. The two models are optically identical, but the DR has a mount that can focus down to 18 or 19 inches if you mount a pair of "eyes."

The DR (or Rigid) is a bit less contrasty than the current Summicrons, and have the old Leica look that I think you're after. It tested *very* high in the resolution department. I have both a current formula Summicron and a DR. I prefer the DR most of the time.

One drawback is that the DR is bit heavier than the current Summicrons (it's chromed brass). Like all older lenses, they may have coating marks or fog that needs to be cleaned.

 

[parasko]

The old Summilux is a great lens for available light, and for much general photography. It's not so great for landscapes where you want sharpness at the edges of the frame. Even stopped down, the 'Lux loses a bit at the edges compared to the 'Cron. You can even see it with Tri-X, more so with slower film and slide film.

If you want a lens that also shines with landscapes, and don't mind giving up one stop, you might consider a Rigid or Dual-Range Summicron from the late 50s - early 60s. The two models are optically identical, but the DR has a mount that can focus down to 18 or 19 inches if you mount a pair of "eyes."

The DR (or Rigid) is a bit less contrasty than the current Summicrons, and have the old Leica look that I think you're after. It tested *very* high in the resolution department. I have both a current formula Summicron and a DR. I prefer the DR most of the time.

One drawback is that the DR is bit heavier than the current Summicrons (it's chromed brass). Like all older lenses, they may have coating marks or fog that needs to be cleaned.

Thanks for the advice Peter.
Others on this forum have raved about the DR. I haven't looked into this as an option. I'm not sure how practical those 'eyes' are to use though for street photography...do they remain on the lens all the time? ...the close focusing would be appealing.

 

[SDK]

Thanks for the advice Peter.
Others on this forum have raved about the DR. I haven't looked into this as an option. I'm not sure how practical those 'eyes' are to use though for street photography...do they remain on the lens all the time? ...the close focusing would be appealing.

The DR Summicron's goggle eyes are only used for the close-up range of the lens. For street photography (distances over 1m) you would detach them.

 

[SDK]

I am planning to use the latest Provia 400 for colour and for B&W I was considering trying Tri-X plus DELTA 3200 for low light photos. Does this sound like a reasonable choice if I decided to purchase the latest 50mm Summicron?

BTW, Apologies for all the newbie questions 😱

I don't know slide films so I can't comment on Provia, but the best general purpose B&W film for long tonal range and well controlled highlights are probably the C41 Kodak films that are processed in color negative film chemistry. Kodak BW400CN is extremely fine grained yet 400 ISO in speed, and does not suffer blocked highlights as easily as traditional silvver halide films like TriX or tabular grain films like Tmax 400. The Tmax films, as great as they are, is particularly susceptible to blocked highlights with over-exposure or overdevelopment due to its more linear response to light or development. Tmax films make great looking pictures when you use them carefully, but they are quite unforgiving of haphazard technique. TriX has been changed since I last used it so I don't know if it is more forgiving than it used to be, but I always thought it was too grainy. It may be better now, and is probably a lot easier to use than Tmax 400.

I have not used Delta 3200, though I used to use Kodak Tmax 3200 (no longer made), which allowed very good results in opera and theater photographs I made 20 years ago. I think Delta 3200 is supposed to have a higher true speed than the old Kodak stuff, so it is probably great, once you learn how to use it.

The main thing to do when you do get your lens is to try to learn how to use it to its best advantage with the particular films you like. I would pick just 2-3 films and try to get to know them technically, so that you can use them with confidence in the field. Learn how to meter and expose each film with your camera, bracket exposures and take notes. If you do your own B&W development with TriX and Delta 3200, also keep a good lab notebook on your development conditions and how they coordinate with slight over or underexposure of the film to home in on the best practice to achieve results that please you.

I cannot stress enough how important keeping good notes is when you are learning photography. For the darkroom this is particularly important, even for the experienced photographer, so that you can save time in processing and printing because you know what to do for the next roll of film, and you can get consistent results in your final prints, with less guesswork.