james.liam Posted July 18, 2015 Share #1 Posted July 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) This topic has been touched upon in various threads over the past few years but I'll throw it out there again as the cost of the APO, now dipping well below US$7k, has re-entered Earth's atmosphere. I shoot the MM v.1 and started life with the pre-APO 50 but after a few years, the focus shift at the middle apertures became nettlesome and so I opted for the 50 ASPH instead. I do love it, and it resolves remarkably from ƒ/2-5.6 without the shift of the old 'cron. Many here have waxed poetic about the 'wonders' of the APO but I'm still unclear if the resolution gains over the ASPH are so great as to merit the still-significant monetary outlay. I don't shoot color so that presently isn't a factor. Thanks all, in advance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Hi james.liam, Take a look here 50 Summilux ASPH to 50 Summicron APO? Worth the trouble?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
J yung Posted July 18, 2015 Share #2 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) APO is great only if it's perfectly calibrate to your camera body. otherwise, be prepare to send it back to the factory (weeks of waiting and worrying in some country) for re-calibrate to take the full advantage of the resolution of the lens. Due to the factory loose quality control, they are mostly Front or Back focus a little. That's fine when you stop down the lens but if you mostly shoot wide open(that's what I'm doing and that's why I'm paying the extra money for..) you will be piss!! Mine was back focus a little and need to be shim to be prefect!! Sad......... I've sold my 50mm Summilux asph for it, which was in pin point focus........ even the 35 cron that was came with my M240 Safari edition was back focus and needed to be shim.......... so sad. Thanks to Leica's QC!!!!! MAKE SURE YOU CHECK CAREFULLY AND TEST IT OUT (IF Allow) BEFORE YOU PAY TO AVOID FUTURE TROUBLE!! Edited July 18, 2015 by J yung 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 18, 2015 Share #3 Posted July 18, 2015 Mostly really? May i know the source(s) of such information? Just asking as my copy of the 50/2 apo is spot on on both my M8.2 and M240. It has not the shallow DoF of the Summilux 50/1.4 anyway and the M240's sensor can hardly explore the full resolution of the lens so i don't find it a difficult lens to focus at all but it's just me perhaps i don't know. To answer the OP's question what i don't like much with my 50/1.4 asph is its rather harsh bokeh around f/2.8 and the necessity to blur some backgrounds in PP because of that. It could be worst though but i have not this problem with the 50/2 apo which has a smooth bokeh at all apertures and is also smaller and lighter than the Summilux but it does not replace the later to me. It is simply the best Summicron 50 ever made and you can count on it if you need edge to edge sharpness at all apertures but an f/1.4 lens it is not and will never be. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted July 18, 2015 Share #4 Posted July 18, 2015 These are two different lenses (self-evidently). If you shoot indoors or need the widest aperture for isolation or iso, then the Summilux is superb. If you are shooting landscapes, or situations where CA could be problematic, then the APO Summicron is unparalleled. Otherwise, the Summicron vignettes, probably more than the Summilux, which also has more bokeh-like bokeh, whereas the Summicron looks more natural. The Summilux is also relatively weak mid-field. So it depends on the kind of shots that you take, including whether f1.4 is a requirement. (I got into the Leica system because the Summilux actually delivered usable photos wide open; my Nikon glass is, typically, a disappointment until you get to f2.8. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 18, 2015 Share #5 Posted July 18, 2015 I think the strong point of the 50 apo is what it doesn't do ........ It really is one of very few lenses that add no colouration or character to the image ...... As Karbe said in his interview when the lens was released.... the 50 Apo + MM gives images that have unparalleled fidelity in that they add nothing to what is photographed and reproduce it exactly as seen. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted July 19, 2015 Author Share #6 Posted July 19, 2015 Stopped down to f/2 or 2.8, I really don't see the Summilux adding much either. It's an APO lens too, despite the absence of that label. