Rediscovering an old friend...

[DFV]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... and discovering a new one. As some might already know I was not convinced about the M9, to say the least. My doubts about the M9 was mainly due to what is clearly a faulty Summilux 50 that I used mostly to take most of my first shots with my new M9. So, unfortunately my doubt set on the performance of the M9. The faulty LUX is on the way back to Leica (for a second time) with a letter of complaint and a request to change this bad lens. Let's hope they acknowledge that there is something wrong with it...

 

Anyway, I took my Summicron 50 out of retirement to makeup for the "loss" of the LUX and headed for Paris with my M9 (and several other lenses...). I was a bit down since one of my first stops was the Louvre and I really counted on one extra f-stop for low light photography. Now being back and reviewing the results I am but amazed at the M9 and the Summicron. The detail, contrast and sharpness is simply incredible. To the point of having to cheek twice if there is any sort of sharpening happening inside my M) even if all my settings are DNG with no processing. I even thought LR was sharpening the pictures. Needless to say only the Summicron was at fault. I have shot with a lot of equipment yet the CRON has always been a notch above everything. Enjoy.

 

[andybarton]

Can you please try to keep the size of images posted in non-Photo threads to the Forum maximum?

 

 

Thanks

[DFV]

Sorry, what is the maximum? I did not know there where limits if the picture is not hosted on your server.

[andybarton]

The whole point about keeping image sizes Reasonable is to make the experience good for all members, especially those who don't have fast broadband or use iPhones and the like. Like me

 

if you want to show a large image, please place a link, and let the reader decide.

 

Thanks

[stevem7]

I have to say that after a few 50 Lux ASPH's on the M9 (focus was off on two of them), I prefer the 50 cron. It just has a certain something that the Lux does not have. You hit the nail on the head..the detail, the contrast, and the sharpness is out of this world, even at F2.

 

On the M8 I wasn't a fan of the lens but on the M9 I love it and honestly, it is my favorite lens right now (has been for the past two months).

 

When you get your Lux back, let us know what you think of the two.

 

Thanks for posting

 

Steve

[DFV]

On the M9 the Summicron 50 is almost unreal. Simply amazing! Both together are a killer combo.

[Pophoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That photo is HUGE!

 

Just kidding, and I love it!

Boy, I can't stop myself from adding comments about the 50cron, it is the lens to love. It's like that special child that sits quietly in the corner, but grows up to be a rockstar... the 50 cron is that lens to me.

 

 

 

Pophoto

[lars_bergquist]

Several years ago--during the film age--I sold my pre-aspheric 50mm Summilux AND my Summicron and bought the lens that united the flare resistance and the speed of the first, with the optical quality of the second. I am now using this Summilux ASPH as one of my favourite lenses on the M9.

 

I would be much intrigued to hear, in clear terms--as distinct from armwaving and contentless slogans like 'IQ' or 'drawing'--what's wrong with the 'lux and why the old 'cron is so superior to it. I am obviously extremely dense, or insensitive.

 

Or maybe I'm an old fart who is still benighted enough to insist on that thoroughly discredited concept, evidence.

 

The old man who admires Walter Mandler but who doesn't want the Stone Age back

[250swb]

 

I would be much intrigued to hear, in clear terms--as distinct from armwaving and contentless slogans like 'IQ' or 'drawing'--what's wrong with the 'lux and why the old 'cron is so superior to it. I am obviously extremely dense, or insensitive.

 

 

Maybe people are begining to reacquaint themselves with the Summicron after the Summilux hyperbole of recent years? Obviously you want to pull out all the figures that Erwin Puts has generated on the Summilux, and then there are the unchallenged 'facts' we hear on the internet when such challenges to lens status occur, like 'the Summilux is better at f1.4 than the Summicron at f4' etc. But it could just be that in retrospect the Summicron isn't so bad after all, and the pleasure of re-discovering this fact is for the moment shading the undoubted status of the Summilux. So don't worry, there'll be another thread along any day now about how good the Lux is.

 

Steve

[noah_addis]

While the 50 'Lux may be better in technical terms and may provide marginally better image quality (or not, I've never used one). The fact is that both lenses are very, very good. We're talking about marginal differences in quality at this point that may not even be noticeable outside of a lab. And if one lens (in this case the 'lux) is out of ajdustment or has a manufacturing flaw, the other will clearly provide better results.

 

I never felt the need to spend the cash for the new 'Lux. I have the pre-asph lux, which I love for portraits because if it's wonderful, more traditional look.

 

I had a 50 'Cron and (stupidly) sold it since I rarely used a 50 on the M8. It was a wonderful lens on film, very sharp, not harsh, very small and my copy had silky-smooth focus action.

 

With the M9 I'm tending back towards my old film-era combo (28/35/50), but the 50 is the least-used out of all of these and I don't really need the new 'Lux. So I plan to pick up a new 50 'Cron...

 

Glad you're enjoying yours.

