Why would I want a Summilux 50MM ASPH?

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Peter

 

True but

 

You dont see this effect when you look at some one in low light, or do you?

Have any of the classic painters ever painted a picture like that?

 

The reason for the first question is I dont detect that effect.

 

Noel

P.S. Well impressed by Andrew's camera...

 

Any camera – including our eyes – has limited depth of field. But "classical painters" from Giotto to Renoir did not paint that way because we do not see with our eyes. We see with our brains. What se "see" is virtual reality, a construct made up by the brain's visual center from partial sharp images in sequence, and from self-deception. And btw the images are sharp only on dead center (the fovea), and upside down, and switched right-left. Evolution has made us a crazy cobbled-up patchwork; no sane creator would have produced such a mess.

 

I was once teaching a friend to shoot a handgun. I told him that he had to focus on the front sight, because it is impossible to simultaneously have a sharp image of the rear sight, the front sight and the target at 25 meters. He assured me very earnestly that he could do that. I told him to consult an optometrist, who would be very happy to have a hitherto unknown syndrome named after himself. – Most of us are totally unaware of the sleight of hand that is going on in the backs of our heads. It is of course pretty incredible. Photoshop, go jump in the sea.

 

The impressionists, who wanted to paint "the way the eye sees" discovered blue shadows (because illuminated by blue sky light) and were dressed down by the solid bourgeoisie, who had never seen that, or much else. But they did miss depth of field.

 

The old man waiting at the f-stop

[Advertisement]

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

[neli]

Depends if you want sterility or not. IMO the current range of ASPH lenses have reached such a level of optical perfection they have lost all trace of character.

 

The flip side to that is that anyone and their pet hamster can take a technically competent shot these days without being troubled by the time and patience required to attain a level of personal competence.

 

Add to that the fact that the Summilux has become the "must have" fashion-statement lens du jour and there you go.

 

I'll agree with that, except my hamster needs help focussing. However, the 50 ASPH is an exception to me, the bokeh at 1.4 really is quite beautiful and when I'm in the back country or on assignment in Israel say, I'm not taking the Noct. I sold the 35 ASPH because I so preferred the look of the pre-asph 35, and I'm in the process of selling the 90 Elmarit E 46 as well because of this sterility. I do like the old glass better. But, horses for courses. Most of my work ends up as print, rather than online, and this is where it really makes a difference to use different 'brushes'.

[bill]

Most of my work ends up as print, rather than online, and this is where it really makes a difference to use different 'brushes'.

 

Exactly. I don't shoot for web use

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Xmas]

Noel, slow lens = high iso = grain in low light, so detectably (or delectably?) different.

 

I dont get grain with Delta 400, if I need a stop I put it in witches brew, what film are you using?

Rare for me to use wider than /5.6 anyway, dont like the veiling flare exposure.

 

Noel

[lct]

I need at least 800 iso at f/1.4 for low light photography. I don't use tripods though.

[Xmas]

I need at least 800 iso at f/1.4 for low light photography. I don't use tripods though.

 

Hi

 

Well I have a tripod and felt black cloth for auto headlamps, I'd use f/8 for night shots. Monopod for dusk/street light effects. Cannot carry tripod too far, mono ok all day.

 

I do have 1.5s & 1.4, 5cm fast 9cm but only use them for gigs wide open, carry in auto.

 

Only carry the /2.8 and /2.5style lenses too heavy to 'pack' other then pre asph 35mm lux cause it is light. Normally pack five of more small lenses.

 

Dithering on 35mm asph lux, maybe one day.

 

Noel

[gib_robinson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why would you want a 50mm Summilux ASPH? Because, IF you want and can do good work with a 50mm lens, then this is the best damn 50mm lens there is.

 

I once owned both the current 50mm 'cron, and the pre-ASPH 'lux. I sold both and got myself a 'lux ASPH way back in 2005.

 

The 'cron's IQ was very good, but the lens was prone to strange flare phenomena that spoiled images I thought I had captured (you see those things on a SLR screen, but not with a RF camera). The old 'lux was very robust in that respect, and a lovely lens in many ways, but you had to stop it down to f:8 to get good quality in the corners. The 'lux ASPH is as good at 1.4 as the 'cron is at 2, and remarkably flare-free. Its images can show a brilliance that is close to tactile.

 

The extra stop was not very important to my deliberations. F:2 goes a long way with digital. By the way, I feel that 50mm (52, actually) is different enough to 35mm that I often carry both my 'lux ASPHs.

 

The old man from the Age of the 5cm Elmar

 

I have been on a list for a 50mm Summilux ASPH for a while and have been thinking, "Oh maybe I won't bother. I'll just keep the 'cron." You (and others) are reminding me why I put myself on that list in the first place. BTW, I agree about the flare susceptibility of the 'cron.

 

Thanks,

 

--Gib