Choosing a fast 50mm lens

[platel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Last week I bought my first rangefinder camera, a second hand Leica M8. I was mostly using a Canon 1Ds mark III for my photography, but I have been wanting to try a Leica camera for a long time now.

 

I bought the camera with a Voigtländer 28mm f/2 Ultron lens, with which I'm quite pleased. I like the focal length, and the sharpness is great at the center (slightly soft at the borders), and most of all I like the price.

 

I love portrait photography and I'm thinking about buying a fast longer lens. I'm on a budget so it can't exceed say 1300euro's.

 

I thought a 50mm lens might be a nice addition, so I have been reading a lot of reviews on the internet and remarks here on the forum.

 

A noctilux is out of the question with my budget, and so is a new summulix.

 

So I'm considering a second hand Summilux 50mm f/1.4 (a 11114 is for sale here for 950euro), or a Voigtländer Nokton f/1.1 (new for around 900euro).

 

The reviews aren't conclusive. Some say the Nokton beats the old lenses because it uses newer technology. Others say the Summilux 1.4 is sharper. In addition the Summilux might be easier to sell later on.

 

I have two questions:

 

1. How well are you able to focus lenses at such a large aperture. I mean, when you focus in the center and recompose, the focus is probably off, right? On my Canon I would use one of the other focus points, but on a rangefinder this is of course not possible.
   
2. Which fast 50mm lens would you recommend for my M8?
   

 

Thanks!

[lars_bergquist]

1) No problem, except possibly at extreme close focus. Both my old 50mm Summilux and my present Summilux ASPH are very reliable.

 

2) Maybe a Zeiss ZM Planar. Very good lens, very well built. A used 50mm Summicron would also be a good choice, but the Planar seems more resistant to flare effects.

 

Before you consider new superfast lenses, do consider the problem of focus shift. This is common to most of them, except those, like the v.2 35mm Summilux ASPH, the 50mm Summilux ASPH and of course the 50mm/0.95 Noctilux ASPH, which combat the problem with floating elements. The old pre-ASPH 50mm Summilux does shift focus -- not enough to matter on film, but noticeably in front of a digital sensor.

 

If that Ultron is OK, count your blessings. I am permanently off Cosina/Voigtländer lenses. The designs are often good, and the mounts OK, but -- one of the reasons why the lenses sell so cheaply is that the manufacturer skimps on assembly control. This does probably account for upward half the selling price of a Leica lens, because the procedure is manual, and costly. The result is that very many C/V specimens exhibit bad decentering. The purchase is a gamble, and I would not do it except from a big and very friendly dealer who will let you try out the lens briefly, and exchange it for a (hopefully) better one if the first one is decentered. Cosina does manufacture nearly all the Zeiss ZM lenses, but under Prussian discipline. This is the main reason why a ZM lens costs about double, compared to an equivalent C/V lens.

 

And if we are perfectly honest, we do only very rarely need f:1.4 to get the picture.

 

The old man from the Age of the 1.5 Contax Sonnar

[zombii]

Unless it has to be super sharp wide open, I'd get the Summilux. I've had both an E43 and now an E46. The E46 is sharper wide open and has the built in hood but the E43 was no slouch. The E46 is just a tad shy of the ASPH in sharpness, even wide open. I've had a Nokton also and some people get good ones but I wasn't impressed with mine. If portraits are your interest, the Lux is a better choice IMO. I got my E46 for about $1800 USD so that's pretty close to your budget but you'll have to be patient to find one for that price. There's also the ZM Planar which is very sharp with the Zeiss look and high contrast although a stop slower. I like it but found I'm not using it much. I also tried two different copies of the Sonnar 50 but both front focused wide open even though they were supposed to be optimized for 1.5.

 

Hope that helps.

[zombii]

Lars, I haven't seen any noticeable focus shift with either the E43 or the E46 pre-ASPH Lux 50's

[lars_bergquist]

No, it's not much. But nobody complained about the v.1 35mm Summilux ASPH either, as long as they used it with film.

 

When you design a lens, there are many different problems to contend with. Eradicating some of them may well increase some others, so it is a mattter of finding a practical balance. With film, spherical aberration and the consequent focus shift was corrected only so that it would be practically innocuous, because a complete correction would have led to problems with, mainly, curvature of field. The depth of the film emulsion took care of the rest. But a sensor has no depth, and there was a great to-do here after the launching of the M8, when people proceeded to use it with the Summilux.

