50/1.4 asph vs pre-asph - one more 50 thread

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok, I own the 50/1.4asph and find the bokeh pretty smooth.

 

Now some people write they prefer the look of the pre-asph 50/1.4

How would you describe the difference between these 2 lenses?

Where would the asph have advantages, and which things you like about the pre-asph?

 

Maybe somebody even has samples.

 

Thanks, Tom

[Advertisement]

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

[lars_bergquist]

The current Summilux is awfully sharp, AND has nice bokeh -- remember, these are different things. Sharpness is at and around the plane of focus, bokeh is how unsharp detail is rendered. When people say that the Summilux ASPH or other current Leica M lenses has unplesant bokeh (which is simply not true) they are actually saying that they do not like sharp lenses ...

 

The previous 50 mm Summilux (1962--1964!) has nice bokeh too, but is a bit softer especially off axis at large apertures. It delivers maximum definition at about f:8, whilst the ASPH is so sharp even at full aperture that you can shave with it. But make no mistake about it, the oldtimer is a fine optic and a real 'user lens' if you know its limitations. Both versions handle flare and reflexes better than a 50 mm Summicron; the ASPH is really outstanding in this department.

 

The 'design focal length' of Leica 50 mm lenses has always been closer to 51.5--52 mm (it is always allowed to vary a couple of tenths plus or minus, because no-tolerance manufacturing is impossible), so the equivalent on an M8 is really close to 69 mm. This is why so many people like it as a 'people lens'.

 

The old man from the Age of Berek

[tom0511]

The current Summilux is awfully sharp, AND has nice bokeh -- remember, these are different things. Sharpness is at and around the plane of focus, bokeh is how unsharp detail is rendered. When people say that the Summilux ASPH or other current Leica M lenses has unplesant bokeh (which is simply not true) they are actually saying that they do not like sharp lenses ...

 

The previous 50 mm Summilux (1962--1964!) has nice bokeh too, but is a bit softer especially off axis at large apertures. It delivers maximum definition at about f:8, whilst the ASPH is so sharp even at full aperture that you can shave with it. But make no mistake about it, the oldtimer is a fine optic and a real 'user lens' if you know its limitations. Both versions handle flare and reflexes better than a 50 mm Summicron; the ASPH is really outstanding in this department.

 

The 'design focal length' of Leica 50 mm lenses has always been closer to 51.5--52 mm (it is always allowed to vary a couple of tenths plus or minus, because no-tolerance manufacturing is impossible), so the equivalent on an M8 is really close to 69 mm. This is why so many people like it as a 'people lens'.

 

The old man from the Age of Berek

 

Lars,

do you find the sharpness in the plane of focus disturbing for portraits? So far I dont. Do you find the portraits from the pre-asph did have more "character"?

 

I recently realized that my 50 is a little longer (vs my Tri-E. at 50 which seems to be a little wider than my 50 lux)

 

Actually right now I think I prefer the 50 focal length over the 75 on the M8 for portraits.

If I use 75 or 90 its more for landscapes.

 

Thanks for your feedback,

Tom

[hankg]

The current ASPH 50/1.4 is the benchmark for 50mm lenses. Wide open I think it has very pleasing bokeh. In other situations the way it renders OOF is different then many of the older lenses known for bokeh. For some thats a good thing, for others not so good. Bokeh, unlike resolution is a subjective judgement, different people like different looks. I don't find the ASPH OOF objectionable but it's not my favorite. I prefer the Zeiss and the preASPH Leica's on that score.

 

You can have a look at comparisons of some fast 50's here:

Luminous landscape

 

You'll find lots of samples on Flickr of varying degrees of quality

 

preASPH 50:

Flickr: Leica Summilux-M 50mm

 

ASPH 50:

Flickr: Leica Summilux 50/1.4 ASPH

 

Zeiss 50/2 Planar ZM (at $600 worth considering)

Flickr: ZM Planar 50mm

 

Sean Reid also has an excellent review of 50's for the M8 at his pay site reidreviews.com (the preASPH 50 nis not included). I have never seen a head to head comparison between the 2 50's. On edge to edge and wide open resolution performance the ASPH would come out ahead by a large margin but in real world picture taking it depends on what your looking for. I acquired a preASPH 50 to use as a portrait lens on the M8.

