smokysun Posted March 1, 2007 Share #1  Posted March 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) i've started using leica lenses on the 20d (and the confirmation adaptors are a godsend). i have a 50 cron but wonder if the 50 lux would be a good addition for lowlight (how much faster) and what is its quality compared to the cron?  thanks, wayne  ps. here are some theater pics taken with the cron: angels in america dir. joe hilsee Photo Gallery by wayne pease at pbase.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Olof Posted March 1, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted March 1, 2007 If you use a M8 i can recommend the 50mm LUX Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokysun Posted March 1, 2007 Author Share #3 Â Posted March 1, 2007 thanks, jan. for the moment the m8 is beyond my pocketbook. i have been reading several other threads on the subject. what i can afford is a 3 cam lux, which i assume is pre-aspherical. i'd love the extra stop but the old lux seems to be no gain in sharpness. actually, i'm totally confused by the comments on the threads! wayne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted March 1, 2007 Share #4 Â Posted March 1, 2007 A LUX is 1 stop faster then a CRON. 1 Stop faster = twice as much light gets through to film/sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokysun Posted March 1, 2007 Author Share #5 Â Posted March 1, 2007 thanks, ed. somehow i didn't realize, after all this time, that it was that much of a difference in one stop! (i'm a slow learner.) i've ordered a used lux and will test it under theater conditions. it does occur to me it might not be a help if it's that much less sharp than a cron wide-open and i have to jump to 2 and above anyway. what do you think? Â wayne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibogost Posted March 1, 2007 Share #6 Â Posted March 1, 2007 I'd love to get more information from the community on this topic. Obviously we know that the lux is one stop faster and is asph (the new ones anyway) compared to the non-asph cron, but the current gen lux asph is also hella expensive compared to the cron. Â I have an uncoded pre-M8 (but current gen) 50 cron from a previous M body, and I've been struggling to decide if I want to "upgrade" to the lux, but it's a big investment and I'd value the community's feedback... Â Lets talk about the specific tangible and intangible benefits of the lux vs cron (and the asph vs non-asph, compared to the cron!). For example: Â - weight/size compared to lux? - viewfinder occlusion? - drawing in the asph vs. non-asph (sure, it's sharper, but how do they draw differently)? - other? Â I think this is the kind of information the original question was getting at, and I know I'd sure like to get some perspective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted March 1, 2007 Share #7  Posted March 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) thanks, ed. somehow i didn't realize, after all this time, that it was that much of a difference in one stop! (i'm a slow learner.) i've ordered a used lux and will test it under theater conditions. it does occur to me it might not be a help if it's that much less sharp than a cron wide-open and i have to jump to 2 and above anyway. what do you think? wayne  Well I must append my statement all Summilux's are 1 stop faster then there Cron counterparts. But then we have the Noctilux which is actually 2 stops faster.  f/ stops go like this 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22 and I think 32. Each one of those FULL stops let in 1/2 less light then the one before it. It is the same with full shutter speeds. 1s, 1/2s, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15. 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, and so on. Each one of those also let only 1/2 the light to the film/sensor then the one previous to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted March 1, 2007 Share #8 Â Posted March 1, 2007 I see no reason to go for the Lux version of any lens based on the cost and that I really don't need that one extra stop. Especially with the M8. To gain that one stop with a M8 all you have to do is increase the ISO. Now others will say the Lux has other qualities other then the one extra stop. That may be so but since I already own Cron versions I can't see the need, FOR ME, to spend the cash on a focal lenght I already have. Â If I had a dealer in my general area I would maybe try some of the Lux versions. But I don't so I'll just stay with what I already have. Â I'd love to get more information from the community on this topic. Obviously we know that the lux is one stop faster and is asph (the new ones anyway) compared to the non-asph cron, but the current gen lux asph is also hella expensive compared to the cron. Â I have an uncoded pre-M8 (but current gen) 50 cron from a previous M body, and I've been struggling to decide if I want to "upgrade" to the lux, but it's a big investment and I'd value the community's feedback... Â Lets talk about the specific tangible and intangible benefits of the lux vs cron (and the asph vs non-asph, compared to the cron!). For example: Â - weight/size compared to lux? - viewfinder occlusion? - drawing in the asph vs. non-asph (sure, it's sharper, but how do they draw differently)? - other? Â I think this is the kind of information the original question was getting at, and I know I'd sure like to get some perspective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokysun Posted March 1, 2007 Author Share #9 Â Posted March 1, 2007 hi ed, the thing is, i do a lot of theater/dance in lowlight. 