 

The old man

[wda]

Consider a 50mm Summicron which you could buy new and therefore coded. It is a well-proven lens and plenty fast enough, even for ambient light indoors. Or if you want the better perspective for head portraiture, you might consider a 75mm Summarit which is another highly respected lens and popular among forum members. It is also a useful general purpose telephoto lens.

 

And ...... Welcome, Platel, to the Leica Forum!

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... The designs are often good, and the mounts OK, but -- one of the reasons why the lenses sell so cheaply is that the manufacturer skimps on assembly control. This does probably account for upward half the selling price of a Leica lens, because the procedure is manual, and costly. The result is that very many C/V specimens exhibit bad decentering. The purchase is a gamble, and I would not do it except from a big and very friendly dealer who will let you try out the lens briefly, and exchange it for a (hopefully) better one if the first one is decentered. Cosina does manufacture nearly all the Zeiss ZM lenses, but under Prussian discipline. This is the main reason why a ZM lens costs about double, compared to an equivalent C/V lens.

 

I'd suggest the lenses are cheaper because Cosina can manufacture them more cheaply, the ZM (Cosina) lenses have a Zeiss mark up on them, the Voightlander name licensee fee is smaller.

 

I'm sure you can recollect a similar difference in price existed when the Canon P, Nikon F or SP was competing with the M3 or Contax IIa?

 

The ZM lenses are built to a different design standard, e.g. physically larger and more lens elements but I prefer the Voightlander standard.

 

With an M8 you can try different lenses in the shop, you can bring a focus shift test set with you if you need.

 

If you only need, (and I'd agree with that) f/1.4 then the CV f/1.5 is an excellent performer, and cheap, it is big and heavy though.

 

Noel

[UliWer]

Lars, I haven't seen any noticeable focus shift with either the E43 or the E46 pre-ASPH Lux 50's

 

Just have a look:

 

Summilux 1.4/50 pre-asph (E 46) with M9; focussed on the middle bottle at f/1.4; left bottle a little bit backwards, right bottle a little bit forwards:

 

 

f/1.4:

 

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!

 

 

f/2:

 

 

 

f/2.8:

 

 

 

f/4:

 

 

 

I see a slight shift of the focus to the more distanced (left) bottle on smaller f-stops; which is compensated by dof at about f/4. There is much less shift than with the 35mm-Summilux asph 1. Version, though it's there.

 

 

Skol!

[Xmas]

Skol indeed you have been drinking too much... it pickles your optic nerve...

 

Noel

[farnz]

Welcome to the forum, Platel!

 

One very good, inexpensive lens that hasn't been mentioned yet is the Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton. It's out of production now I believe but good used ones appear quite often and it has a reputation for being better behaved than its f/1.1 cousin with regard to focus shift (normal CV sample variation aside of course).

 

Then there's the Konica Hexanon-M 50/1.2 and 60/1.2 although at the more expensive end and much more difficult to find. Or the Canon 50/1.2 although it's fairly soft wide open (well my one is:rolleyes:)

 

Nikon 50/1.4 lenses in 39mm screw mount turn up occasionally and reasonably-priced or you might happen upon a Zunow 50/1.1 but it's likely to be on the wrong side of £3,000.

 

My advice is to grit your teeth, do without food, sell your children and save up for the 50/1.4 Summilux asph, which is commonly hailed as the best 50 mm lens ever built. You won't regret it (if you can find one of course).

 

Pete.

[pico]

Considering head-shoulder portraists, a 'fast' 50mm lens used at it's 'fast' apertures is a very bad idea. That's just my opinion. You certainly don't need a latest-and-greatest Leica lens for that. They are too sharp. Nobody wants to see a 1/2" DOF of their pores and everything else out of focus.

 

Furthermore, a 50mm lens at close focus distorts too much in my opinion. Try it and see.

 

Reconsider focal length and lens. For portraits there are 75mm lenses of less expense that would do very, very well.

[platel]

Thanks for the advice everyone!

 

Considering head-shoulder portraists, a 'fast' 50mm lens used at it's 'fast' apertures is a very bad idea. That's just my opinion. You certainly don't need a latest-and-greatest Leica lens for that. They are too sharp. Nobody wants to see a 1/2" DOF of their pores and everything else out of focus.

