Should I want the 50mm Summilux?

[akptc]

I find myself in the grips of GAS but unsure whether my “prey” is worth pursuing. Been thinking about getting the 50mm Summilux mostly because I haven’t tried one yet and it seems it’s everyone’s favorite 50mm lens. So far I have the CV 50/1.5, the Hexanon 50/2, and the 50/1.2 Canon and love them all. Being the lowly amateur that I am, would I notice much difference from Summilux relative to my current 50mm’s? I’d use it both on my R-D1 and on a film body (mostly color). Would love to hear some advice…

 

[Ronald M]

You can certainly lust for the new 50 `Lux. Don`t get to exceted over the 1962/200? version. Any `Cron is a better lens and I tried quite a few. I do appreciate the 1959/1961 version. Most did not.

The new one is a little better than the Nokton image wise and much better mechanically. $2/3 grand is a bit steep for a lens though. I`m sticking with my 50 2.8 new version, Summarit 50 1.5, Summitars, and various `Crons, and older Elmars.

 

[thomasw_]

The Summilux 50/1,4 v2 or 3 is a remarkable lens; the asph is a smashing performer. Definitely, you should want one!

 

[Paulbe]

Well --the E43 Summilux is really a good lens. But--the Summicron is super too. If you can save a few hundred $$$$--get the Summicron--or if--heaven forbid--you don't need the speed--get an Elmar. For all practical purposes--ordinary photogs like me can't really tell the difference..🙂
Paul

 

[ferider]

I have a 50/2 hexanon too. If I would look for a Summilux (but I'm done 🙂 ), I would try to find one with .7m min. focus -
only that would promise additional capabilities.

I was never tempted though because I have the C-Sonnar and love it.

Best,

Roland.

 

[cmogi10]

Yes....

Yes you should, but the Nokton is a fine performer.

The asph summilux is something else though.

 

[cnguyen]

You should... let it be a GAS attack on the 50mm lux. I have the final version lux with builtin hood and love it. By the way it has similar optical signature to the Noct and 75mm lux if you happen to crave for the later two.

 

[Rafael]

Which version do you have in mind Andy?

 

[PATB]

Well, you are not the only one with GAS attack for a 50 lux. I have the 50 cron and am very happy with it but for some irrational reason always drean of having an asph 50 lux someday 😕 . But then again, I love the 50mm focal lenght.

 

[akptc]

I see I am not alone in my Lux GAS 😀

Not sure which version I should be lusting after, probably the latest one from what I've read so far. So let's see, so far I am hearing that:

• The Lux is much better built than CV 50/1.5
• Has slighly better IQ than CV 50/1.5
• Gives different image rendering than the 50/1.5 CV
• The 50/1.4 asph is probably best but some say bokeh wide open is harsh (read on pnet)
• I might consider Sonnar 1.5 instead (hmm...)
• If going with the Summilux, best to find the one with 0.7m min focus

Much to ponder and the GAS is not going away at all 🙂

 

[rich815]

Any `Cron is a better lens and I tried quite a few.

How so? What's "better"?

I have the 50/2 Summicron DR and the 50/1.4 Summilux (pre-ASPH with hood) and find them both excellent but neither "better" than the other. Are you referring to sharpness when you say "better"? To me that's merely one criteria. The Summilux has a very distinctive look that I cannot get from my DR and in fact the Summilux is MUCH better if I need that extra stop. And sharp? It is EASILY sharp enough by FAR.

With patience one can get a pre-asph 50 'lux (maybe not the one with the hood but just before) for $900 USD.

They are great lenses. And best part of all is you can likely sell it for as much if not more than you paid if you decide it's not all you hoped, or simply find it not worth the price for what you get. Now that's a cheap "rental".....

 

[peter_n]

I would go look at flickr to see the "harsh" OOF on the 50 ASPH (if you can find it that is). Over 330 pictures taken with the lens and lots by RFF member Honus (Robert). The OOF looks pretty good on that lens (at least to my eyes).

 

[Harry Lime]

You can certainly lust for the new 50 `Lux. Don`t get to exceted over the 1962/200? version. Any `Cron is a better lens and I tried quite a few. I do appreciate the 1959/1961 version. Most did not.

The new one is a little better than the Nokton image wise and much better mechanically. $2/3 grand is a bit steep for a lens though. I`m sticking with my 50 2.8 new version, Summarit 50 1.5, Summitars, and various `Crons, and older Elmars.

