Summilux 50 f1.4 ASPH & New C/V 50mm f1.5ASPH some images

[Lightwrangler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

just a clarification.

 

The purple halo that you see, is not "fringing" (which is actually a sensor issue occurring where high contrast zones show up), that is in fact an optical Chromatic Aberration (of the lens itself).

 

Sorry to be nitpicking, but that's not correct. The presented chromatic aberration of the lens is definitely called "Purple Fringing", opposed to, for example "Blooming", which would be a problem of the sensor.

 

Mike

[Mauribix]

Sorry to be nitpicking, but that's not correct. The presented chromatic aberration of the lens is definitely called "Purple Fringing", opposed to, for example "Blooming", which would be a problem of the sensor.

 

Mike

 

No problem Mike, I see you're right.

[Advertisement]

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

[michali]

@Michali, are you sure you didn't apply (or left applied) the automatic CA correction when developing the file?

If this is not the case, well, the summilux is once again a clear winner even if, since I had both the CV and the Leica, this is not my personal experience.

 

Ciao,

Maurizio

 

Maurizio- I never ran the images through LR or PS. I opened the DNGs in Mac Preview and then converted to Jpeg without any post processing whatsoever. I shot these images into extremely bright sunlight.

 

Looking at the difference between the Leica and C/V lenses there's nothing in the C/V images that can't be corrected in post processing.

 

I had a Noctilux 0.95 which gave me the same if not more purple fringing wide open than the C/V does in these examples.

The 50mm Summilux is just an exceptional lens, but to be perfectly honest, none of this is justified in the price difference.

 

The second camera I ever used and owned was a Leica M3 in 1974, and since then I've been hooked on Leica and have accumulated a number of Leicas.

I consider myself very fortunate to be in a position where I don't have to compromise on quality based on price. However things seem to be changing; as technology improves, the opposition is catching up fast and the price difference becomes more difficult to justify or accept.

Edited June 26, 2013 by michali

[Mauribix]

Ciao Mike,

thank you for having clarified that. What I think then, is that the APO correction of the Summilux 50 ASPH is doing its job amazingly well then.

Even if the lens is not described as "APO", I recall a Peter Karbe interview where he stated that the is actually an APO lens.

 

I'd like to test them both on my Leica M(240), I think there may be some differences then.

[gsgary]

I will post my first film shots later they look very sharp

[gsgary]

My first try with this lens, very pleased should be great when i get used to it

 

 

 

[Shade]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recall a Peter Karbe interview where he stated that the is actually an APO lens.

 

 

I remember the same. It's the only 50/1.4 in the world with ASPH, FLE, and APO. Hence the price-tag.

 

I wonder why the 50 Cron APO is more expensive though? (Sorry to be out of track).

[Mauribix]

I wonder why the 50 Cron APO is more expensive though? (Sorry to be out of track).

 

I remember another interview by Mr.Karbe (I guess it's an old LFI magazine issue), in which he stated that the project of a new Summicron 50 was there since some years, but it was not bearable to build it in terms of production costs vs IQ advantage (especially since Leica was not financially healthy at the time, and the beginning of the digital era was almost *killing* Leica).

Hence the quality of the *old* summicron 50, which is still amazing to consider how "inexpensive" it is, given its qualities.

 

I mean, as to get just a (for some slight) margin, the production costs need to rise quite a bit.