 

Furthermore, a 50mm lens at close focus distorts too much in my opinion. Try it and see.

 

Reconsider focal length and lens. For portraits there are 75mm lenses of less expense that would do very, very well.

 

I was thinking that since the M8 has the 1.33x magnification a 50mm would turn out almost like a 70mm lens. Which would still be suitable for portrait shots. Perhaps a Summicron f/2 wouldn't be a bad alternative.

 

I noticed however that the older lenses all have a closest focus distance of 1m where the new ones are able to focus closer at 70cm, which might be a great benefit.

[lars_bergquist]

Furthermore, a 50mm lens at close focus distorts too much in my opinion. Try it and see.

 

Reconsider focal length and lens. For portraits there are 75mm lenses of less expense that would do very, very well.

 

You seem to be under two misapprehensions. The first one is that a portrait means a severed head.

 

No way. A portrait is a picture of one or several people that tells us someting interesting about the subject(s). A portrait, then, can be a head-and shoulders, a half-length, a knee-length, a full length or a group portrait. Consequently, there are no portrait lenses. You can make a portrait with any focal length because it is not the lens that makes the portrait; you do, and your interaction with the subject. The idea that a 90mm lens is "a portrait lens" and a 50mm is not, is just plain nonsensical.

 

The second misapprehension is related to the first one. If a portrait is a severed head, period, then you have to come very close with any lens shorter than 90mm. But it is not the lens that distorts the subject. All lenses use the same rectilinear central "renaissance" perspective. They just crop out different size pieces of it. So again, distortion -- perspectival distortion -- is not something the lens does.It is something you do. You do it by approaching too close. A 90mm lens at one meter distorts a face exactly as much as a 50mm lens, or for that matter a 18mm lens, at that same distance. Don't blame the tool for your own mistakes.

 

Don't come closer than around 2m/6-7ft. That is all. The rest depends on what you do -- and also on what you are.

 

The old man from the history of art (or at least an academic study of it)

[luigi bertolotti]

Welcome to the forum !!! Personally, I do not use too much 50mm on my M8 (do prefer 75 as a portrait lens) but is a matter of taste and, having you a 28, 50 is anyway a logical choice; about your questions, my thoughts are :

1) You have M8, and a CV lens... by principle, I think is a pity not to have some Leica lens with a Leica camera... so, avoid CV/Zeiss, unless you start to save for the Summilux asph and , in the meantime, take something like a used CV 1,5 to be resold at a negligible loss.

2) Summilux 50 pre asph can be a good choice but, if you think to use it at 1,4, the issue of focus shift can be a bit annoying.

3) There is an alternative that is a bit strange but I personally like very much : is the old Summarit 1,5 : you must take care to get a GOOD item, because is an OLD lens.. for instance, I have two of them, one in bayonet mount and the other (older) in screw mount: this one is much better and I use it regularly (with BM adapter) onto my M8 : at 1,5 is quite usable, is less sharp than Summilux but the focus shift issue, probably for this reason, is almost unnoticeable.

4) But, as others have said, are you SURE to need 1,4 or around ? With a Summicron (new or used) one can't go wrong.

 

About recomposing after focusing... it's a matter of taking experience and attitude on "rangefinder's way" : personally (> 25 years with RF... ) is a no-issue to focus NOT at the center of the final image (pointing the RF window where I do want focus) and then recompose... this can be a bit delicate with long lenses wide open (like the 90 f2)... but with a 50 the small movements due to recomposing are usually within the DOF (there is a thread in these days which adresses this issue with a rigorous geometrical approach, referring to the typical problem of the change from horizontal to vertical); anyway, be confident that as you learn (and surely appreciate) the tricks of working with M8, you'll find your way.

[lars_bergquist]

I'd suggest the lenses are cheaper because Cosina can manufacture them more cheaply, the ZM (Cosina) lenses have a Zeiss mark up on them, the Voightlander name licensee fee is smaller.

 

Noel says, the reason why Cosina lenses are cheaper is that Cosina can make them cheaper. Now, WHY can Cosina make them cheaper? That was what my argument was about.

 

And it was that Cosina can make them cheaper because they spend less on manufacture. There are really limits to what extra profits a company can squeeze out by the nameplate alone.

