50mm ASPH Lux vs. older 50mm

[bpalme]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can you really tell that much difference between the newer ASPH and late model non-ASPH?

Any one have some side by side comparisons that are not 100% crops? I don't print much at all so big prints don't matter.

Anyway .. I'm on a waiting list for a new 50 lux but wondering if I should just get one of the previous versions.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Simple search will yield discussion like this.

 

Jeff

[wda]

Why not consider the Summicron which is an excellent lens?

[bpalme]

Why not consider the Summicron which is an excellent lens?

I am but prolly gonna go with the extra stop.

[bpalme]

Simple search will yield discussion like this.

 

Jeff

Thanks for the link.. and I did a search where nothing showed up.

[tobey bilek]

To make it simple, the last `Lux was designed in early 1960`s and there have been some coating improvements and cosmetic changes. It was not a well thought of lens at the time.

 

The new is a fully modern design, probably the best 50 mm 1.4 lens produced yet by anyone.

 

In a nut shell, unless you want a lens with old time rendition that is not very sharp, and a lot of distortion, get the new one.

 

To save money, get a 50 2.0.

[bpalme]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To make it simple, the last `Lux was designed in early 1960`s and there have been some coating improvements and cosmetic changes. It was not a well thought of lens at the time.

 

The new is a fully modern design, probably the best 50 mm 1.4 lens produced yet by anyone.

 

In a nut shell, unless you want a lens with old time rendition that is not very sharp, and a lot of distortion, get the new one.

 

To save money, get a 50 2.0.

Thanks Toby.

[Jeff S]

and I did a search where nothing showed up.

 

Different threads show up depending on key words. In this case I plugged in "50 Summilux asph vs pre-asph."

 

Jeff

[lars_bergquist]

I have owned the old 1962–2004 'lux, and I own the current aspherical model. Some basic facts:

 

None of the lenses has any serious distortion. It's about 1% versus .4%, in both cases practically unnoticeable, especially as the maximum occurs at maximum image height, i.e. in the extreme corners. The pre-asph on the other hand has a certain amount of curvature of field; this, as usual, becomes noticeable mostly at close focus. Both lenses are unusually resistant to flare and internal reflections.

 

The older lens when wide open has good definition in the axial area, then especially the micro-contrast drops off noticeably. To obtain really good definition over the entire field you have to stop the lens down to at least 5.6, even better 8. The aspherical lens is very sharp already wide open, except in the extreme corners. Stopping it down to 2 or 2.8 increases the "bite" even more. The image has a remarkable clarity and "presence". You can get the same effect with the current Summicron, one stop further down, but not the flare resistance. To me, the 'lux ASPH is quite simply amazing. It took a digital sensor to really bring out all there is in this optic (I owned it already in the "film age").

 

I have no personal experience of working with the older lens in a digital environment. It should be said however that on film, it produced very nice imagery. It was a faithful old workhorse, and its production life of 42 years is a record even for Leica, and probably for the entire business. It deserved it.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[!Nomad64]

To make it simple, the last `Lux was designed in early 1960`s and there have been some coating improvements and cosmetic changes. It was not a well thought of lens at the time.

 

The new is a fully modern design, probably the best 50 mm 1.4 lens produced yet by anyone.

 

In a nut shell, unless you want a lens with old time rendition that is not very sharp, and a lot of distortion, get the new one.

 

To save money, get a 50 2.0.

 

If memory serves me well there have been three versions of the 'lux before the Aspherical. The first one ran from 1959 to 1961, the second had a different design (but the same structure 7 lenses/5 groups) and different glass ran from 1961 to 1991, the third, of identical optical design to the second but with the main difference being the increased diameter (from E43 to E46), a redesigned barrel and improved multicoating, ran from 1992 to 2005.

Albeit there were several discussions about performances gaps between V2 and V3, they were fundamentally equivalent, V1 being not sloppy anyway. This design ran unchanged from "only" 44 years, thus making it the most longeval lens ever made by Leica. It's been a design ahead of its time for quite a long period and was outperformed only by the Asph.

 

I have a late E46 and it's my favourite lens. At wider apertures is very sharp in the middle. Going towards the corners the performances decrease but not unpleasantly. In order to have sharpness from end to end it's necessary to close the aperture down to f8. It has a great bokeh and at wider apertures it shows a bit of the famous "Leica glow". For the characteristics above I'd define it a lens for the people rather than for landscapes, albeit stopped down it makes an excellent option. It's flare resistant, although not at the same level of the Zeiss counterparts, and has no focus shift at all.

 

As to comparing PreAsph vs Asph I can't speak on the basis of direct experience as I have no Asph myself, but several users report the difference being not huge. Performance is improved in the corners, as well as the curvature of field and the contrast is likely to be slightly increased, which is common "aspherical" signature. The Asph has now even performance at full aperture and at f2 it bests the Summicron.

 

Hope this helps,

Bruno

[Jeff S]

I have owned the old 1962–2004 'lux, and I own the current aspherical model. Some basic facts: (snipped)

 

Similar to your 2008 post (link above), Lars, with even a bit more info., now that you've grown even older (kidding).

 

Jeff

[lars_bergquist]

You mean I am beginning to repeat myself? Maybe it's time to retreat to the rocking chair. Old men can get to be insufferable. Especially when they are right.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age (1936–2010)

[Xmas]

To make it simple, the last `Lux was designed in early 1960`s and there have been some coating improvements and cosmetic changes. It was not a well thought of lens at the time.

 

The new is a fully modern design, probably the best 50 mm 1.4 lens produced yet by anyone.

 

In a nut shell, unless you want a lens with old time rendition that is not very sharp, and a lot of distortion, get the new one.

 

To save money, get a 50 2.0.

 

Hi Toby

 

I would summarise differently.

The pre asph lux was in production from '62 until rescently, it was difficult to replace it even with modern glass and aspheric surfaces. It excels contra jour, distorts a bit.

Early single coated late multi coated.

Earlier 43mm filters 1m close focus, inverted cone clip on hood.

Later 46mm flters 70cm close focus, built in telescopic hood

Last ones coded for M8

It was competative with Canon and Nikon rfdr lenses,in performance.

The SC versions are preferred for M8 or M9 for compression of contrast.

The CV f/1.5 is a better buy for photos but much larger.

 

 

The asph is a modern lens, but expensive, there is a shortage.

The Nikon post 2000 f/1.4 lens has less veiling flare, they are not easy to get either and you need an adapter...

 

Any of the fast lenses 2nd hand may need the focus tracking recalibrating, for M8 or M9.

 

Save money get a f/2.5 Summarit or 2nd hand f/2.8 post 94 Elmar, or save more and get a 2nd hand CV f/2.5, all these are smaller and lighter.

 

Noel

[artspraken]

The pre-ASPH gives a swirly crazy bokeh that has alot of character. It is classic and has mystique.

 

The ASPH does not. But it is biting sharp. Bokeh is creamy smooth but modern. Can be so perfect as to be boring.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bocaburger]

I have an older pre-ASPH Summilux which I reserve for low-light shooting, and a "tabbed" Summicron which I use for general photography. The older Lux is quite flare resistant, and the look it gives wide open in high-contrast situations pleases me, particularly in b&w (including digital). The Cron is much smaller and lighter, and I prefer it in a travel kit. I've used the ASPH Summilux, and if I had to own only one 50 I'd give it serious consideration. But both my 50s together cost me about half of what I'd pay for the ASPH now.