APO 50 images

[Neko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

at the end we stand alone. by Jan Hartmann, auf Flickr

 

 Very moody. There is a threatening atmosphere about it.... Like it.

[steppenw0lf]

Just wondering 

 

I have the same impression. I like the Summicron-M 50 just as well. I think it is extremely undervalued since the arrival of the Apo50. It is now almost "untouchable", no comparison with the Apo to be found.

I know that the small size and resolution limits in this forum do no justice to the Apo50, but also the examples on Flickr are not convincing. (That the Apo is significantly different. Some Flickr photos are actually rather mediocre, the old 60mm Macro is giving better results, even landscape photos taken with the silver Elmar 4/135 showed more "punch" and detail).

I have seen photos with the M 28 that I found more impressive (regarding sharpness). also close-up photos with the new Trioplan that had more atmosphere, and finally also photos taken with Zeiss ZM (50 and 25) that looked more appealing and more "typically Leica".

This is all about feelings and personal impressions, the obvious and objective quality of the lens is not damaged by that.

 

After months of observation I am simply not convinced. It is still the photographer and not this lens that creates extraordinary results. In my hands I think this will make no difference. And so I took the money saved for this lens and bought the SL 90-280 instead. Much bigger, I know, but really outstanding in its results. After using it for a month I have the feeling I have here really something special for my money. Currently I'm full of pleasure about this decision and the results.  

 

I can easily understand that others have different feelings and impressions. No need for flames.

Edited August 19, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest camera man]

This image might surprise you. It's the last version of the Summicron 50mm f2.0, no APO here. It was shot on a Film MP with Delta 100 stock.

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!

Edited August 19, 2016 by camera man

[james.liam]

I have the same impression. I like the Summicron-M 50 just as well. I think it is extremely undervalued since the arrival of the Apo50. It is now almost "untouchable", no comparison with the Apo to be found.

 

Lloyd Chambers did exactly that and the 37 year-old Summicron-M 50 acquits itself startlingly well by f/5.6 in comparison. The differences are minimal.

 

I know that the small size and resolution limits in this forum do no justice to the Apo50, but also the examples on Flickr are not convincing. (That the Apo is significantly different. Some Flickr photos are actually rather mediocre, the old 60mm Macro is giving better results, even landscape photos taken with the silver Elmar 4/135 showed more "punch" and detail).

I have seen photos with the M 28 that I found more impressive (regarding sharpness). also close-up photos with the new Trioplan that had more atmosphere, and finally also photos taken with Zeiss ZM (50 and 25) that looked more appealing and more "typically Leica". This is all about feelings and personal impressions, the obvious and objective quality of the lens is not damaged by that.

 

Read Thorsten von Overgaard's blog entries on the lens. He speaks about his initial 'disappointment' with the APO because it seemed to add nothing to the image, adding no 'signature'. The idea of "paying more for less" troubled him too. Only with time did he begin to fathom the lens' raison d'être. It is not a photographic implement with a blatant identity and place, like a Noctilux, or 75 Summilux.

 

After months of observation I am simply not convinced. It is still the photographer and not this lens that creates extraordinary results.

 

I was of the same mind and after deciding to buy one but canceling the order, opted for renting one first to see what the hubbub was all about. All's I can say is that looking at these posted images, as lovely as they are, does not justify US$7,000. To understand it, you have to look at full resolution images on a good monitor. Or a larger print. If this cannot convince you, then you've at least done your due diligence.

 

Not based on these tiny files.

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by james.liam

[pechelman]

This image might surprise you. It's the last version of the Summicron 50mm f2.0, no APO here. It was shot on a Film MP with Delta 100 stock.

 

is that Wawel?

 

nice shot regardless

[jrp]

If you are judging from 500k forum photos, then almost any lens will do. What I like about the APO is the clean image that it produces. Some call it neutrality. But whatever, it lacks the aberrations of its faster brethren. I have not tried a regular 50mm Summicron, but if you use almost any other lens at night, for example, you will get an image that requires more post processing to get rid of the oddities. Being able to use the lens wide open for a clean image extends the depth of field imaging possibilities.

