50 lux comparison question

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A lot has already been written here about the 50 lux asph vs the pre-asph lenses...so this is not meant to repeat all of that. But, as a result of reading lots of posts here and elsewhere, I'm contemplating getting a less expensive pre-asph rather than the new version to save some money for other toys.

 

I shoot b&w, especially street work, so that's my primary interest. My question relates to night scenes and how lights are rendered, etc. I wonder if anyone has experience (pics?) comparing the asph vs pre-asph lenses particularly in this regard. My sense is that the older lenses are less contrasty, perhaps "smoother" tones, but I've also read that they might be more prone to flare. I'm not sure that's a bad thing here since I like a more "mysterious" look rather than a pristine ultra sharp rendering.

 

Assuming there are differences in the lenses, can these be overcome through post-processing, or is the lens choice paramount to the final look?

 

I realize that I could buy the older lens, try it, and get money back if it doesn't work out. But, I thought I'd first get the view from those more expert than I.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[richam]

I have only the pre-asph version (latest). You can check out some images on Blue Parrot Darts Night. I like the way points of light are rendered, but I'll bet it's different from the asph version. (note: some of the images have focus or motion blur; I've traced this phenomenon to beer consumption, not mechanical or optical problems). MP, Neopan 1600 developed in ID-11.

[lars_bergquist]

The pre-ASPH Summilux has lower contrast compared to the ASPH. Wide open, it is quite crisp on axis, but the definition falls off toward the corners. Best definition comes as late as at f:8, which says something about the level of residual aberrations. But performance is very good all across the image field at mid-apertures.

 

The old warhorse does handle difficult lighting with aplomb. It is much less prone to flare and secondary reflections than the current Summicron. It does produce a pleasant image at all apertures, and you may well be very happy with it.( I did like it, even though I like the current version even better.) After all, it had an unbroken production run from 1962 to 2004!

 

There is however some degradation of image at close focus (1.0m as against .7 for the current ASPH) and curvature of field is apparent. But I don't think anyone in his senses would try to use a lens like this as a substitute macro optic.

 

The old man from the Age of Walter Mandler

[tgray]

I don't have the pre-ASPH lens and never have, but here's an example of how the ASPH does lights in the background. This was wide open pretty close up (on film). The lights in the background are christmas lights on a tree.

 

[Shootist]

Not a expert as I've never had the Pre-ASPH 50 but I do have the ASPH version and I would not trade it for any other lens. It is that good.

 

If you don't need the speed then look at the Summarit 50. If you need or want the f/1.4 speed then spend the money and get the ASPH.

 

There is NO other lens like it.

[doug_m]

I completely agree with Shootist. The 50 lux ASPH is one fantastic lens.

[Albert4321]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is NO other lens like it.

 

+1.

 

Best lens I ever have, nothing come close for std lens.

 

Don't worry about contrast, it is not as hi contrast as the new 35 cron or other new Zeiss lenses.

[Jeff S]

+1.

 

Don't worry about contrast, it is not as hi contrast as the new 35 cron or other new Zeiss lenses.

 

Yes, that was my understanding based on earlier threads, and one reason why I initially settled on the asph... before I ended up reading too many posts about the quality of the older lens. I'm inclined to stick with my decision, but the savings between the two seemed to warrant at least some more thought.

 

I'm still not real clear on how post-processing decisions may or may not allow for contrast/sharpness control if I still want an even more "nostalgic" look on occasion. I guess I won't know til I try.

 

Jeff

[rob_x2004]

...not real clear on how post-processing decisions may or may not allow for contrast/sharpness control

 

You wont have any room to move. It has to be right out of the box, and with your subject, not the remainder of the frame, correctly exposed.

Also beats me this "I only shoot wide open" attitude. Some people should buy star burst filters and mirror lenses.

[lars_bergquist]

I don't have the pre-ASPH lens and never have, but here's an example of how the ASPH does lights in the background. This was wide open pretty close up (on film). The lights in the background are christmas lights on a tree.

Take a look at tgray's picture. The point lights in the background are rendered as perfect discs. Now if they had been brighter in center and fainter around the circumference, we would have had undercorrected spherical aberration. Then unsharp point highlights in the foreground would have been rings of bright light with fainter interiors. In case of overcorrected spherical, the conditions, fore and aft, would have been the exact opposite. Both cases would have been detrimental to o.o.f. rendering or 'bokeh'.

 

But the discs are perfect as far as I can see! This is really unusual and tells us part of the story why the current Summilux-M 1:1.4/50mm ASPH is probably the best 50mm lens ever produced. Now if Leica can produce a digial M camera where the 50mm focal length is 'normal' again ...

 

The old man from the Age of the 50mm Zeiss Tessar

[ljclark]

Not a expert as I've never had the Pre-ASPH 50 but I do have the ASPH version and I would not trade it for any other lens. It is that good.

 

If you don't need the speed then look at the Summarit 50. If you need or want the f/1.4 speed then spend the money and get the ASPH.

 

There is NO other lens like it.

 

So there is no lens like the 50 Summilux ASPH. Big deal. What you are saying then is that the Summarit 50 is a BETTER lens for low-light work than a pre-ASPH Summilux. Rubbish.

 

Reading the OP, is seems like the search is for a fast lens -- not something 1 2/3 stops slower. There is a budgetary constraint here, and if he buys a new Summarit, he'll be paying the same as or more than a used pre-ASPH. Even with a used Summarit he'll be dogging it in low light. (If this was a commercial RFP, some of the suggestions here would be automatically rejected for being non-responsive.)

 

And for about $500 he could get a C/V 50mm Nokton and a Milich adapter.

 

My opinion is that he...

