Real world differences: 50 lux vs 50 cron

[d2mini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have experience with both?

What can you tell me?

Is the lux worth double the cost?

Handling? Image quality?

Does 1.4 vs 2.0 really make that much difference in low light situations?

[Advertisement]

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

[tgray]

The Summilux is a stop faster. It flares less in my experience. And is a bit larger.

[Balivernes]

Have experience with both?

What can you tell me?

Is the lux worth double the cost?

Handling? Image quality?

Does 1.4 vs 2.0 really make that much difference in low light situations?

 

Hi,

 

Like many others here, I have used both. 1.4 does make a difference in low light. It is often the difference between a pic blurred by camera shake and a useable pic; the difference between freezing subject movement sufficiently or having a blurry subject. It is about speed.

 

The summilux is also sufficiently light and compact to remain suitable as an every day lens without betraying the M form factor (not quite the case with the Noctilux....).

 

Finally, I have, like others, experienced flare with the 'cron (latest model), translating into a disturbing reddish or yellowish patch in the bottom half of the image depending on sun location. Happens randomly, not always, not even often, hood or no hood. Enough to make you insecure. Have not experienced that at all with the 1.4 asph or with the last generation pre-asph.

 

By the way, last generation pre-asph 'lux is a really good lens, and in real world terms just as versatile and trustworthy as the asph. Just in case you are trying to limit financial damage...

[pgk]

Have experience with both? Yes.

What can you tell me? The 'lux is a stop faster.

Is the lux worth double the cost? IMO Yes.

Handling? Image quality? Both are extremely good. Can't say I had substantial flare problems with the 'cron.

Does 1.4 vs 2.0 really make that much difference in low light situations? Yes, if you want to shoot wide open..

 

I use my 'lux wide open, not all the time, but when I do it performs superbly, and my asph. is better than my pre-asph. was at 1.4. If you don't plan on using a 50mm lens at f/1.4 then go for the 'cron and save a lot of money. It really depends on how you are wanting to use the lens.

[Jager]

I own both. They are both exceptional lenses.

 

The cron has a hint of that old-time "glow" that folks often look for. Just a touch. It's balanced by a crisp, clean rendering that is iconic of what people think about when they think Leica. My 50 cron is also the best and fastest handling of the seven Leica lenses I own. The light touch to the focus ring and the way it snaps into focus is simply beyond compare.

 

Hard to beat, huh?

 

Yep. Except that the 50 Lux ASPH is simply the best 35mm-format lens in the world, IMHO. It brings a clarity, a detail separation, and a color fidelity that few other lenses can touch. And, yes, that extra stop is huge.

 

You can hardly go wrong with either lens. But the Lux is so good that, should you give it a pass, I suspect you'll always wonder what the hubbub is all about. There's a reason for it.

[batmobile]

There is an argument for not bothering with the asph lux unless you need the stop though, wonderful as it is. If you are worried about flare and only need a 50mm f2 get a ZM planar.

 

I had a 50 lux asph and sold it because I did not need the stop. I will be looking for the new 35 lux asp II as I will use the extra stop at this FL. Each to their own, but at 50mm, the planar (summicron equivalent) is fine for me.

[tgray]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Batmobile: exactly. I think the ZM 50/2 is a much better buy than the Leica 50/2, especially considering the price. Flare resistant and as sharp as you could need.

 

The 50/1.4 ASPH gives you that extra stop which I find useful. Of course you could go to a different 50/1.4, but the ASPH has great performance wide open compared to most other 50/1.4's, is very flare resistant, and has decent close up performance with the floating element. Not all fast 50's offer that last bit; some don't even go to .7m.

 

I see no reason to get one if you don't need the extra stop. The 50/1.4 pre-ASPH is a nice lens, but the older version only focuses to 1m, which might hamper one's style (it would mine), and the more recent pre-ASPH goes for a lot of cash. I was looking for one of those and just decided to spend the bit extra and got a gray market ASPH. I love it.

[lars_bergquist]

Here's my experience. I owned both a current Summicron and a pre-asph Summilux. The 'cron was the crisper lens at stops wider than c. 5.6. The 'lux had a lovely rendering and that extra stop. But above all, it was very resistant to flare.

 

The problem with the 'cron was flare. The worst kind was not general flaring, but a rectanglar flare patch that appeared opposite a large bright part of the subject -- e.g. a window or a lightly overcast sky above a landscape. I got very tired of this behaviour.

