DGA
Well-known
I really want a Summilux for myself, but the prices of the Asph versions is
very high, so I've started thinking about the pre-asph.
Then I realized I know nothing about the difference between these two lenses.
What is the real difference between the Summilux 50/1.4 Asph and pre-Asph,
In terms of characteristics and IQ?
very high, so I've started thinking about the pre-asph.
Then I realized I know nothing about the difference between these two lenses.
What is the real difference between the Summilux 50/1.4 Asph and pre-Asph,
In terms of characteristics and IQ?
ferider
Veteran
It's like the difference between 99.9% pure alcohol and a good cognac. 
Seriously, though, check the M-mount flickr group (see my signature), lots of example photos. I myself have v2 and like it. You can see some test photos of it here: http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Lenses/Summilux-v2-E43/9314412_fXwPg.
Roland.
Seriously, though, check the M-mount flickr group (see my signature), lots of example photos. I myself have v2 and like it. You can see some test photos of it here: http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Lenses/Summilux-v2-E43/9314412_fXwPg.
Roland.
Tim Gray
Well-known
v2 focuses down to 1m. v3 and the ASPH go to .7m. The ASPH is sharper and has smoother bokeh to my eye. It's better close up too. A lot of people really like the v2/v3 for portraits wide open since it softens things up a little bit.
Both are good lenses. Look at the flickr group, figure out how much you want to spend and what look you like more. Also check out that Zeiss ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar. People really like that lens too.
Both are good lenses. Look at the flickr group, figure out how much you want to spend and what look you like more. Also check out that Zeiss ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar. People really like that lens too.
peter_n
Veteran
What Tim said. I use the pre-ASPH more than the ASPH because I like people shots in the pre a bit better. I traded in a v.2 pre this year for a v.3 pre mainly because I wanted the 0.7M closest focus and shorter focus throw of the v.3. Both the v.2 and v.3 pre-ASPH lenses are excellent. The v.1 pre-ASPH is also a very good lens but many think it's soft. Personally I like it too though. All the Summilux lenses are terrific you can't go wrong.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
The out of focus rendition of the two lenses is completely different- the pre-ASPH is almost swirlier, absolutely more dramatic- where the ASPH has very smooth OOF areas. Corners are much crisper in the ASPH at wider apertures as well.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
What are you going to shoot with it? The main diff is that the ASPH is razor sharp -- arguably the best 50mm ever made for 135 format fotography. However sharpness ISNT everything. For $800 and change you can snag a nice 50 pre-asph that is superlative to your photographic skills.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I should say that I decided to go with the ASPH and do like it very much. It's very flare resistant and has good performance up close and wide open, which is why I wanted it. Other 50's I've had usually let me down on one or more of those qualities which led me to seek out the ASPH. I had the 50 Summicron before, and while it had great performance up close, wide open was only f/2 (a bit slow), and it flared at inopportune times. My Canon 50/1.4 EF, well, it gets a bit mushy wide open. The ASPH might have less 'character', but it is super dependable - it takes anything your throw at it.
As far as shooting portraits with it, I use it all the time and nobody seems to complain that it's too sharp. For me, it was the right choice. Check out those flickr pictures. The difference isn't all that subtle.
As far as shooting portraits with it, I use it all the time and nobody seems to complain that it's too sharp. For me, it was the right choice. Check out those flickr pictures. The difference isn't all that subtle.
maddoc
... likes film again.
If I would have to start from the scratch again, my choice would be the 50/1.4 ASPH. That lens and the 28/2.8 ASPH would make a very good set-up.
ampguy
Veteran
The pre-asph, certain versions, are smaller and lighter than the asph.
Within the pre-asphs, the black v3s are lighter than earlier V2 black and chromes. V3 also has a ~ 120 deg focus throw, with V2 having 180 deg.
There are some special versions among the V3s, for example, there is an LTM with E46 filter, but still 1m or 0.9m min. focus distance.
The pre-asph has "field curvature" at least in some V2 versions. This can be an advantage in giving you more DOF in edges than in center. It can be advantageous in landscapes if there is a close tree that you want to get the branches in focus in, but rest of field is infinity.