 

1. Subscribe to the Reid Reviews and get a more balanced opinion.

 

2. Consider the Nokton.

 

3. Ignore the suggestions from the "I have the best! I have the best!" crowd. (Those folks can be borderline measurebators. )

[fotografr]

I have both versions so if you can give me a day or two I'll see if I can find a suitable night shot to do a comparison and post them for you.

[Jeff S]

I have both versions so if you can give me a day or two I'll see if I can find a suitable night shot to do a comparison and post them for you.

 

Wow, now that's service! Brent, I really appreciate it. Glad I stumbled upon this forum before I made the leap into digital with significantly less informed opinion.

Jeff

[Shootist]

What seems to be your problem with me.

I find your post totally inflammatory.

I never said the Summarit is a better lens for LOW LIGHT, that is you twisting my words. What I did say was IF YOU DON'T NEED THE SPEED the summarit is a option. The OP also stated cost being a factory, but I guess you skipped that part as it didn't fit in to your personal attack of my post.

I guess you must be one of the people that like the Pre-ASPH versions better then the ASPH, whatever. This thread, or you, are not worth anymore of my time.

I suggest you have a bunch of STIFF drinks. Maybe it will kill that bug up your bunghole.

 

 

So there is no lens like the 50 Summilux ASPH. Big deal. What you are saying then is that the Summarit 50 is a BETTER lens for low-light work than a pre-ASPH Summilux. Rubbish.

 

Reading the OP, is seems like the search is for a fast lens -- not something 1 2/3 stops slower. There is a budgetary constraint here, and if he buys a new Summarit, he'll be paying the same as or more than a used pre-ASPH. Even with a used Summarit he'll be dogging it in low light. (If this was a commercial RFP, some of the suggestions here would be automatically rejected for being non-responsive.)

 

And for about $500 he could get a C/V 50mm Nokton and a Milich adapter.

 

My opinion is that he...

 

1. Subscribe to the Reid Reviews and get a more balanced opinion.

 

2. Consider the Nokton.

 

3. Ignore the suggestions from the "I have the best! I have the best!" crowd. (Those folks can be borderline measurebators. )

[offshore]

And here I thought it was all about specular highlights.

[lct]

...Assuming there are differences in the lenses, can these be overcome through post-processing, or is the lens choice paramount to the final look?...

The lens choice is determinant at f/1.4 where the 'lux asph is sharper than the pre-asph by a fairly wide margin compared to the latest pre-asph.

At slower apertures the differences lie mainly in contrast and bokeh IMHO.

The higher contrast of the asph is not difficult to adjust if you avoid blown highlights but its slightly harsher bokeh is sometimes less easy to soften if need be.

Couple of comparos with the R-D1 below FWIW.

Same light indoor (tungsten) & outdoor (cloudy).

 

F/1.4 indoor:

http://tinyurl.com/d7f4td

http://tinyurl.com/csxrdy

http://tinyurl.com/cb3qaj

 

F/2.8 indoor:

http://tinyurl.com/dzwcdp

http://tinyurl.com/d7e7qe

http://tinyurl.com/dxuyzj

 

F/2.8 outdoor:

http://tinyurl.com/cdkafb

http://tinyurl.com/cc5tpu

http://tinyurl.com/cmo75b

 

F/5.6 outdoor:

http://tinyurl.com/dlewfz

http://tinyurl.com/df45sg

http://tinyurl.com/d5o58q

[luigi bertolotti]

Not a expert as I've never had the Pre-ASPH 50 but I do have the ASPH version and I would not trade it for any other lens. It is that good.

 

If you don't need the speed then look at the Summarit 50. If you need or want the f/1.4 speed then spend the money and get the ASPH.

 

There is NO other lens like it.

 

Agree with Shootist... the 50 Asph is someway unique, but a good Summarit 1,5 is a lens that worths a lot... here an example at 1,5 with M8 :

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ljclark]

Agree with Shootist... the 50 Asph is someway unique, but a good Summarit 1,5 is a lens that's worth a lot... here an example at 1,5 with M8 :

 

(Did we mean Summarit 2.5?)

 

OK...Since the discussion has expanded to include lenses other than Summilux (pre-ASPH v ASPH), should the Zeiss Planar be considered also?

 

This appears to be a sharp lens, but certainly a contrasty one -- and it does render OOF in its own way.

 

In the context of street shooting, would this require both a different shooting technique as well as different PP objectives? It would appear that there might be a couple of approaches for the contrasty lens...

 

1. Try for maximum accuracy in exposure, or maybe a touch underexposed, and then go for the tonal gradation you want during PP. (Maximum accuracy in street photography may be a bit of an oxymoron.)

 

2. Be looser as far as exposure, but then work curves and contrast for the middle ranges during PP, and let the highlights and shadows go where they may.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Shootist]

Agree with Shootist... the 50 Asph is someway unique, but a good Summarit 1,5 is a lens that worths a lot... here an example at 1,5 with M8

 

Luigi the Summarit I was talking about was the newer one @ f/2.5.

No not a fast lens but from what I have heard it is better then the Summicron in some respects.

The older f/1.5 Summarit is another option and if you find a good copy it could be a real option to either the Pre or current ASPH.

[Jeff S]

The lens choice is determinant at f/1.4 where the 'lux asph is sharper than the pre-asph by a fairly wide margin compared to the latest pre-asph.

At slower apertures the differences lie mainly in contrast and bokeh IMHO.

The higher contrast of the asph is not difficult to adjust if you avoid blown highlights but its slightly harsher bokeh is sometimes less easy to soften if need be.

Couple of comparos with the R-D1 below FWIW.

Same light indoor (tungsten) & outdoor (cloudy).

 

Thanks...I appreciate your taking the time to post comparative pics. Maybe it's my aging eyes (or computer screen vs prints), but if I didn't scrutinize these next to each other, I probably couldn't determine which was which.

Jeff