50 Cron (latest) sharper than 50 Lux ASPH?

[bpalme]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

According to KR the cron is sharper but many forum threads I've read people say the new 50 Lux is sharper at F2 and super duper at F1.4. I know sharpness isn't everything but I love sharp and I love fast lol.. so I need to make some sort of decision. Maybe I'll just get a cron and compare when the Lux arrives 3 years from now and sell the least liked. When I search them both on flickr it does seem like there are many more bitingly sharp photos from the Cron side. I'm sure there's old threads for this but it's nice to have fresh opinions.

[maurometallo]

I say beforehand that I don't have a thorough experience of the Summilux, for I don't own one... However a dear friend of mine does, therefore I have been able to compare both lenses more than once.

It is my humble convincement that my glass (the Summicron) is in no way inferior to the Summilux at any aperture; plus it is lighter, smaller and costs less than half...

It doesn't open up to f/1.4, though, and that's its only disadvantage, but only if one absolutely seeks that kind of speed and the DOF that comes with it...

[jamesk8752]

I've commented here previously that I believe my Summicron 50 type 4 is slightly sharper at f2 than my Summilux 50 ASPH, at least in the center of the image. Of course the 'Lux has other virtues, and sharpness is not everything in a lens...

 

I'm keeping both of these lenses.

 

Regards, Jim

[bpalme]

Thanks guys.. Hey James I looked at your equipment list.. holy moly! Looks like about every lens ever made...

[lars_bergquist]

Leica publishes the MTF graphs for both lenses. Just compare them.

 

But, you (or some people) say, I'm not talking about scientific data, but – uh, you know ... sharpness. Whatever that is.

 

Now, how much information about the subject that the lens transmits to the sensor or film, is a quantifiable fact. No, MTF numbers do not tell the whole story. But the main things they do not tell are two:

 

• Focus shift. Neither measured nor computed MTF show the effects of focus shift when stopping down, because both give best possible focus, no matter where. In other words, they presuppose re-focusing after stopping down. But the Summicron shows very little focus shift, and the Summilux, which is more at risk because of the greater speed (greater diameter of optical elements) solves the problem by means of its floating element. So this is not really a matter of concern in either case.

 

• Stray light. This tells against the Summicron, not the Summilux. Already the pre-aspherical 'lux handled flare and internal reflections better than the current 'cron does. I owned both and used them in parallel. The current 'lux is even better than that: It is in fact the most stray light resistant lens I have ever worked with.

 

Other claims about the unsatisfactoriness or "unrealness" of the MTF are just arm waving, attempts to explain why this or that favourite lens is really super even when measured performance is so-so. This can be pulled off because other measures of lens performance are not hard numbers but unquantified, and often unquantifiable "qualities" like "drawing" that are in the beholder's eye (and mostly in the interlocutor's mouth).

 

The old man from the Age of Hard Facts (ouch!)

[otto.f]

I my experience the Summilux asph 50 is sharper than the latest Summicron, at wider apertures. Also in my experience the Summicron 50 that came before the latest version, so the one with the separate hood, has better contrast because it is less sensitive to stray light and is a tag sharper too, but not as sharp as the new Summilux 50. Experiences from film and digital. Color rendition with the new Summilux is so nice and addictive that I decided to sell my Summicron 50. It is a bit heavy and a bit less unobtrusive and that is a little drawback in the streets.

By the way the Summicron 28 is Leica M's insensitive-to-stray-light champion in my experience.

If you mean Ken Rockwell with KR, I often doubt his yelling statements about many lenses. Follow your own path and experience but if you want a guide I'd turn to Steven Huff or Erwin Puts

[russell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

• Focus shift. Neither measured nor computed MTF show the effects of focus shift when stopping down, because both give best possible focus, no matter where. In other words, they presuppose re-focusing after stopping down. But the Summicron shows very little focus shift, and the Summilux, which is more at risk because of the greater speed (greater diameter of optical elements) solves the problem by means of its floating element. So this is not really a matter of concern in either case.

My v4 cron has a focus shift about the same amount as my pre-asph lux(E46). They are spot on wide open at closer distances and the focus shifts further as you stop down. But it's only a few centimetres for both. Before digital I'd have blamed the body and/or lens being out of calibration. Or perhaps my eyes or technique. Now I think most of my focus problems through the years was due to focus shift. As a result for closer focusing distances I try and shoot either wide open where it's spot on or I stop down to f5.6.

My lenses become "binary" aperture lenses (wide open or f5.6). Stop down to f11 or f16 and all the dust on the sensor is painful.