 

The old man

[Xmas]

Hi

 

I believe the reason why Zeiss manufacture in Japan is that it is cheaper to manufacture in Japan. Zeiss make more profit getting Cosina to make than making themselves in Ge, i.e. there is 'fat' in the food chain...

 

It has been cheaper for a long time, e.g. Ja adopted Deming's techniques earlier, catching up is more difficult.

 

I believe the Ja patents are more cheap for a Ja company, the Leica M mount patent has expired, the LTM and earlier patents were revoked.

 

Cosina manufacture for the military and for other companies, & they dont have the same overheads as Zeiss. They have volume production techniques and can still make small batches.

 

They are also competing for SLR lenses with other Ja prime companies not just for Leica M lenses.

 

So the question is better turned around why are Leica so expensive, dont they understand they need to be more efficient.

 

They stopped making the Elmar 5cm collapsible, so I needed to buy a used one, they don't often make LTM lenses, so I needed to buy Cosina (or other Ja) LTM lenses.

 

I have not had any problems with my CV or ZM lenses.

 

Noel

[luigi bertolotti]

Just have a look:

 

Summilux 1.4/50 pre-asph (E 46) with M9; focussed on the middle bottle at f/1.4; left bottle a little bit backwards, right bottle a little bit forwards:

 

 

f/1.4:

 

[ATTACH]224404[/ATTACH]

 

 

f/2:

 

[ATTACH]224405[/ATTACH]

 

 

f/2.8:

 

[ATTACH]224406[/ATTACH]

 

 

f/4:

 

[ATTACH]224407[/ATTACH]

 

 

I see a slight shift of the focus to the more distanced (left) bottle on smaller f-stops; which is compensated by dof at about f/4. There is much less shift than with the 35mm-Summilux asph 1. Version, though it's there.

 

 

Skol!

 

FINE !!! Much better than a "cold" focus chart... Skol !!!

[lars_bergquist]

Hi

 

I believe the reason why Zeiss manufacture in Japan is that it is cheaper to manufacture in Japan. Zeiss make more profit getting Cosina to make than making themselves in Ge, i.e. there is 'fat' in the food chain...

 

Here we encounter a real cliché: Japan is cheap. But in all recent statistics I have seen, national income per capita is actually slightly higher in Japan than in Germany. Japan is also a country where income inequalities are far smaller than in the West generally -- not to speak of the extreme inequality in the U.S.A. So you cannot argue that Cosina lenses are made by a downtrodden, half-starving proletariat while the tycoons eat beef from cows that had their individual masseurs ...

 

The fact is that for a long time, routine production, including fairly high-tech production, has been increasingly outsourced to countries like China, Taiwan, Vietnam and now also Indonesia. Why? Because Japan is not cheap. That was in the 1950's and the 1960's. That's the reality lag of most of the cliché-wavers. And the labour in the Cosina factory that makes C/V lenses is not paid less than the labour in the same Cosina factory that makes Zeiss lenses. It is simply that less of it is used to make an average CV lens, than is used in the assembly of a Zeiss-branded lens. And that extra labour is not employed to twirl their thumbs.

 

The old man again

[pico]

[...] And the labour in the Cosina factory that makes C/V lenses is not paid less than the labour in the same Cosina factory that makes Zeiss lenses. It is simply that less of it is used to make an average CV lens, than is used in the assembly of a Zeiss-branded lens. And that extra labour is not employed to twirl their thumbs.

 

(emphasis is mine) - I read once that when Volkswagen ceased production of a certain line (possibly the Beetle), that a whole factory was virtually stopped, but workers were retained and did almost nothing all day. Is that true? Is that an employment characteristic of Germany?

 

Pico the Ignorant

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[luigi bertolotti]

(emphasis is mine) - I read once that when Volkswagen ceased production of a certain line (possibly the Beetle), that a whole factory was virtually stopped, but workers were retained and did almost nothing all day. Is that true? Is that an employment characteristic of Germany?

 

Pico the Ignorant

 

Not only in Germany this can happen... in many European countries the welfare system for labor's crisis is arranged in ways that, de facto, workers keep their jobs even if they are forced to not working for certain time periods: in US is different, we know, but which system has the better balancing of social/economical costs is a matter of (complex) discussions.