Quality Performance of pre-ASPH lenses (50, 35, etc.) on M9 vs. M8?

[previlo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi there,

I would be interested to hear your opinions and "real world" experiences with pre-ASPH lenses (like Summilux/ Summicron 35, Summilux 50, etc.) on the M9 vs. M8

The reason why I am asking, well, it is somehow "known" that some pre-ASPH lenses do not perform as good as their successors on the M8, some more marginal (like the 35 Summicron iV vs. ASPH), some clearly (like the 50 Summilux pre-ASPH vs ASPH, corner, edges, etc.).

I would be interested to know if the firmware (where you can select in the menue of the M9 which lenses you are using) is taking this into account and is doing some image processing to enhance the quality of the images (like it does for example for vignetting).

Any comments/ experiences for example with a M8 vs. a M9 with a Summilux 50 pre-ASPH?

Do you think the pre-ASPH 50 Summilux does produce better image quality on the M9 (besides the M9 advantages of resolution, higher ISO, etc.)?

 

Thanks

Oliver

[Advertisement]

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

[sanyasi]

You might want to subscribe to Sean Reid's reviews and commentary, well worth the nominal annual charge of $25 or $35 bucks if I recall correctly. He does extensive testing and I have read many of his reviews. Read for yourself, but he seems to conclude that the ASPH lenses are very sharp and that pre-ASPH lenses are softer. He doesn't view the pre-ASPH lenses as being deficient or as second cousins. In his view, it is a matter of preference. He provides lots of test shots and also does comparisons with Zeiss and other lenses. As is true with Leica users, he seems to believe that you can't go too far wrong with a Leica lenses, whenever made.

 

Best

 

Jack Siegel

[ILC32]

I can't answer your specific question, but I can say that I am very pleased with the overall performance of my pre-asph (latest) 50 'lux on the M9. I'm sure the asph is ultimately better, but for my use the pre-asph is more than adequate.

[adan]

1. No, the firmware does nothing regarding overall lens performance. It corrects vignetting for old and new lenses alike, but mostly the vignetting specifically due to the sensor's interaction with incoming light (and not so much the vignetting inherent in the lens designs themselves). In other words, the relative performance between a pre-ASPH and an ASPH design is the same on the M9 as it was on film or the M8, more or less. That includes the 50 f/1.4 range.

 

Neither the M9 nor the M8 correct for chromatic aberrations, for example. That has to be taken care of in post-processing at some stage.

 

So - No - the M9 will not magically move pre-ASPH 50mm performance closer to ASPH performance. It may provide a limiting factor, in terms of pixel resolution, that passively allows the pre-ASPH to "catch up" to the ASPH at the "best" apertures. I.E. if the ASPH can resolve 100 lppm and the pre can resolve 70 lppm at the same aperture, and the M9 can resolve 75 lppm maximum (147 pixel per mm) then the ASPH drops to the M9 limit and is only 5 lppm "better" than the pre-ASPH.

 

2. I don't use anything except for pre-ASPH, pre-APO lenses, for various reasons.

 

a) I prefer the color balance of the Canadian era lenses - less pink

For the most part, I don't use focal lengths where the APO/ASPH benefits are most pronounced (24mm, 28 f/2, 50 f/1.4) - the exception being the 35 f/1.4, where the ASPH is in a different class @ f/1.4 (but other factors like size and price intervene).

c) There is not an APO/ASPH equivalent anyway (75 f/1.4, 90 f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit)

[Stef63]

I can't answer your specific question, but I can say that I am very pleased with the overall performance of my pre-asph (latest) 50 'lux on the M9. I'm sure the asph is ultimately better, but for my use the pre-asph is more than adequate.

 

Ditto here. Pre-asph 50 Lux. Of course I can't compare with the 50 asp but I can with another 1.4 50 mm (the Canon EF version). The Leica is for my taste miles "better" than the Canon. On pure image quality elements the difference might not be that great, but the German lens shows certainly more "character" and for me the images are more pleasing and less "digital" than those from the Japanese sister lens. Also the out of focus rendering of highlights is superb. The 8 blade diaphragm versus the 12 blade german certainly helps to produce truly circular OOF highlights.

 

Remember that the design of this lens dates back to the early 60s and currently still beat's most competitors. For that reason only I handle this lens with great respect.

[geesbert]

when I got the M8 i still had my pre asph 50 lux and my 35cron 4th from my M6 days, so I used them and was happy, but then I thought going ASPH is the way to go, so I bought a 50 asph and a 35 cron asph. then I got a M9. Yes, the ASPHS are a tad sharper and show less vignetting, but after a while i sold them to revert to Mandler's beauties for a few reasons: first they are quite a bit smaller, which is one of the greatest aspects of the Leica M system, Furthermore I prefer the overall rendering of the earlier lenses, and then I think the handling is better, especially with the 50 lux, somehow the placing of the focus ring didn't fit my hands, I couldn't really get used to it tin the few months I owned this lens. then I prefer the hood of the pre-Asph. I got a focus lever attached to mine, so now it is my perfect 50...

 

the 35 presaph cron 4th is an unbelievable lens, it's my all time favourite, it's sharp, it's contrasty, its bokeh is fabulous, it is as tiny as they get, focussing is very quick, it's fast enough for most situations, it is well made and affordable.

 

BTW: my daughter's jacket is gray, not purple.

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!

[dseelig]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I loved the 50 pre asphericl on tri x and hated it on the m8 and m9 . There is something about digital that wants sharpness. Just my 2 cents

[yanidel]

I am currently using both the 35mm Lux Asph and 35mm Cron IV on the M9. I had also used them a lot on the M8. The main differences between them on the M9 are the corners which are much better on the Asph from F2 to F5.6. It was a non issue on the M8 because of the crop factor.

This being said, when you shoot large apertures, usually you have thin DOF's so corners don't matter that much to me.

[yanidel]

To illustrate, here is a shot M9 + Cron IV at F2 with a crop of the bottom left corner

 

 

[okram]

Yanidel, now I am interested in this lens and I thought I would never be.

Please, post some more (whole plus 100% on M9).

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Marko

[jonoslack]

the 35 presaph cron 4th is an unbelievable lens, it's my all time favourite, it's sharp, it's contrasty, its bokeh is fabulous, it is as tiny as they get, focussing is very quick, it's fast enough for most situations, it is well made and affordable.

 

BTW: my daughter's jacket is gray, not purple.

 

Hi There

Great example of the IV - incidentally, with respect to your daughters purple jacket - which converter did you use? I think we all understand that Leica made a well considered compromise with the IR filter, and that there are some synthetic materials which still beat it (Lowepro camera straps are almost as bad as your daughter's jacket). The converter does make a difference, but even if it's still there, you should be able to deal with it by dropping the Magenta illumination and saturation by a little, which shouldn't have a noticeable effect on the rest of the colour (at least, in Aperture that's what I've done on the rare occasions when it's necessary).

[jonoslack]

Don't forget the lowly Summarits!

Hi There - Of course, lenses are a pretty subjective discussion, but if you're tending towards the older pre-asph lenses, then don't forget the modern summarit's, they're a little slower, but if you can deal with that, they're small, relatively affordable and (to my eyes at least) have the 'feel' of the pre-asph lenses, but they're sharp to the corners. The ones I've tried work really well on the M9, and they're probably going to be cheaper than a secondhand 35 IV, or pre-asph lux, and (personally) I like them better than the 50 and 35 'crons.

[telewatt]

.... a lens from the 60th to now..... if they are clean and fin and you have the eye for pictures.... you will be happy!....

 

regards,

Jan

[glenerrolrd]

If I read the original post correctly..the poster wants to know if the opinion of the pre asph has changed as you move from the M8 to the M9. In almost all cases the newer lens will have better contrast ,resolution and color saturation. The wide angles have better edge sharpness and the telephotos less CA. On the M9 ..FF and higher MP you can see the differences much easier.

 

This doesn t mean that the pre asph aren t desirable they are just different in how they render. I do use the pre asph frequently because they provide the rendering I am looking for( as in the picture of the young girl..excellent choice ). But the asph are great on the M9 and I use them more frequently.

 

The stronger performance of the asph makes them the prefered alternative on the M9 ..and yes this has changed moving from the M8 to the M9.

[yanidel]

Yanidel, now I am interested in this lens and I thought I would never be.

Please, post some more (whole plus 100% on M9).

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Marko

Here are two more shots. An architectural one at F2. You will notice the vignetting + decrease of resolution in corners. Also note some glow on the posts. This is perfect if you want a "dreamy" look but if you want very sharp, either you stop down at F8 or you use the Asph version.

 

 

Now in street photography where subject is more often not in the corners and with so many variables that can go wrong, differences between the Asph and Pre-Asph version will not be the decisive factor. So here is a shot with the Cron IV at F4, after post processing. Look at the corresponding center crop, it is well sharp enough and definitely not the main criteria to assess whether this shot is a good one or not.

 

\

 

Personally I will use the 35mm Lux Asph more because it gives me F1.4 and its corresponding look (which has similarities with the F2 Cron IV). But when I want a small combo to fit in my coat pocket, the M9 + 35 Cron IV will be an as good alternative.

[okram]

Merci beaucoup.

 

 

M

[thompsonkirk]

Query: What is the close-focusing distance on the 35 pre-asph Summilux that uses series 7 filters? Is it 1m instead of .7m?

 

Kirk

[adan]

Kirk: Actually, I think the scale goes down to 3 feet even. The one I had, the RF cut out right at one meter on the M9. I believe because the RF follower wheel in the M9 was hitting something on the lens - possibly the edge of rear element itself - at any rate there was a tiny "click" and the RF would cease to move even thought the lens moved further (and focused closer)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[haroldp]

 

the 35 presaph cron 4th is an unbelievable lens, it's my all time favourite, it's sharp, it's contrasty, its bokeh is fabulous, it is as tiny as they get, focussing is very quick, it's fast enough for most situations, it is well made and affordable.

 

 

I have a wide selection, If I could only have one, this would be it.

 

Regards ... H