[ddp]

I recently borrowed a 50/1.4 pre-asph for a week....keep in mind, I shoot film with my M's, but for the work I want to do with it - portraits in varied lighting conditions, it did exactly what I expected. The OOF areas were what I was looking for, and the Tri-X & Portra shots were rendered like I want them to be.

 

I have the chance to buy a new old stock 50/1.4 pre-asph LHSA black paint lens, and will do so shortly. I prefer the focusing barrel and smoothness on this variation as well.

 

In my book - the 50 pre-asph was a great lens for 40 years...

[wparsonsgisnet]

I used both and bought the 1.4 asph when it was announced based simply on my experience with the 35 'lux asph. The asph version of the 35 'lux is vastly superior to the non-asph version, on the basis of flare.

 

Because of my joyful experience with the 35' lux asph, I ordered the 50 'lux asph -- even tho I was perfectly happy with the non-asph version. Some here have complained about flare in the older 50. I did not have a problem in this area.

 

Disclosure: I also have the 50 f2.0 DR, and intend to keep it. If you are thinking of this lens (Lars mentions the general version of the lens, above), it is warm, has magnificent bokeh, and is the easiest focusing lens I have ever used. The images from this lens are my favorite over the past 4 decades of Leica usage.

 

As I understand it, lenses are usually aligned to optimal focus at infinity. When they are examined, the natural focus point is determined. In the 60's, when 50mm lenses were discovered to focus naturally at 20' they were aligned to focus optimally at 20'. Then they were adapted for dual-range focusing and made into normal plus macro lenses, and received the DR designation.

 

Regards,

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've used both lenses fairly extensively and would consider each excellent. My personal preference is for the 50 ASPH because for my taste the bokeh produced by that lens is sublime. Another difference to consider is that the pre-ASPH 50 lux has a minimum focusing distance of 40 inches, whereas the 50 ASPH has close focus of 27.5 inches. I find that significant for a lot of my work.

[ddp]

Brent, the final version of the Pre-asph focuses to the same limit as the asph....at least the one I used did.

[macusque]

I can't comment on the pre-asph Summilux, but my 50 Asph gives different background and foreground bokeh.

While background bokeh is excellent, foreground bokeh is sometimes disturbing.

 

Has anyone found the same or is it just me ?

[Ben Marks]

Attached is a shot with the 50/1.4 Asph from last weekend on the R-D1. Ordinary caveats for down-res'ing for the web and so on. I have a lot of 50's including an early 1.4 Summilux (which I told myself I would sell, but which I seem to be not selling, if you know what I mean) a DR 50 and the recent Planar. The problem is that each is a little different and all have appealing qualities. No question that the current 50/1.4 Asph is an absolutely superb lens. One could always try a version of the older lens and sell it for what one paid for it, if unhappy with the results.

 

Ben Marks

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!

[lct]

Of all my Leica 50 (asph and pre-asph 'lux, old and current Elmar, # 11819 'cron) the 50/1.4 asph axhibits i would not say the 'harshest' but honestly the least smooth bokeh.

I compared the pre-asph and asph Summilux here but i don't seem to recall where sorry.

Now i did it with the R-D1 so perhaps there is less difference with the M8 i don't know.

Anyway, see a few samples below.

 

Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph & asph, f/2.8, full frame:

http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN2714-afterweb.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN2718-afterweb.jpg

 

Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph & asph, f/2.8, 100% crop:

http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN2714-after_cropweb02.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN2718-after_cropweb02.jpg

 

Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph & asph, f/5.6, 100% crop:

http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN2716-after_cropweb02.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN2720-after_cropweb02.jpg

[carstenw]

LCT, honestly, the biggest difference to me in those images is that the sun seems to be hitting something behind the vegetation in the Lux Asph versions. I think we need portraits here to really tell the difference. I don't think I could tell the difference between your shots if there hadn't been a lighting difference.