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiepphotog Posted July 19, 2015 Share #7 Posted July 19, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Stopped down to f/2 or 2.8, I really don't see the Summilux adding much either. It's an APO lens too, despite the absence of that label. Not all APO lenses are the same. I found PF on the Lux is a non-issue, but it definitely has more than the Cron APO. And I bet if Leica actually releases a Lux 50 APO, it would be better than this one. Now, even if you don't shoot color, purple fringing does lower edge definition. The gain, however, is in the micro-contrast level so it's quite hard to spot it at web size, let alone comparing different pictures. Having shot with both, the 50 APO definitely has flatter field curvature and it's definitely superior to the Lux 50 ASPH at all apertures in this respect. The only way you know for sure is to have both and shoot both with the same scene. You owe yourself that. I doubt that anyone here would give you a satisfactory answer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted July 19, 2015 Share #8 Posted July 19, 2015 Having shot with both, the 50 APO definitely has flatter field curvature and it's definitely superior to the Lux 50 ASPH at all apertures in this respect. The only way you know for sure is to have both and shoot both with the same scene. You owe yourself that. I doubt that anyone here would give you a satisfactory answer. Given that you have to go to this extend to see the superiority of the APO. And that it's one whole stop slower, do you consider the doubling of price to be worth it? 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted July 19, 2015 Share #9 Posted July 19, 2015 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/246073-add-elmar-m-50-or-rigid-summicron-to-summilux-50-asph/ post #6 on Not the same as in print but might be helpful Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted July 19, 2015 Share #10 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) For me the advantage of APO 50 is something I never seen mentioned on LUF, Peter Karbe talks about this at the end of the article here. Seeing more details in shadows and low light. I see this clearly on b&w and color film. Perhaps this is less important for digital? Edited July 19, 2015 by Ellie 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiepphotog Posted July 19, 2015 Share #11 Posted July 19, 2015 Given that you have to go to this extend to see the superiority of the APO. And that it's one whole stop slower, do you consider the doubling of price to be worth it? To me, it is . Field curvature is the biggest beef I have with the Lux 50 ASPH. If I see it once, I'll see it again. At first, I thought I would miss that one stop, but so far I have not. Lower fringing and CA with the APO is a nice plus also. Color differentiation and shadow details, on the other hand, are not that big for me. I see the APO "signature" in those, but I tend to PP all my shots to my own style so they're moot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted July 19, 2015 Share #12 Posted July 19, 2015 For me the advantage of APO 50 is something I never seen mentioned on LUF, Peter Karbe talks about this at the end of the article here. Seeing more details in shadows and low light. I see this clearly on b&w and color film. Perhaps this is less important for digital? Digital will deal with low light more often than film due to the high ISOs, so this aspect may be more important to digital than film. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevecair Posted August 20, 2015 Share #13 Posted August 20, 2015 This topic has been touched upon in various threads over the past few years but I'll throw it out there again as the cost of the APO, now dipping well below US$7k, has re-entered Earth's atmosphere. I shoot the MM v.1 and started life with the pre-APO 50 but after a few years, the focus shift at the middle apertures became nettlesome and so I opted for the 50 ASPH instead. I do love it, and it resolves remarkably from ƒ/2-5.6 without the shift of the old 'cron. Many here have waxed poetic about the 'wonders' of the APO but I'm still unclear if the resolution gains over the ASPH are so great as to merit the still-significant monetary outlay. I don't shoot color so that presently isn't a factor. Thanks all, in advance. i have one apo and used a 35 fle and 50 fle before. i personally feel they are all great lens. but the apo has a very natural look. I would personally like to shot it with a monochrome, because the amount of resolution that it possesses. but i guess a lot of people having trouble justifying the cost, but they don't realize this is a very dedicated lens. yet this is my very own experience. to really appreciate it, one have to use it. i guess that is what photography is all about hope this helps Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted August 22, 2015 Share #14 Posted August 22, 2015 The 50/2 APO costs over 100% more than the 50/1.4 ASPH. If a person is thinking about investing in the 50/2, they would do well to ask themselves the following: What can the 50/2 do that the 50/1.4 cannot? And, is that increase in performance worth the increase in cost? No one can answer those questions for anyone other than themselves. It would be interesting to see some test prints from each lens - BIG test prints, as in 4x6 feet (or 11x14 inch prints made to the equivalent enlargement factor of 4x6 feet). This would be an interesting and revealing comparison. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.