Errrr, the new ASPH Lux is a good deal better than the VC Nocton. Especially close up, due to the floating element. The new Lux is acknowledged by pretty much everyone to be the best 50 ever designed. This is one of the few occasions where you really do get what you pay for.

The pre-ASPH Lux (aside from the 1959/61 version) is equal to the third incarnation of the Summicron, except of course it's a stop faster. The current version on the Cron (v4) is sharper below f4 and the corners are a touch better until about f8. I own both the Cron v4 and pre-asph Lux and you can't lose with either. I prefer the Lux for the extra speed.

 

[aizan]

nokton = great performance at a great price, but not heavy duty build
m-hexanon = great in all respects, but not f/1.4
canon = really fast, but old fashioned

i would sell all three lenses and use the proceeds to buy a pre-asph summilux, with a very eventual possible upgrade to the asph.

 

[sherm]

There's nothing one could want more in a 50 then the new Summilux. Now wanting one and paying for one are two different things............. I have owned the Nokton on a couple of different occasions and although impressive the Lux is more versatile.

Good luck with your decision

 

[Marc-A.]

I see I am not alone in my Lux GAS 😀

Oh no you're not. Here I am too. But as I would have to sell some gear to get one, I'm eager to know how it compares to the Summicron (Rigid/DR no matter) and the Nokton 50/1.5.
I add I could only afford the pre-asph (v2 or v3) but not the asph version.

Rich, your comment is very helpful:

How so? What's "better"?
I have the 50/2 Summicron DR and the 50/1.4 Summilux (pre-ASPH with hood) and find them both excellent but neither "better" than the other. Are you referring to sharpness when you say "better"? To me that's merely one criteria. The Summilux has a very distinctive look that I cannot get from my DR and in fact the Summilux is MUCH better if I need that extra stop. And sharp? It is EASILY sharp enough by FAR.

Does everyone agree with that? The Summilux pre-asph is as sharp as the Summicron (rigid/DR)? From what I see on Flickr or RFF, the Summilux has a very distinctive look, and I like it (though sometimes I find it not enough contrasty).

 

[MikeL]

I'm with Rich and Harry here, it's a really nice lens. I agree with others that when opened up a lot, the images look similar to those from a 75mm summilux and to some extent the noctilux. Maybe something to do with the amount of spherical abberation? Stopped down, I think they all look good and look similar to any other good lens. But I think this look when opened up is why people like them for portraits.

Rich, I want yours back when you are done with it.🙂 I happened upon a great deal on a rigid summicron, and I'm interested to see if I notice any differences. Probably splitting hairs if I do.

Here's a kid shot at f2.8-4, I can't remember:

 

[JNewell]

Was too poor and then too skeptical to buy one. After 35 years, finally did it (last pre-ASPH version). It's a magical lens. All those wasted years! 😀 (BTW, I've owned at least one of every 50mm Summicron and still own 3 - there's a big difference - I like the Summilux better.)

 

[maddoc]

I agree with Rich, too. The pre-ASPH 50 Summilux is even or better compared with the Summicrons I had (Rigid I and Rigid II). I also had the Nokton but didn't like the harsh look of the OOF. (I don't like ASPH glass much ....)

Since I want a Noctilux and can't afford having both, my pre-ASPH 50mm Summilux E46 will have to go ...

 

[telenous]

Does everyone agree with that? The Summilux pre-asph is as sharp as the Summicron (rigid/DR)? From what I see on Flickr or RFF, the Summilux has a very distinctive look, and I like it (though sometimes I find it not enough contrasty).

Marc,

I had for a while both lenses concurrently (Summicron DR and a Summilux from the 60's, both very clean). My preference was for the Summicron - it focused closer and the rendering appeared to me crisper/finer than the Summilux and I liked that. But it lacked f/1.4, hence the Summilux.

From memory I 'd say the Summilux seemed to me a bit contrastier while flare suppresion was far better. On the other hand it showed some barrel distortion but you wouldn't notice unless you were to shoot a brick wall (and that's how I know 😱 ; don't ask). Both handled very nicely and were built to the highest standard. All in all, the most annoying aspects of the old Summilux for me, were the 1m closest focus (a problem that was addressed in more recent samples which focus down to 0.7m) and a little fuzziness when you reached the corners wide openish. I quite agree with Mike L et. al. above that there is a family resemblance in images from the Summilux 75 and the Summilux 50 preasph.