M lens sharpness 50mm cron,lux,noct.

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

if you were to compare the 50mm cron, 50mm lux asph, and the Noct .95, all shot at their respective widest aperture, viewed at 100%, at dead center of the image will there be a noticeable difference in sharpness, or will the difference in sharpness only be apparent in the corners?

 

thanks

[Beyder28]

if you were to compare the 50mm cron, 50mm lux asph, and the Noct .95, all shot at their respective widest aperture, viewed at 100%, at dead center of the image will there be a noticeable difference in sharpness, or will the difference in sharpness only be apparent in the corners?

 

thanks

 

I have never shot a Nocti but I did just recently sell my 50mm Cron (latest version) and got a new 50mm Lux (latest version). The difference between the two in terms of sharpness in the center is very hard to see (unless you are pixel peeping) but the 50mm Cron has the slight edge for sure. Hate to say it but its true.

[01af]

... all shot at their respective widest aperture, viewed at 100 %, at dead center of the image, will there be a noticeable difference in sharpness ...?

Noticeable—yes. Significant—no.

 

Don't bother with this kind of question. It's entirely pointless for any practical intents and purposes. Buy the 50 mm M lens that matches your wallet and/or your speed requirements. Make sure you don't confuse "want" with "need". Also consider Voigtländer or Zeiss lenses.

[ramosa]

I like that distinction between want and need. It pertains to my previous decision to sell my Cron 50 to get a Lux 50--and to my current consideration of whether I will get a Cron 35 or Lux 35. To sum it up, I may want the fast Luxs, but only really need the Crons.

[proy]

I have owned all three and currently own the Summicron and the Noctilux.

 

IMO, the Summicron is the clear winner with respect to sharpness sharpness and the Noctilux in "magic". The Summilux did both well but not as well as the other two for their respective strengths.

[jaapv]

I have a problem with the term "sharpness" It is not an optical property of a lens that lends itself to quantification.

Do you mean resolution? Or macro-contrasr? Or micro-contrast? Or a few other criteria?

There is no meaningful answer here.

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agree... when you compare such similar lenses, "sharpness" is a term that is too "rough" : in my mind (but can be wrong) when I think of "sharpness" comparing two (say) 50s, I think to the simple line/mm... bw optical targets and so... but what indeed makes a real picture "more finely detailed" (sorry, vague term too) when you have a real subject, taken at "normal" distances with a 50 or around, imho is the microcontrast and color correction (in the sense of chroma abherration,,,the one that can be evidenced also in BW) , which together give the optimal "transitions" of the subtle details. No experience about with Nocti and Lux asph... , but Summicron 50 imho is great in this (and the Summicron 35 asph, fantastic)

[edmond_terakopian]

Any one of these three lenses will produce beautiful images; enjoy your choice :-)

 

Edmond

[Peter H]

Stump4545, is there a particular, perhaps specialised, type of photo you have in mind that requires some extraordinary degree of sharpness, for which any of these lenses might be inadequate?

 

Its hard to imagine what it might be.

[Beyder28]

Stump4545, is there a particular, perhaps specialised, type of photo you have in mind that requires some extraordinary degree of sharpness, for which any of these lenses might be inadequate?

 

Its hard to imagine what it might be.

 

I think he is just simply trying to figure out which one of the three is the "sharpest," not necessarily for a particular picture. I do however think as mentioned in a previous post, a better word maybe resolution.

 

I have an older 50mm Summarit 1.5 and a 50mm Lux ASPH and when they are both wide open, you definitely see higher resolution (sharper image with more detail) on the 50mm Lux. However, the Summarit renders color and light in such a pleasing, dreamy and distinct way (at least for me) and that is something the Lux does not.

[adan]

Simple question - simple answer. At the center, at full aperture, the Summilux ASPH is the sharpest - by a small margin.

 

IMHO "sharpness" = "resolution" in the absence of any other qualifying language.

 

Equally, "sharpest" does NOT = "best" in many cases.

 

"Never confuse 'sharp' with 'good.' Or you will find yourself shaving with ice cream cones - and licking razor blades." - Bill Pierce (Leica user)

[wilfredo]

I don't quite understand why these discussions surface with no photo illustrations to back up statements?

 

Jaapv, for the benefit of those who lurk and never comment why don't you explain or define resolution, macro-contrast, micro-contrast, and other criteria - as if for a third grader?

 

BTW, I've used both the Summicron and now the Lux ASPH. I've never had a lens with the clinical sharpness of the Lux ASPH period, but yes, sometimes it is like "licking razor blades" ouch.