[Ecaton]

It might be more difficult to find a bad 50mm m-mount lens than an excellent performing one. So it comes down to choices, of which there are plenty, and individual preferences;)

[DFV]

... and then there are the unchallenged 'facts' we hear on the internet when such challenges to lens status occur, like 'the Summilux is better at f1.4 than the Summicron at f4' etc.

 

Wow! Somebody actually said that! That is a difficult statement to follow. In my case the CRON was vastly superior to the LUX at any aperture. Even comparing the CRON at f2 with the LUX at f8. But I believe that my LUX was/is faulty. In any case if this where to be true of a standard LUX versus a standard CRON then I would really like to test this if I get a proper LUX back.

 

I admit that I have been out of touch with the M world for some time. Also, I am new to this forum and mostly this method of exchanging ideas. I must admit that I am very surprised at the LUX and CRON debate especially since the last time I had some sort of "idea" exchange regarding both lenses the CRON was clearly superior while the LUX was just faster. Mind you, that was over 15 years ago and the lenses have changed.

 

So imagine my surprise that many (maybe even most) consider the LUX to be superior to the CRON. Which I find great if this where indeed to be true, especially considering the price increase for what is only one f-stop.

 

I only hope to get a "proper" LUX back and test for myself to clear all doubts I have regarding these two lenses. The CRON so far just surprised the hell out of me. If the proper LUX does the same with one less f-stop, even a a slight loss of quality... heaven.

[dseelig]

I live in low light that is the photos I shoot with a leica are 50 percent or so in 30 to a 60 th of a second at 1.4 at iso 1000. So for me that one stop is huge. the lux for me is a must I found the 50 1.5 nokton a piece of junk lots of purple fringing and other anomalies. It is all about what you shoot what is good for you. The 50 cron is a great lens so is the lux it is all about what you shoot. By the way the 50 zeiss f2 is also a damm nice lens.

[likalar]

I live in low light that is the photos I shoot with a leica are 50 percent or so in 30 to a 60 th of a second at 1.4 at iso 1000.

 

Damn, that IS low light! I'm too curious now: Where do you live?

 

Larry

[Jerry_R]

So is Noctilux best for you probably

[delander †]

I got my 50 Summicron with my M8 and then as everyone here raved about the 50 Summilux ASPH I also bought that lens.

 

I have no 'evidence' but I just have so much more confidence in my Summicron to produce the results than I do the Summilux. In my 'testing' they dont look much different certainly the Summilux is not sharper than the Summicron.

 

So if anyone is thinking the 50 Summicron is some sort of second rate Leica lens it is most definitely not. Dont be convinced to rush out and buy the 50 Summilux unless you really do need that 1.4.

 

And at f2.0 the Summicron is really wonderful.

 

Jeff

[lars_bergquist]

Well, unsubstantiated opinion is not evidence. And some of the opinion is simply beyond belief.

 

The 'lux ASPH does everything the 'cron does at apertures 2.0--16 and does it at least equally well. The 'cron admittedly does some things the 'lux does not, like internal reflexes and strange flare patches in shadow areas. To me, that is the main advantage of the 'lux ASPH.

 

Now some people obviously do not like sharp lenses. That is their right. But please do admit that this is personal preference, and do not try to claim as an objective fact that unsharp lenses are superior to sharp ones.

 

As for low light, 1/30 at ISO 1000 is not the end for me. Here at 60°N we have only four hours of very murky daylight every day, so 1.4 does not come amiss at all. But the main reason I sold my 'cron is that the 'lux ASPH beats it at its own game. And If you don't like that, the remedy is simple: Find an old scratchy Summar, maybe with cracked lens cement as a bonus.

 

The old man from the Age of Evidence

[DFV]

Well, unsubstantiated opinion is not evidence. And some of the opinion is simply beyond belief.

 

The 'lux ASPH does everything the 'cron does at apertures 2.0--16 and does it at least equally well. The 'cron admittedly does some things the 'lux does not, like internal reflexes and strange flare patches in shadow areas. To me, that is the main advantage of the 'lux ASPH.

 

Well, if this is so than I will be extremely happy to get a "proper" LUX 50 back.

 

However, I generally dismiss many claims of what is better or worse simply because "most" people will defend what they own beyond reason. Those that have a LUX will say it is the best and so will those that have the CRON. In fact, it is only human. As for myself I am fortunate enough to have both so I will be able to be more objective. Even if part of me wishes that the LUX is indeed as good if not better than a CRON with the added bonus of a very useful f-stop.

 

I have no idea when I will or even if Leica will agree to exchanging my faulty LUX. But when if I do receive it back I will test both as well as I possibly can and post results here.

[lars_bergquist]

If everybody but you gets tack sharp photos with the Summilux ASPH, then there are only two possible explanations. I am waiting to see which one it is.

 

The egregious old man

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[DFV]

If everybody but you gets tack sharp photos with the Summilux ASPH, then there are only two possible explanations. I am waiting to see which one it is.

 

The egregious old man

 

That is why I am certain that my LUX is bad and sent it back to Leica with a letter. I was wondering as to your second explanation for my poor results with the LUX. What would this explanation be?