• Stray light. This tells against the Summicron, not the Summilux. Already the pre-aspherical 'lux handled flare and internal reflections better than the current 'cron does. I owned both and used them in parallel.

That the cron is flare prone is often quoted. My version hasn't behaved badly at all. I suspect that this problem only effects certain lenses? Mine is a v4 silver cron. Having said that my pre-asph lux has also proven to be very flare resistant. I suggest if you buy a cron to test it to see if it has flare like Lars' or flare(lack thereof) like mine.

[SteveYork]

When the Summilux ASPH came out, the saying was that it was a Summicron with an extra stop of speed. They're are both very sharp lenses.

[SteveYork]

My v4 cron has a focus shift about the same amount as my pre-asph lux(E46). They are spot on wide open at closer distances and the focus shifts further as you stop down. But it's only a few centimetres for both. Before digital I'd have blamed the body and/or lens being out of calibration. Or perhaps my eyes or technique. Now I think most of my focus problems through the years was due to focus shift.

 

I never even heard of the phrase "focus shift" before a few years ago.

[lars_bergquist]

I never even heard of the phrase "focus shift" before a few years ago.

 

All lenses with spherical surfaces (and I do mean ALL) have focus shift because they have spherical aberration. Leica however did see to it that it was small enough to be hidden by a combination of the emulsion's depth and the increasing depth of field when stopping down. Digital sensors put an end to that game, for those lenses that were just barely acceptable; these now stood exposed in their nakedness, foremost of them the first aspherical 35mm Summilux. There was quite a flap about that in this here forum.

 

So of course the 'cron has the shift. It is there if you insist on finding it. But it is of a non-critical magnitude.

 

Russell, the tabbed version with the separate hood, and the current nontabbed with the slide-out hood, are optically identical (v.4). There is of course always some variation between individual specimens, but if you have not discovered this lense's antics yet, my bet is that you have not used it under rigorous conditions. And the chrome does not matter. The chrome plating is on the outside, but the flare is on the inside.

 

Otto, I endorse your view of Mr. Rockwell. If you want serious testing and comment, one other excellent source is Sean Reid (Welcome to ReidReviews). This is a pay site, but worth every cent/penny/öre.

 

The old man from the Age of Hard Facts

[otto.f]

There is of course always some variation between individual specimens,

 

Which can be quite decisive for whether you buy or keep a lens or not, which I got confirmed with the pre-asph Summicron 35 IV

[delander †]

Like most members here I can only tell of my own experiences. I should say up front that I am a great fan of my 3 year old 50 Cron which I bought along with my first Leica M the M8.

 

A year ago I succumbed to GAS and bought the 50 Lux, but kept the 50 Cron.

 

To be honest I cant see any difference between them in terms of sharpness from F2 onwards. The Cron is smaller and I find it sits more easily on the camera, so it is the 50mm lens of choice for me. I rarely use F1.4 and have difficulty in nailing the focus at that aperture.

 

I too like intrinsic sharpness in a lens because I make large prints and I want them to stand up to scrutiny.

 

I have not noticed the flare that the some say the Cron suffers from.

 

If I had to sell one it would be the Lux because I have complete confidence in the performance of the Cron.

 

Jeff

[haroldp]

I have and use both the 50 'lux' asph, and the latest 50 'cron' .

 

Both represent the leading edge today of the lens makers art and science.

 

The performance of both of these lenses will challenge the technique (steady hold, precise focus etc.) of any photog. I know including myself (of whom I think highly).

 

I have never noticed a sharpness difference at equivalent apertures, though if I think F2 is likely, I will probably mount the 'lux' to have F1.4 available.

 

The reason I have both, and the choice of use is based on :

 

If I want shallow DOF or think I need low available light capability I will use the 'lux' at F1.4 (it is amazing wide open). The 1 f-stop difference at low handheld shutter speeds (1/15th vs 1/30th etc.) will have a much greater impact on sharpness than any optical difference.

 

The 'cron' is smaller, lighter and being a spherical double gauss design seems to 'paint' the image differently than asph lenses. I cannot call one better than the other this way, it depends on taste and subject but they are subtly different.

 

I noticed the same difference between my 35 cron asph, and 35 cron series 4 (spherical), and kept both.

 

 

Regards ... Harold

[glenerrolrd]

I found Ken Rockwell s evaluation of the 50mm M s to be misguided at best . I have and use 501.4 asph and pre asph,50 summicron,zeiss 50 planar and the Noctilux .95 . 50mm is a very important focal length for street photography almost my version of a telephoto .

 

The 50 1.4 asph has the best all around performance ..it has a balance of sharpness,micro contrast,color ,speed and handling that is hard to beat. Its weakness is that its renders with such excellent image contrast that it can mess up the bokeh (by making the out of focus areas look almost sharp). The lens is exceptional even wide open.

