Which 50 to get

Hmmm! The original question lurks somewhere in my memory. Ahh! Which 50mm. My experience is only with the Summicron and the Noctiux. I still own and use both extensively. Most of my 'better' images are from the Noct, not because of the lens, but because the subject that demanded using the noct was a good image prospect. I would never use the Noct if the Summicron would cover it. Simply because the Summicron is MUCH faster the handle in a practical situation. It also less conspicuous, which matters sometimes. The Summicron is the best allround lens, whereas the Noct is a specialized lens that I would never use as my only 50 unless everything I shot was in dim light demanding fast film and speeds that no other lens can replicate. Or I want huge OOF backgrounds in all my middle distance pics in bright daylight. Its colour rendition, especially in artificial light is pleasantly warmer than other Leica lenses, which help identify its 'look'.

From hereon, YOU need to make the DECISION, the relevant info is largely before you.

Good luck, and don't hesitate, do it!

Cheers,
Erl
 
Not to slam new Leica lenses but sometimes it's possible to buy an old one near dirt cheap compared with a new one and slighter cheaper than a Voigt and less cheaper than a Zeiss, though I think Zeiss is pretty nice and priced right and that 40mm F1.4 Voigt is something worth pondering about too. I'd go for the Zeiss Planar 50mm if I needed a 50 today; actually, I'm going to go for one but not today. :cool:
 
Frank, the other good thing about vintage glass is that the build quality is sooo much better than that of any modern lens. RF lenses simply are not made the way they used to be. I have a Nikkor 50/2, Canon 50/1.5 and Rigid Leica Summicron which simply are in another league from any lens made today by any manufacturer. Optically, today's lenses are exceptional, but physically, they all seem lacking.
 
Rover, I know. That old glass was really something. Some of that old Nikkor and Pentax glass...., well, if I had only bought some of it and hung on to it. Live and learn, and then you die. :(
 
Stephanie Brim said:
Can we see photographic proof of that? Quite the claim and I'd like to see it for myself. :)
Click to expand...
See my prior post. I would LOVE for you leica fanatics to do an OBJECTIVE test of your leica lenses vs. Zeiss vs. Voigtlander. I would bet my car payment that you cannot justify the near $3K price of your leica lenses to Zeiss or even the Voigts. I would bet in a fair fight (blinded real life pictures (not resolution charts) taken with all brands of lenses- L, Z, V) that most of you guys could not EVEN TELL which lens took which picture, and if you could, the difference would not be worth the price.
 
And I am told of the ego of physicians! Compared to you Leica owners, I do not own the corner on that. Lots of comments about "perceived value" of Leica but not one of you offered a REAL world test done by you all- NOT a photo mag that does not want to risk advertising on proving that a lesser cost lens (Z or V) is nearly if not equal to Leica! Not one of you said "sure, let's prove this guy wrong- lets get out our lenses and see if he is right!" I did not read all the responses, but would like to be proven wrong. Show me a lines/mm test and then tell me if it is worth the price of the Leica lenses. I am not saying Leica makes poor stuff; it is the gold standard. I am just amazed at paying those prices if it is quality photos that you want. My intent was to ask a question if you guys would be willing to check on the value of your lenses. If you thought I bought inferior equipment (I can afford Leicas), then prove me wrong. If you want to spend your money on Leica, then spend it. I just want to know if there is an objective difference.
 
cme4brain,

Not that anyone here needs to justify their equipment choices, but rather to anwer your request for some objective comparisons, I would like to point you back to early in the thread where someone had already referred you to Sein Reid's tests. Here is the link, if that would make it easier for you: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml

If you are looking for lines/mm tests, Erwin Puts has them in his website: http://www.imx.nl/

I am sure it would not be difficult to find other objective tests on the photo magazine websites. Pop photo tested the 75/2 ASPH Summicron recently. Frances Schultz has a review of the same lens on the current issue of B&W Photography. Both include the resolution charts you seem to be interested in. Pop photo also tested the 50/1.4 being discussed on this thread in the issue where the MP was reviewed. I am sure these articles are in the archives of their websites. Of course, MTF graphs for all the leica lenses can be downloaded from the Leica websites. Jorge has them downloadable in RFF's sister site, www.dslrexchange.com.

However, I believe the poster's original question was more subjective, looking for a particular "look" from the 3 lenses he mentioned.

I hope these help answer your questions. If in the end, you do not agree, that is fine, too. Nobody here thinks that CV equipment is inferior. In fact, many of us also have, or have had, bessas and CV lenses. FSU's too. In fact, good photos can be made with any lens, and I would bet you too would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between photos taken from a CV lens alongside one from a good sample of a $20 Jupiter 8.

If you decide to contribute in a less argumentative, constructive way, I am sure you will enjoy this site. But if it is hostility that you want, please do not troll here. You will find the LUG or the leica forum on www.photo.net more to your liking.
 
Cme4brain, did you not see my response with the included link to your earlier request for test comparisons to the 50/1.4 apsh. Summilux? It may not be comprehensive stop for stop but it does give you a small taste of how it fares against the ZM Planar and other lenses in terms of lines per mm resolution. If you don't know how to interpret one of these, let me know and I'll translate it for you.
 
Thank you all for your posts and examples.

I have found what I was looking for, I believe- except with the possible exception of more Zeiss 50/2 examples- mostly due to the time on the market I believe.
The noctilux has the light gathering and short DOF I am looking for, but the center focus and "radial swirl" effect it seems to do on the wide open shots is not for me- though I can see its appeal to some.

The Summilux has the look I tend to like, and the sharpness in the DOF is right on.

The limited look at the Zeiss actually has me thinking against it- though I would really like to want that one, as it is of the family I love- but the images I have seen- while sharp in the DOF, outside the DOF the out of focus image does not seem to have the pleasing softness I get with the Zeiss Cinema Ultra-Primes or with the Planars made for the SLRs in Germany. There seems to be more ghosting and doubling in the backround, and less of a soft blurring. Time may show it as just user choices, but I am not sure.

I did not consider the CV 40 1.4, but if there are some galleries with that lens choice online, I would love to browse them. I tend to like longer lenses- and the 75 Lux is another great seeming choice- but a good 40 has its uses for sure!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom