Just tested the 50 Lux and Cron 50mm my M9...

[Shootist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The latest ASPH. version. Both are the current model. The Summilux is one year old. I have not noticed such critical quality issues with the M8.2 because it crops most of the problem away. On the M9 the problem is very apparent. That is why when I received the M9 I noticed right away and was not happy with the pictures blaming myself. After several weeks of the problem persisting I started testing and the problem was evident.

 

 

Then there is something wrong with your version of the Lux ASPH.

I've had both lenses and the Lux is superior to the Cron in all respects at all f/stops.

I no longer own a Cron 50 as the Lux was, is and aways will be better, at least my version is.

[Jerry_R]

the Lux is superior to the Cron in all respects at all f/stops.

Does above apply to all focals or only to 50mm?

 

I have read in few places opposite, that CRONs are sharper than LUXes at 5.6 or 8.

(diffraction starts earlier, focus shift, general design - wide pays price for being wide at lower f-stops)

[Shootist]

Does above apply to all focals or only to 50mm?

 

I have read in few places opposite, that CRONs are sharper than LUXes at 5.6 or 8.

(diffraction starts earlier, focus shift, general design - wide pays price for being wide at lower f-stops)

 

In my experience the 50mm Summilux ASPH is better then any other lens ever made in any focal length at any f/stop. The next best lens is the 75mm Summicron ASPH.

 

The original 24mm Elmarit ASPH is of equal quality to the 75.

[jaapv]

+1 with a vote for the apo-summicron M 90 asph...

[Jeff S]

Similar feelings here. I love my 50 Summilux asph and 75 Summicron asph. After my film days, these lenses seem to have the perfect blending of "old" and "new" Leica lens characteristics...technically magnificent, yet not too clinical...for lack of a better description.

 

For the OP, I suspect the 50 Summicron asph (I sold mine) might be a bit more contrasty, with perhaps more apparent sharpness, but the 50 Summilux has all the sharpness I could ever want, but with a wonderful draw. I hope he gets his sorted out. Nobody should be unhappy with this lens...ever.

 

I also enjoy the 28 Summicron asph...for somewhat similar reasons. On the M8.2, it gets the most use next to the 50 Summilux. My 35 Summicron asph, by comparison, is great for a one lens approach, but I find it a bit contrasty, with some focus shift at f4 and f5.6. It lacks the same magic, but still does everything pretty darned well. But, if the forthcoming 35 Summilux asph renders like the 50, then I could see a trade in the making.

 

If I ever jump to an M9, or subsequent FF offering, I could see a 90 Summicron asph rounding out the lot if it draws like the 75 Summicron asph. Don't know why I never used a 90 in my film days...I like the frame lines better than the 75 lines.

 

Jeff

[Jager]

In my experience the 50mm Summilux ASPH is better then any other lens ever made in any focal length at any f/stop. The next best lens is the 75mm Summicron ASPH.

 

 

+1. The 50 is so exceptional that having that same performance in a new 35 Lux version is the only thing that makes me reluctantly consider replacing my much beloved current-version chrome 35 Lux ASPH (a la the Discontinued 35 Lux thread over in the CUSTOMER forum).

 

There's clearly a problem with the sample demonstrated in this thread.

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I remember, I have read that Summilux lenses are only better when wide opened. They are designed like this. This is their goal.

Wide open, the Summilux Asph lenses are better than any other lens at that aperture but still not at their best. Just like any other lens, they will perform even better when stopped down by two f-stops or three.

 

 

But they start EARLIER diffraction than Summicrons and Summarits.

This may be right in some cases.

 

 

They are worse when closed down. Isn't this thread showing that? Based on what I read, at f/5.6 or f/8 even Summarits should excel.

This definitely is wrong. One lens cannot be better or worse than another just due to diffraction. The diffraction limits are the same for all lenses. So as long as one lens is diffraction-limited and the other is not (at the same aperture), the diffraction-limited lens is better. As soon as both are diffraction-limited, they are performing equally well (or badly).

 

 

It is repeated many times that very often, slower lenses provide higher resolution when stopped down.

