Summicron 50 V5 vs Summilux pre-asph

[carlstrom]

Hi
I just ordered an M7 .85 and I am now looking for a normal for it. I can get either summicron V5 (latest non-aspherical) or a Summilux pre-asph for about 1500 usd, both in good condition.

This is a big investment for me, and I will not be able to buy any other lenses for some time. I want to use it both for lowlight with bw film as well as with sharp slides like provia for daylight use.

I understand the cron is sharper at large apertures, but how do they compare at say F4-8? Can you see the difference in a large print or a drumscanned slide?

Best//
Johan

 

[Rob-F]

The pre-ASPH Summilux has the reputation for being sharper, wide open, in the center of the field, while the Summicron is better at the edges and is more even across the field. But hey, if you want to do low light B&W, will you be happy with anything less than the Summilux? (OK, the 40/1.4 Nokton is a darn good lens, and might leave you enough money left over for that Summicron.)

Enjoy that M7! I have the .58 version (wide angle freak, you know). It's quite a camera!

 

[YYV_146]

The 50cron is a lot sharper at everywhere but the very center of the frame, especially in the corners. I find the 50cron a bit "bland". but it is a world-class performer wide open, matching the Zeiss 50mm f2 planar and exceeding most SLR standard lenses at all apertures.

For 135 film print, unless you pay the utmost attention to detail and use the best film available, no you won't notice a resolution difference. What I said above is for digital resolution freaks that shoot test charts and blow things up to 100%. The pre-a lux, even wide open, is a fine lens for film enlargement up to maybe 10'.

On the other hand I suggest you look at the two Zeiss ZMs. $1,500 is almost enough to get both, and each one has its merits over the Leica standards. I really like the C-sonnar's rendering, and the planar is a cheap, modern, clean-looking lens.

 

[YYV_146]

And the v3, v4 and v5 50mm summicrons are actually the same optical formula, with nothing more than design and coating differences between V3-V5. Maybe look at a v3 or v4 if your budget is tight, and get more bang for the buck?

 

[raid]

Both lenses are great lenses.
I happen to be using the Rigid Summicron as my main 50mm lens.

 

[mfogiel]

The short answer is: if you want to make portraits get the Summilux, if you want to shoot landscapes get the Summicron. Both are good enough for anything.

 

[Richard G]

That Summilux is heavy. Mine was stolen. I love its replacement, the tabbed v4 Summicron. The C Sonnar Zeiss is lighter and smaller than the Summilux, but a brave choice for your only lens. Knowing what I do now, that is actually the one I'd choose I suspect. I would miss the focus tab if I got the latest Summicron.

 

[Shac]

According to E. Puts the Summicron V3 is not the same as the V4/5. Both have 6 elements in 4 groups, but the elements themselves differ (shape & glass) as does the performance. The V4/5 are identical optically and perform "better". That said the V3 is still an excellent lens (as is the V2).
However, as "they" say - can't go wrong with any 50 Summicron

 

[puxmep]

I used Summicron v5 and Summilux v2 (43mm) shooting mostly slides. My impression is that Summicron v5 has a bit higher contrast. Shooting landscapes the lens is usually stopped down to at least f/5.6, and I could not detect a noticeable difference when viewing projected slides. One thing to note is that Summilux handles flare better which is important to me as I like shooting against the light. Summilux v2 is also not much bigger than Summicron.

 

[philipus]

Johan, which Summilux specifically is it you can get?

The most recent pre-asph is an excellent performer. In most situations mine performs as well as my Asph (I only shoot film btw).

As for weight there are black pre-asphs which are lighter than the chrome versions.

I have a Summicron v3 too which I really like. Tiny lens that handels really well. Its colour rendering is different (warmer it seems to me) than the Summiluxes (which are cooler somehow) but sharpness-wise it is really good.

Still, if I could only get one I'd go for a Summilux for the low light capability. For my photography that makes a difference.

 

[__--]

I have the last pre-ASPH version of the Summilux-50, the one that focuses to 0.75 m and uses 46mm filters, that was made until the Summilax-50 ASPH came out. It is a terrific lens, which some people, including me, prefer to the ASPH.

You also won't go wrong with an earlier Summicron-50, although the DR-Summicron, which I also have and like, although it's more flare prone than the v5.

If price is the determining factor, I would go for an earlier Summicron. If $1,500 is okay for you, I would get the Summilux-50 pre-ASPH.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Do You Know What is Really Real?
Download link for PDF file of 16-shot portfolio

 

[MCTuomey]

My brain says keep just one all-purpose 50. So, I have both ZMs and an ASPH that replaced a single pre-ASPH. C-Sonnar for portraits (yum!), Planar for anything but inside clubs, ASPH for any- and everything (fab lens but I don't actually use it much, should sell).

If I could have only one, and speed was important, it'd probably be the pre-ASPH or the ASPH. If two, the ZMs. The pre-ASPH is not very good off-center, but you don't notice it, the rendering being so good centrally.

I had a rigid summicron, really nice for B&W film, but flarey. Turned me off to 'crons.

Fifties are fifties. Does anyone happily have only one?

 

[Ronald M]

Never found a 50 lux I liked until I bought the 50 1.4 ASPH. 1952 verson has terrible distortion and not sharp across the frame until 6.3. The ASPH is a killer lens. If you like bokeh, the ASPH is the one to get.

50 version 4 or 5 is way more than decent budget 50.

I have a 3.5, 50 rigid, 1969/79, both collapsible 50`s, ASPH, Summarit 1.5, & Summitar. The newer the better is the short review.

CV are built to a price. Zeiss is better, but still built to a price.

A 2.5 50 Summarit is decent for the money unless you want a fast lens.

 

[carlstrom]

Thank you for all the input. The lux I had in mind is the E43 version which is the second newest non-asph.
I do like some speed since I only have a hasselblad and an xpan f4 in my camera bag besides the m7. But then its nice to have something sharp across the frame. There is also a difference in closest distance. Maybe I have to live with f2 for some time... Thats the direction im leaning... My main reason for getting a lux is to shoot in bars etc. I allready have a blad for shallow depth of field portraits etc. Its great to hear your opinions.
Best
Johan