[adan]

"I don't quite understand why these discussions surface with no photo illustrations to back up statements?"

 

Probably due to the limited number of people who actually possess - at the same time, for test shots - a Noctilux f/0.95, a Summilux ASPH and a Summicron.

 

I've used them all, and owned the last two at some point, and have seen lots of pictures from them, so I have a good idea of how they perform. But never had them all side-by-side in the same place.

 

Watch LFI - right before the M8 came out (2006) they did a side by side test of the 50s of that era (f/1.4 ASPH current, f/1, f/2 current, and f/2.8 Elmar). Now that two of those have been replaced, they're due for a new comparison.

[jaapv]

I don't quite understand why these discussions surface with no photo illustrations to back up statements?

 

Jaapv, for the benefit of those who lurk and never comment why don't you explain or define resolution, macro-contrast, micro-contrast, and other criteria - as if for a third grader?

 

BTW, I've used both the Summicron and now the Lux ASPH. I've never had a lens with the clinical sharpness of the Lux ASPH period, but yes, sometimes it is like "licking razor blades" ouch.

 

Because it would involve many pages. It might be a better idea to read someting like Erwin Puts' website. My point was that sharpness is not a valid parameter when discussing lens performance - especially in a digital age where sharpening means contrast manipulation in postprocessing.

[thighslapper]

Because it would involve many pages. It might be a better idea to read someting like Erwin Puts' website. My point was that sharpness is not a valid parameter when discussing lens performance - especially in a digital age where sharpening means contrast manipulation in postprocessing.

 

I agree......

 

And there are whole chapters on the very subject in his latest book if you want to be rendered completely bewildered by a complex and very technical field.

 

Suffice to say, as Puts points out, that the current line up of Leica lenses are sufficiently optically corrected to exceed the resolving power of the recording medium and have aberrations and other defects reduced to a level that in real world use makes them almost irrelevant to the process of making pictures.

 

Push any lens to the extremes of its usability, pixel peep and you will find differences and 'problems' ...... but you will be hard pushed to tell any difference in day to day photography. All three are designed with a focus on different properties, and have the inherent features that results from that premise.

 

The only readily observable difference I have noticed between various Leica lenses is contrast and subtle differences in colour rendition ..... which in itself is very subjective and a matter of what you prefer rather than what is 'correct'.

 

Buy what you can afford.... you wont be disappointed....

[Jeff S]

I don't quite understand why these discussions surface with no photo illustrations to back up statements?

 

I don't understand why anyone cares what the screen shows, when the only germane issue is what shows up in a well produced print.

 

Jeff

[01af]

Simple question—simple answer.

Even simpler than you think. He didn't ask which is the sharpest but whether there are differences.

[lars_bergquist]

Of course there are differences. What would you expect? One ultra-speed recent lens, one high-speed recent lens, and one thirty years old medium speed design!

 

I have worked extensively with both the 1962 Summilux, the current Summilux ASPH and the current Summicron, and I have test-flown the Noctilux. The Nocti is of course a special case. There is a certain 'creaminess' to its rendering even on-center at 1:0.95. The Summilux ASPH at 1.4 is about equal to the old Summicron at 2.0, and slightly better at 2.0. This said, there are more important things to a lens than just definition on axis. A lens is a tool and should be reliable and predictable. The Summilux is far better than the Summicron in the flare-and-reflections department, which is important – more important than its speed, in fact.

 

This is like a comparison of apples and oranges, with a melon thrown in.

 

The old man who likes pears

[asmith]

I don't think sharpness is quite so elusive a concept as has been suggested. We all recognisevsharpness when we see it. It's what differentiates the in focus from the out of focus and what enables a photograph to depict surface textures realistically. Modulation transfer functions give a good idea of how sharply lens will render the subjects it is used to depict. True,it is not the only characteristic of a lens that it is important but it is quite important. Fortunately, most modern lenses and many older ones are sharp enough for most pracical purposes. I certainly have no sharpness complaints with any of my Leica lenses whether they are the latest or are more than fifty years old.

Alwyn

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[albireo_double]

I hated the 50 Cron and sold it quickly because of its excessive resolution that ended up producing moire in a large percentage of shots taken with the M9 (and also because of its tendency to flare badly). I enjoy using the 50 Lux asph - perhaps resolution is lower (I don't care and I don't get moire problems any more) and it is very resistant to flare. Also, its rendition of colors is amazing, unlike any other lens that I have used - especially in low light situations, with bold colors present in the scene (a bit like the Planar 110 F2).