 

The 50 summicron has an entirely different signature or look. Sharpness isn t an issue but overall image contrast is lower than the asph. Bokeh is Ok but not great . This lens really shines in images that have a high range of contrast (like snow,beach etc) . Color rendering is classic leica (IMHO beautiful ) and not as saturated as the asph.

 

The zeiss planar is a stunning lens but it has very high contrast (almost too much for some applications ) . It is as sharp as I need and strong at every aperture but at 5.6 its in its own class. This is a lens I enjoy for black and white images and for cloudy day situations . A great winter time lens in a city.

 

The 50 1.4 pre asph ...is a versatile lens . It has a softness wide open thru 2.8 thats a lot like the old noctilux . The aberrations are not as well corrected as the asph. The Leica glow can be dialed in at 1.4 or 2 and yet at 5.6 it looks a lot like the summicron. A very nice solution if you do a lot of portraits etc. This is the pick if you are looking for mood or want a softer pallet of color

 

Have not used the Zeiss sonnar 1.5 but the images always look a lot like the pre asph and it has an exceptional bokeh wide open .

 

The two issues I have with ken s report

 

1. The summicron does not produce a technically better IQ than the 50 asph. I don t think its even close and I enjoy both lenses.

 

2. The bokeh of the asph is not a strength and its not as smooth or pleasing as the pre asph.

 

In my experience you will be the happiest when you can match the lens signature to the type of images you want to create . Sometimes its better to have a few different signatures at the same focal length than so many different focal lengths (FOV).

 

I also like to pair the lenses that work together. The 28 cron and the 50 cron really work well together or the 24/1.4 asph and the 35 or 50 asph s seem to create similar renderings.

[otto.f]

if shallow depth of field is your thing:

€1200 : €2500 does not equal €2500 : €8000

(summicron : summilux ,, summilux : noctilux)

So when it comes to playing with shallow depth of field the Summilux is the best buy

[pgk]

but I love sharp and I love fast lol.. so I need to make some sort of decision.

Simply: f/2 isn't as fast as f/1.4. The 50 'lux asph. is an absolutely superb lens, period. Comparing it to the 'cron is pointless if you are after speed. Viewing images on the web won't show you any differences - there are probably a lot more 'crons out there.

[Phenic]

I do have the 50 v5 cron (according to cameraquest, tabbed and separate hood) and the 50 Lux Asph and I don't find it sharper at f2 but I do find the cron has more "character" but I keep the Lux on the m8 almost all the time.

 

I too haven't found any issues with flare on the cron. Perhaps it was coating on the older versions?

[russell]

Russell, the tabbed version with the separate hood, and the current nontabbed with the slide-out hood, are optically identical (v.4). There is of course always some variation between individual specimens, but if you have not discovered this lense's antics yet, my bet is that you have not used it under rigorous conditions. And the chrome does not matter. The chrome plating is on the outside, but the flare is on the inside.

Optically the same but mechanically the current version is different from the v4. And of course I'm not silly enough to imply that the chrome(color) matters. But perhaps it was built to a higher tolerance? Perhaps the rear black flocking(is that the right word?) is made of slightly different stuff? Perhaps my lens is better centred? Coating(s)? Perhaps a repairman worked on my lenses and tweaked it better? Maybe Leica let some bad apples go out? I don't know...

 

What I do know is that I've shot many(20+) different Leica lenses over the years(10+) and my v4 Summicron doesn't flare like yours did. I only mention the number of lenses and years to indicate that I do have some experience to compare/benchmark. And yes, I've shot it in challenging light where other lens I've owned would have flared. So there is some validity to my experience.

 

Should I encounter troublesome flare with my Summicron I will post and share. In the meantime when I see people criticising (as you often do) the Summicron with regards to flare I will reply to mention that at least I do not have the same experience. Perhaps someone else will join the discussion and one day we can get to the bottom.

[horosu]

Lars,

 

May I ask where you have that information? In my limited experience, the opposite is true regarding the aspherical and focus shift.

 

Horea

 

Digital sensors put an end to that game, for those lenses that were just barely acceptable; these now stood exposed in their nakedness, foremost of them the first aspherical 35mm Summilux. There was quite a flap about that in this here forum.

 

The old man from the Age of Hard Facts

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[zlatkob]

Lars, was your flare-prone 50 Summicron the older one with separate hood, or the newer one with built-in hood?

 

(By the way, this "version" naming system gets a bit confusing because for some there is a version 4 and a version 5, and for others there are two different version 4's and no version 5.)