This is often (not always) true with older lenses. But that's not due to diffraction.

 

 

PS: I just checked what Tao of Leica says. It alse reminds diffraction. And states that close-up performance is better with Summicron.

Close-up performance is still a different topic. Old rules are becoming obsolete as floating elements get introduced ...

 

 

I have read in few places opposite that Summicrons are sharper than Summiluxes at f/5.6 or f/8 (diffraction starts earlier, focus shift, general design—wide pays price for being wide at lower f-stops).

This used to be true in the pre-asph days. Not anymore.

 

And once again: Diffraction limit setting in earlier does not mean a lens was worse than another where diffraction limit sets in later. Just the contrary is true.

[doug_m]

If I ever jump to an M9, or subsequent FF offering, I could see a 90 Summicron asph rounding out the lot if it draws like the 75 Summicron asph. Don't know why I never used a 90 in my film days...I like the frame lines better than the 75 lines.

 

Jeff

 

 

In my experience the 90 cron AA does not draw anywhere near as nicely as the 75 cron. I think the 75 cron is a super special lens, like the 50 lux ASPH. Unfortunately the 90 cron AA has not been as exceptional in my experience- but it is certainly not a bad lens.

[blimey]

@ full magnification - i find the summicron better.

@ not magnified - i cant tell the difference. so does my girlfriend who doesnt know anything about camera. i guess i used her for objectivity...

[01af]

On the Summilux at f/5.6 diffraction is already starting to kick in too.

This can never be the reason for one lens performing worse than another at the same aperture on the same image format. The diffraction limits are just the same for all lenses.

 

 

On the M9, diffraction is not an issue until f/10 or so.

Actually, with a good lens on the M9, you can see some loss due to diffraction from f/4 or f/5.6 on—however to notice, it takes some serious pixel peeping. Even with just a humble Summarit-M 35 mm, diffraction losses are visible from approx. f/5.6 on (at the frame's center). Whether that's an "issue" will depend mostly on the image content. With many images, diffraction loss is not an issue even at f/16.

[Xmas]

Hi

 

Leica Camera AG - Photography - LEICA SUMMARIT-M 50 mm f/2.5

 

The discussed lux, may have a problem, but pixel peeping is not gonna improve your photos.

 

If you shoot at 5.6 the summarit is probably the best lens, from MTF diagrams... The Elmar f/2.8 M is pretty good as well but not in the corners like the double gauss.

 

Note I've said probably, shooting open scenes the large aperture (indeed any) lenses can get subtle veiling flare which degrade the MTF results, that the lab gets.

 

I dont have a dig M to play with alas.

 

Noel

[Jamie Roberts]

There is something wrong with the OPs Lux ASPH, or with his shooting technique, or with the calibration to his camera body.

 

Even though the camera was 1/3000s, I'm still thinking it looks like a bit of camera-shake to me. But something is certainly not right with the focus in the posted shots.

 

FWIW, I've owned both too, and the 50 Lux ASPH at 5.6 is just as sharp--if not sharper-- across the field as the 50 Cron.

[adan]

Two points:

 

1) According to Leica's own mtf graphs, the Summilux ASPH shows a drop in contrast for tangential lines (and a strong divergence from the radial lines contrast) at 10-15mm from the image center. That could explain the fuzziness of the crack, which is a tangential line relative to the image center. However -

 

2) The 50 'lux does use a floating element, and as has been noted several times in regard to the 75 'cron (which also has a floating element), in some samples the tracking of the FE is prone to misadjustment, leading to performance problems, such as rather gross misfocus @ infinity or edge artifacts.

 

The FE's add a lot of performance - but they also are an Achilles' Heel that require an extra dose of precision in manufacture and maintenance. I suspect the OP's lens has an FE slightly out of whack.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

The FE's add a lot of performance - but they also are an Achilles' Heel that require an extra dose of precision in manufacture and maintenance. I suspect the OP's lens has an FE slightly out of whack.

 

Makes a lot of sense Andy, if all the other variables are taken out of the equation.