 

Tom, another way of explaining the differences between Lux Asph and the previous Lux was given by LFI, where they explained that the Apo-75 Cron Asph is based on the design of the 50 Lux Asph, and the 75 Lux was based on the design of the 50 Lux III.

[tom0511]

I've used both lenses fairly extensively and would consider each excellent. My personal preference is for the 50 ASPH because for my taste the bokeh produced by that lens is sublime. Another difference to consider is that the pre-ASPH 50 lux has a minimum focusing distance of 40 inches, whereas the 50 ASPH has close focus of 27.5 inches. I find that significant for a lot of my work.

 

I didnt realize that difference in minimum focusing distance. Thats an argument for the asph version.

[tom0511]

No question that the current 50/1.4 Asph is an absolutely superb lens. One could always try a version of the older lens and sell it for what one paid for it, if unhappy with the results.

 

Ben Marks

 

I was thinking about doing that, get a used 50/1.4 pre-asph (if I found a good sample for a good price ) and compare it with the asph version.

[tom0511]

LCT, honestly, the biggest difference to me in those images is that the sun seems to be hitting something behind the vegetation in the Lux Asph versions. I think we need portraits here to really tell the difference. I don't think I could tell the difference between your shots if there hadn't been a lighting difference.

 

Tom, another way of explaining the differences between Lux Asph and the previous Lux was given by LFI, where they explained that the Apo-75 Cron Asph is based on the design of the 50 Lux Asph, and the 75 Lux was based on the design of the 50 Lux III.

 

Carsten, from what I see in the net I prefer the 75lux to the 75 cron images.

However my impression is that the 50asph renders a little smoother than the 75cron??

[ddp]

I didnt realize that difference in minimum focusing distance. Thats an argument for the asph version.

 

There is no difference, as I pointed out after Brent's post. The final version of the Pre-asph focuses the same as the asph.

[tom0511]

There is no difference, as I pointed out after Brent's post. The final version of the Pre-asph focuses the same as the asph.

sorry, I answered before I read your answer. thanks for the info!

[carstenw]

Tom, I also prefer the look of the 75 Lux for portraits and that slightly dreamy look, but the 75 Cron still appeals. I may end up with both (after some financial recovery time!). The 50 Lux Asph does have really good bokeh, in my experience. Which 50s do you have?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tom0511]

Tom, I also prefer the look of the 75 Lux for portraits and that slightly dreamy look, but the 75 Cron still appeals. I may end up with both (after some financial recovery time!). The 50 Lux Asph does have really good bokeh, in my experience. Which 50s do you have?

 

Carsten, dont ask! I have:

Noctilux (excuse: 1 year ago I got this lens offered for a very low price so I couldnt resist.

Summilux asph (which, after calibration, now seems to focus perfect) right now my main 50

collapsable 50/2.8 (it was a present and I dont like selling presents, I have never used this lens much but kind of like it)

older Summicron (I used this lens for years but not lately; I will sell it; I prefer the look of the 50/1.4 asph(smoother bokeh IMO and more "life" in the images).

 

And then there is the Tri-Elmar.

 

Now the first lens I have ever used on a Leica was a borrowed 50/1.4 (non-asph) about 15 years ago. At this time I could not afford such a lens but I allways liked the images I took during the time I could use it. Finally I had to give it back and used 35cron and 90Elmarit for many years.

 

Reading all the positive comments about the pre-asph version I now wonder if the pre-asph version would fit my needs /taste as good or even better as the 50asph. However nothing wrong with the 50asph, so far I really really like it a lot.

 

Carsten, regarding the 75cron: Personally I am happy with the 75lux and 90 Elmarit combination. The 90 is a mix of both worlds , in a nice size and small weight.

 

However I do find the 50s more interesting for the rangefinder-shooting portraits.

[lct]

LCT, honestly, the biggest difference to me in those images is that the sun seems to be hitting something behind the vegetation in the Lux Asph versions. I think we need portraits here to really tell the difference. I don't think I could tell the difference between your shots if there hadn't been a lighting difference....

It was exactly the same light, otherwise i would't have lost my time to take those pics.

I don't try to prove anything here, just sharing my experience.

I own both lenses and i like both.