 

If you are expecting a distinctive rendering signature (old style or otherwise) you are barking up the wrong tree.

[JCR33]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

SL + 50 APO making it easier to focus 

 

[jrp]

Analogue. Hmmmmm. Expensive and crackly.

[Guest camera man]

Yes it's Wawel. Being able to use a lens wide open will not extend the depth the field.

[Jeffry Abt]

JCR33 - Good shot!

[steppenw0lf]

 

Read Thorsten von Overgaard's blog entries on the lens. He speaks about his initial 'disappointment' with the APO because it seemed to add nothing to the image, adding no 'signature'. The idea of "paying more for less" troubled him too. Only with time did he begin to fathom the lens' raison d'être. It is not a photographic implement with a blatant identity and place, like a Noctilux, or 75 Summilux.

After months of observation I am simply not convinced. It is still the photographer and not this lens that creates extraordinary results.

I was of the same mind and after deciding to buy one but canceling the order, opted for renting one first to see what the hubbub was all about. All's I can say is that looking at these posted images, as lovely as they are, does not justify US$7,000. To understand it, you have to look at full resolution images on a good monitor. Or a larger print. If this cannot convince you, then you've at least done your due diligence.

 

 

 

Thanks that you took the time for such a detailed answer. So I'd like to explain why I made this decision.

I have been using Nikon AF since 2000 and came only back to M with the M246 (last year) and back to R with the SL (February). 

So my Leica gear is from the late 80s and mainly from the 90s. I kept all of it, added even a few once expensive items, but used them rarely. Times were different and also photographers (amateurs) were different in the 90s.

So when I came back I found it strange how important it was to amateurs to have the very best lens. Not to have the best results and create the most ingenious photos! Nowadays creativity often stops at taking pictures of exotic meals and post them on fora !!!

Before, it was clearly desirable to have both new and older lenses and to compare them (play around with them, "test them"). It was interesting to see what could be achieved with each lens. But not which lens was "best". Today typically amateurs test a few shots, in order to sell the "inferior" lens as soon as possible. They have to optimize their "lens portfolio". No room for older lenses, like there is no room for "weaker" shares in a real portfolio.

It was in the past understood that it is not mandatory to have the best equipment to produce masterpieces. As if a great painter could only produce important works when using the best brushes, the finest canvas and the longest-lasting pigments. We know now that these fine materials are mainly used by restaurators, who try to fix ancient art, but are not often creating anything worth noting by themselves.

 

So I was never disappointed by the Apo50. (I have the 35mm equivalents - Summilux AA and Summicron-M V4 - from the 90s and know how small the difference is in real photos.) I never expected "wonders". (Not as Overgaard decribes).

I was just surprised how little I found - neither in the Leica brochures, nor in the fora, nor in the the internet photo places (Flickr etc.)

I found only a lot of hype and make-believe that any other equipment is inferior (I can understand this from professionals = sellers, but why from amateurs ? Often amateurs who did not keep the old lens to continue making comparisons !! Or maybe never even tried the old lens.)

 

I try to put the feelings and emotions into the photos, and try to keep them away from decribing lenses.

In a way I am full of admiration that Leica took the risk to produce such extraordinary lenses. (not only the Apo50) Unfortunately it adds currently nothing to my pleasure in photography.

 

After a while I found my Summicron-M needed no replacement, but rather that an extraordinary AF lens (SL 90-280) would make a better addition because it gives me more possibilities to enjoy photography than before.

 

The money can only be spent once . Maybe the Apo50 is the better lens. But the SL 90-280 was the better decision.

Edited August 21, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Mikeleica]

I have the same impression. I like the Summicron-M 50 just as well. I think it is extremely undervalued since the arrival of the Apo50. It is now almost "untouchable", no comparison with the Apo to be found.