Within the pre-asphs, the black v3s are lighter than earlier V2 black and chromes. V3 also has a ~ 120 deg focus throw, with V2 having 180 deg.
There are some special versions among the V3s, for example, there is an LTM with E46 filter, but still 1m or 0.9m min. focus distance.
The pre-asph has "field curvature" at least in some V2 versions. This can be an advantage in giving you more DOF in edges than in center. It can be advantageous in landscapes if there is a close tree that you want to get the branches in focus in, but rest of field is infinity.
Rico
Well-known
Long throw is one reason I bought v2: the resulting DOF scale is a thing of beauty.
J. Borger
Well-known
50mm Asph is a great lens but i dumped it in favour of a pre-asph.
I simply am not fond of the signature of asph lenses, especialy not with digital. Just tired of the sharp clinical look and a fan of the Mandler look.
This is very personal of course. Keep in mind: i shoot B&W 99%!! If i would shoot color i might stay with the asph.
For the pre-asph lenses i used to own the last that focussed down to 0,7 m and now own the v2 (E43).
V2 is Very compact and wonderful build. It handles like a dream and has a very usable scale for zone focussing (which the asph lacks!!)! Very important to me.
I simply am not fond of the signature of asph lenses, especialy not with digital. Just tired of the sharp clinical look and a fan of the Mandler look.
This is very personal of course. Keep in mind: i shoot B&W 99%!! If i would shoot color i might stay with the asph.
For the pre-asph lenses i used to own the last that focussed down to 0,7 m and now own the v2 (E43).
V2 is Very compact and wonderful build. It handles like a dream and has a very usable scale for zone focussing (which the asph lacks!!)! Very important to me.
Damaso
Photojournalist
I think it all comes down to signature. If you love super sharp lenses then the Asph is for you. Don't get me wrong it renders light very well. I have a pre-apsh and for the work I do it is great. If you want maximum resolving power get the latest and greatest, if you want a more "classic" look get one of the pre-asph versions...
DGA
Well-known
Thank you, all, very much.
I'm a Black-White, TriX-in-Rodinal man. Sharpness is not the main thing I look in a lens
(For the sharp look I have my Digital Canon EOS kit)
It looks like the pre-Asph V3 is the lens I want.
Well, the hunt starts once again
Damaso, gorgeous photo, BTW.
I'm a Black-White, TriX-in-Rodinal man. Sharpness is not the main thing I look in a lens
(For the sharp look I have my Digital Canon EOS kit)
It looks like the pre-Asph V3 is the lens I want.
Well, the hunt starts once again
Damaso, gorgeous photo, BTW.
ferider
Veteran
Think twice about v3 vs v2. v2 is smaller, better built, cheaper, and the long throw helps for critical focusing. RFF wisdom says 0.7m are indispensable (I used to belong to this camp, too), but when you want to get closer than 1m, you can use a 90 .... I had both v[23], I like the v2 better. This was shot with v3, BTW:
Roland.
Roland.
Damaso
Photojournalist
Thanks for the kind words. I have the v2 and desperately want the v3. For me the closer focusing distance is really important, I've also heard the throw on the v3 is shorter and I like the idea of a built in hood, even if it is not quite as good as the detachable one on my v2. IN reality both lenses are great but when you shoot as much as I do the little details become increasingly important...
W
Way
Guest
I had a v.4 lux and traded it in for the asph lux. For some reason I like the pre asph better. It gave a more "classic" look to the pictures. Also, the asph's focus ring has a gritty feel to it even after a CLA. It's also a longer lens and I 'd like a shorter, more compact one. I'm now looking for a nice v.4.
Last edited by a moderator:
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
I now have a newly acquired blk 1973 version,,,
had a chrome 1963 version, this shot is from the 1963 lux...
had a chrome 1963 version, this shot is from the 1963 lux...
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
another 1963 version
notraces
Bob Smith
peter_n
Veteran
I definitely prefer the v.3 pre-ASPH to the v.2. If you use just a 50 as a carry-round lens that 0.7M focus can be important. I use a BP version and the build quality is substantial, but I absolutely don't like the slide-out hood, it is rubbish as are many of Leica's hoods. I've got a short 35mm W screwed into mine.