 

So when the ASPH came, I sold my 50mm lenses (except my 1960 collapsible Elmar) and bought the new lens. Its definition at 1.4 is as good as that of the 'cron at 2, and I can trust the lens. I am very fond of this lens, even though 35mm is my real standard. The Planar ZM seems to be a very good optic too, but I have no personal experience of it. As I remember, the ZM lenses were not available in 2003 when I changed horses.

 

The old man from the Elmar Age

[Manicouagan1]

I have both lenses but quit using the a current style f2 lens because of flare. The flare was worst when I took available light portraits with strong light from a window off axis. The 50 1.4 ASPH does not suffer that problem is far and away my most used lens.

[d2mini]

Thanks for the responses.

 

But it looks like the real question is.... where can one even find a 50 lux asph???

[christoph_d]

Hi d2mini,

 

I've tried both (for film).

In terms of picture quality both lenses are exceptionally good, as said, at around f2 the Summicron imparts somehow an old-style glow to the picture...

The described flare problems with the Summicron happened only very very occasionally to me.

On the other hand, the Summilux Asph does show ghost images on occasion, mirroring very bright light spots in the image around the center point of the lens.

Both lenses handle fine, though the size differenceI do find noticable, the Summicron is a much preferred travel companion.

The focussing on the Summilux is a bit stiffer, supposedly due to the floating element design.

 

Conclusion: you can't get wrong with any of the two...

 

Rgds

 

Christoph

[tgray]

On the other hand, the Summilux Asph does show ghost images on occasion, mirroring very bright light spots in the image around the center point of the lens.

 

That sounds like filter-induced reflections. If I'm understanding what you are describing that is. If it's shaped like the lights in the image, it's probably from the filter.

 

filter flare

[lars_bergquist]

On the other hand, the Summilux Asph does show ghost images on occasion, mirroring very bright light spots in the image around the center point of the lens.

I too did encounter that problem -- but that was with the M8, it was the fault of the UV/IR filter, and it happened with all other lenses too. The 'lux ASPH has not treated me to any such phenomenon, even though I always have an ordinary UV filter mounted (look at the price tag of the lens, and you will understand why).

 

The old man from the Age of the 5cm Elmar

[Jeff S]

(look at the price tag of the lens, and you will understand why).

 

Gosh, I hope you carry insurance, not just a UV filter.

 

Jeff

[tobey bilek]

The Lux ASPH is the best 50 mm I ever used. It flares less than the `cron It also weighs 3x as much as a `Cron, at least the chrome version. It is a brick. Sharpness, is among the best ever produced although the Summicron is the same at least from 2.8.

 

Previous `Lux, I just never got excited over, distortion issues, and never really gets sharp until 5.6 or 8. I could never find one I liked enough to buy.

 

The 1959 to 61 Lux is no better than my Summarit which I continue to use. These are both pretty decent lenses for the day.

[Paul Hart]

Being one of those 50mm fans, I'm privileged to have the asph, the pre-asph, and the summicron. The ASPH wins on most points, but I have a sneaking admiration for the pre-asph wide open, and it does get really sharp by 5.6

 

Here's one wide open:

 

[christoph_d]

That sounds like filter-induced reflections. If I'm understanding what you are describing that is. If it's shaped like the lights in the image, it's probably from the filter.

 

filter flare

 

Hi tgray,

 

It is more visible with the filter, but it also happens without.

The man from the age of the Agfa-Isopan-F () has a point.

 

Rgds

 

C.

[tgray]

Just saying. I always use UV filters on my lenses and have never really seen this phenomenon, but I hardly ever shoot in situations that seem to encourage it. This goes for the 50 ASPH down to cheap Canon EF lenses.

 

That specific kind of reflection is due to the filter itself - I'm not sure how one lens design would downplay it over others. That's not to say that all reflections/flares are due to filters; your ASPH could very well be flaring in other ways.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[el.nino]

That sounds like filter-induced reflections. If I'm understanding what you are describing that is. If it's shaped like the lights in the image, it's probably from the filter.

 

I've also experienced that.

Have a look at this. No filter used. Shot on film.

 

 

To the topic: I got both. And I much prefer the Cron. It's so much lighter and easier to carry around. Especially during daytime. Great lens!

[tgray]

That's a different kind of flare. Not from the filter.

 

This is the kind you get from a filter (example from the web):

thanks to UV filter on Flickr - Photo Sharing!