I know that the small size and resolution limits in this forum do no justice to the Apo50, but also the examples on Flickr are not convincing. (That the Apo is significantly different. Some Flickr photos are actually rather mediocre, the old 60mm Macro is giving better results, even landscape photos taken with the silver Elmar 4/135 showed more "punch" and detail).

I have seen photos with the M 28 that I found more impressive (regarding sharpness). also close-up photos with the new Trioplan that had more atmosphere, and finally also photos taken with Zeiss ZM (50 and 25) that looked more appealing and more "typically Leica".

This is all about feelings and personal impressions, the obvious and objective quality of the lens is not damaged by that.

 

After months of observation I am simply not convinced. It is still the photographer and not this lens that creates extraordinary results. In my hands I think this will make no difference. And so I took the money saved for this lens and bought the SL 90-280 instead. Much bigger, I know, but really outstanding in its results. After using it for a month I have the feeling I have here really something special for my money. Currently I'm full of pleasure about this decision and the results.  

 

I can easily understand that others have different feelings and impressions. No need for flames.

 

 

Whew! I thought it was just me, hahaha!

 

I was in Chicago to visit friends recently and Tamarkin had one. I had my 50/2 Summicron with me along with my M240 and M4P. So I got to spend some time with the two, even took them outside and really looked for great light, cool photos and then went back to the hotel room and checked the photos out for awhile. The Apo did look smoother and better sharpness overall but when it really came down to it, I was not totally blown away by the difference to be honest.

 

I guess I was just expecting to be floored like some peeps on here seem to be, but no dice. And as far as photos go, this has nothing to do with web sized in my observation, but like you, I looked on Flickr and even 99% of the ones on here, ugh, they are just not that great of photos. 

 

It's just one of those weird things in this hobby I guess. A real photographer can make any lens look like a champ while the average Joe makes a lens like the Apo look like an underachiever, not worth the extra coin.

 

I'm just an average Joe, I'll stick with my plain 50/2.

[Exodies]

I can't see how the skill level of the photographer can make a lens look bad. It can make the picture look bad but in every shot the lens is doing what it was designed to do regardless of what it is pointed at.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Exodies

[Jan1985]

Shadowland. by Jan Hartmann, auf Flickr

[Hey You]

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!

 

I can't speak to the technical aspects of this or any other lens.  I simply love it,

[Jan1985]

Geometry in Nature. by Jan Hartmann, auf Flickr

[NB23]

Whew! I thought it was just me, hahaha!

 

I was in Chicago to visit friends recently and Tamarkin had one. I had my 50/2 Summicron with me along with my M240 and M4P. So I got to spend some time with the two, even took them outside and really looked for great light, cool photos and then went back to the hotel room and checked the photos out for awhile. The Apo did look smoother and better sharpness overall but when it really came down to it, I was not totally blown away by the difference to be honest.

 

I guess I was just expecting to be floored like some peeps on here seem to be, but no dice. And as far as photos go, this has nothing to do with web sized in my observation, but like you, I looked on Flickr and even 99% of the ones on here, ugh, they are just not that great of photos.

 

It's just one of those weird things in this hobby I guess. A real photographer can make any lens look like a champ while the average Joe makes a lens like the Apo look like an underachiever, not worth the extra coin.

 

I'm just an average Joe, I'll stick with my plain 50/2.

Man, HCB was born in the wrong era. Imagine his masterpieces if they were shot with the 50 apo! There would be a clarity and a sparkle in his work, a je-ne-sais-quoi elevating his prints even higher. His flickr feed would be awesome!

 

And yes, I'm with you: this lens in most folk's hands is a total underachiever. Even my sarcasm can't overcome my belief that even in HCB's hands this lens wouldn't elevate his work.

[EoinC]

...even in HCB's hands this lens wouldn't elevate his work.

The same statement is applicable to any lens.

[otho]

Brand of author's pen is not important during reading Poe, Pound, Balzac, Cioran, Dostoevsky etc. Brand of brush or pencil can't make Klee, Vermeer, Bosch, Leonardo, Zurbarán...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jan1985]

Bridge Smalltalk. by Jan Hartmann, auf Flickr