50mm on the 20d is my favorite lens. unfortunately, at 800 the 20d is great but at 1600 shows a lot more noise. if it were sharp, gaining one stop and bumping the noise down a notch would be worth it. Â yes, ian, exactly. other threads say the lux has a different quality from the cron but they don't say how. also, after looking at the pre-aspherical lens pics on pbase, i feel like the older one draws more nicely than the newest one, but it's really hard to tell from the web. that's why i'd like expert advice. (i'd buy a 5d rather than the newest one, i have to admit.) Â thanks again, wayne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted March 1, 2007 Share #10 Â Posted March 1, 2007 Trust me here! The 50 Summilux ASPH is the BEST 50 ever made (M 50, never tried the R) and it has a more depth and better micro contrast than the cron which can be lcinical and hard. I bought a silver 50 Lux but it looked tacky on my Black M8 so I returned it and went for the black laquer LHSA 50 ($50 more than the standard lux ASPH) and it arrived a few moments ago. Did my usual mirror test shot and it just can not get any better than this lens. I used to own a cron and Noct, and the cron was not to my liking at all really. Â In any case, the Summilux ASPH is a crazy good lens, and also crzay expensive but of those rumours of a 40% price increase are true, then the time to buy is now! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lll Posted March 1, 2007 Share #11  Posted March 1, 2007 Hi,  why is everybody speaking of M-lenses, when Wayne needs an R-lens on his Canon????  There is no R-Summilux using an aspheric lens, even not the current, second generation. You can distinguish it from the first by the filter diameter of 60mm (first: 55mm).  I once sold my Summicron R 2/50 for the new Summilux as I often need the faster speed. Never had the old Lux, but I still think, that my old Cron was a tick better. But, maybe, that´s only because I try to squeeze out the max. in poor light. I looked for speed, so I cant hesitate about one grain less contrast or sharpness. Changing any R-Summicron into an old Summilux I would not recommend.  Greetz Friedhelm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokysun Posted March 1, 2007 Author Share #12 Â Posted March 1, 2007 thanks, friedhelm, yes, it does get confusing, this r vs. m. i am thinking of cancelling my order for the late 3 cam lux. on the other hand, i might keep it coming and send it back if i don't like it. you've hit the nail on the head. i have a three cam late cron which is doing a great job. i've been blowing up pics for the first time for a show after 5 years of shooting and all the differences people have been talking about are coming out. on the other hand, this is for a show of theater photos from a rather rough and tumble group, so i've found perfection in the photos not appropriate. does that make sense? anyway, thanks to all. i still wish i knew what pics from the 3 cam late lux R looked like so i could make a better call. pics on the web seldom match what i've even been able to print on an old hp at home. (but then, prints in books don't either.) wayne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibogost Posted March 1, 2007 Share #13 Â Posted March 1, 2007 It's true that the M and R are differnet, but my question still stands, although I'll admit I pose them in relation to the M, not the R. Â Steve, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I'd realy like to know WHY the lux produces results that please you so much. I've heard a number of times that there's "no better 50" but really it's such a subjective thing at the end... Â There's another recent thread devoted to bokeh comparisons on the 50 lux asph vs. non asph, but that too wasn't really enough information... I'd like to hear people's opinions about drawing more generally in the lux asph vs lux non-asph vs cron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lll Posted March 1, 2007 Share #14  Posted March 1, 2007 Hi Wayne,  consider that 3-cam does nothing say about first or second serie. Best mark of distinction is the filter size. If you can get a new series one for a reasonable price, do it! Use it a while parallel with the Summicron and decide which to sell without hurry. The 60mm-filter size-Summiluxes are quite rare second hand, may be, they are rare at all. The advantage is, that you can sell them to a good price, may be even better than you have bought it... If you need the speed there is no alternative, exept of the 35 and 80mm Summiluxes - but that is another league. And the 50mm is said to be much sharper, especially fully opened.  On the other hand side: If you are doing theatre photography, the sharpness in the edges will not be too important, when you look for the quality of the picture. The same applies to street scenes at night or fans in a stadium or musicians on stage! And if you really will take decent landscapes or architecture photography from the tripod, nobody hinders you closing the iris.  Regards Friedhelm  Just one question: Isn´t there a new Canon 1.2/50 or 58L, which is told to be a great lens? May be you can get it for the price of an used "new" Summilux, but with all the advantages of a system conform lens!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokysun Posted March 1, 2007 Author Share #15 Â Posted March 1, 2007 thanks again, friedhelm, that's exactly the information i needed. the 50 lux i found is the 55 size. sounds like it really wouldn't help me. i've just cancelled the order. it may be that i need to be more skilled in the use of the 50 cron and 28 elmirit. i do have the 85L canon, which is a great lens, and i've used it a lot for dance. but i'm rather tired of the results. and what i'm getting with the three leica lenses i love! also, the 85L is over two pounds in weight and and a bit much. with the confirmation adapters (two) working so well, i want to continue for now with the manual focus. your help much appreciated. and my bank account feels better already. wayne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokysun Posted March 1, 2007 Author Share #16 Â Posted March 1, 2007 hi ed, i meant to thank you for the stop/shutter/light info. with all the books i've read etc, you'd think i'd know but just tend to plunge ahead. i'll paste this next to my computer! wayne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.