50mm Summilux ASPH vs. non-asph

[Jon Pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm sure the discussions are somewhere on the Forum, but what's the current thinking on the 50mm Lux Asph vs. the last version of the non-asph? I shoot with an M9 and an MP, and actually have the new aspherical model; it's nice, don't get me wrong, but I've got my eye on a millenium black paint 'lux which I like for its slightly smaller size and faster focusing; I really enjoy the focus on my 50 Summicron. Maybe I just need more time to 'bond' with my lux asph .

 

Just wanting some thoughts/opinions from those who've used both versions of the lenses...stuck at my computer and daydreaming!

Jon

[Messsucherkamera]

I remember reading (on this forum, if memory serves me correctly) that the pre-ASPH 50 Summilux is preferred by some shooters over the newer ASPH lens for black and white film photography. If B&W film photography is a priority, that point is something to consider.

 

At one point I was poking at the idea of upgrading from my pre-ASPH 50 Summilux to the new 50 Summilux ASPH FLE lens. I called Leica NJ and talked with one of the tech guys there. He said that the new 50 ASPH was a better lens - on paper. Laboratory testing would show a bit of an edge for the ASPH lens.

 

He then went on to say that in terms of seeing any difference in prints between the two lenses, the differences are so slight that the vast majority of people would never see them.

 

I have also read that the ASPH lenses - both the 50mm and 35mm Summilux lenses - fare better at close range shooting thanks to the floating lens element design. This seems to be one of the major advantages of the new ASPH lenses over their predecessors.

 

My take on all this is that the last version pre-ASPH 50 Summilux is a very high quality lens and can definitely give a good accounting of itself in terms of producing fine prints. The 50 ASPH Summilux does outperform it at f/1.4 and in close range shooting, though.

 

If you do not have the pre-ASPH 50 and the price of admission is not an issue, get the ASPH 50 Summilux.

 

As for me, I could not see the wisdom in selling off my 50/1.4 and then having to add another $1800 to $2000USD to the upgrade to get a lens that is perhaps 5% better than the lens that I already owned.

 

YMMV.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Messsucherkamera

[Advertisement]

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

[tobey bilek]

In my opinion the preasph does not even come close to the 1.4 ASPH. The current 1.4 is the first 50 1.4 thqt I would consider buying.

 

Best you keep what you have and borrow or try a previous model to satisfy yourself. The you will see it does not achieve sharpness until 5.6 or 8 , has pretty severe distortion, and some field curvature, I have looked at multiple samples and they are all the same. The big advantage it has is low to no coma over it`s contemporary fast 50`s from other manufactures.

[bocaburger]

Everything said above is true. But I sold my ASPH and kept the pre-ASPH because I just like the rendering better. So unless your satsfied to let peer pressure dictate your artistic choices, try them both and decide for yourself is the best way.

[akiralx]

I'm sure the discussions are somewhere on the Forum, but what's the current thinking on the 50mm Lux Asph vs. the last version of the non-asph? I shoot with an M9 and an MP, and actually have the new aspherical model; it's nice, don't get me wrong, but I've got my eye on a millenium black paint 'lux which I like for its slightly smaller size and faster focusing;

 

Is this the black paint preasph with pull out hood and 0.7m close focusing? I have it and like it a lot.

[gyoung]

Likewise, mine suits me fine, rarely used at 1.4, and then only at low shutter speeds in poor light where camera shake would negate any better resolution.

And it cost probably less than a quarter of an asph price, mine was a 'deal' at about the same as a used Summicron

 

Gerry

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have owned the 'pre-ASPH' and I do own and use the ASPH version.

 

The old lens was Leica's longest running optic, from 1962 to 2004 without any optical change (except possibly slightly improved coatings, and a couple of changes of mount). And it did show. Some may like a lens from the early 1960's for purely subjective reasons. Heck, some people like pinhole cameras. But in terms of performance, it does not hold a candle to the ASPH successor.

 

The old lens has its good points. It is remarkably resistant to flare and internal reflections (this is why I owned both it and the Summicron, which is weak on this ). It renders pleasantly, though the ASPH has better bokeh. Don't you believe me? Read LFI of August 2011, which runs a side-by-side test. Modern lenses have creamier bokeh than the old dearies! But what has been said about distortion, curvature of field and the need to stop down to f/8 if you want good sharpness across the whole field, is true.

 

The ASPH is a wonderlens. It beats the Summicron, not only at f/1.4 (of course) but at all stops from f/2 to f/8. It has kept the ancestor's immunity to stray light. It renders beautifully. If you have one, keep it. If you don't, get one if you can. This lens and the 35mm Summilux ASPH v.2 are my two mainstay lenses.

 

The old man from way back then

[marknorton]

The pre-ASPH is quite soft wide open compared to the current lens. Its optical design dates back decades and the version with the pull out hood was just a cosmetic makeover. I can still see a use for the lens in the same way that the original Noctilux has. Optically, it falls short of the Summicron. At the time, there was a significant price to pay for that extra stop.

[akiralx]

I called Leica NJ and talked with one of the tech guys there. He said that the new 50 ASPH was a better lens - on paper. Laboratory testing would show a bit of an edge for the ASPH lens.

 

He then went on to say that in terms of seeing any difference in prints between the two lenses, the differences are so slight that the vast majority of people would never see them.

 

This is correct, I think. I was impressed with the ASPH when I owned it for a while, but the pre-ASPH is a pretty good lens wideopen:

 

[gyoung]

I have a Summicron (1st rigid) as well as the Summilux (aforementioned last pre asph) and I am happy that in practical hand held use they are as good as each other from f/4 at least, even at 2.8 I am happy. I bought it because I was unhappy with the ergonomics of the early Summicron on the M6ttl I had bought, the 'twin tab' aperture ring on the Summicron is fine at waist level on the M3 after metering, but the fully knurled ring on the modern lenses is easier to grasp at eye level.

I went looking for a used latest type Summicron but couldn't find one for a while, a dealer offered me the Summilux for no more than I expected to pay for the Summicron, on sale or return if I was not happy. I did the pragmatic tests, was happy with the results, and occasionally 1.4 is useful.

I can always use the Summicron if performance at f/2 is important.

 

Gerry

[gyoung]

Just to clarify that, I am talking about sharpness, only one of the qualities of a lens, the two are different in other respects, quite fascinating, I really like the Summilux colour rendering.

 

Gerry

[IWC Doppel]

I love the rendering of the summilux II pre asph, I have seen some wonderful shots from the ASPH, but it does have a more modern look. At 1.4 it might seemingly be a little soft, but I have zero issues with resolution. The two below at f1.4 on my old M8 before a clean, adjustment and code.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited August 4, 2012 by IWC Doppel

[algrove]

Is this the black paint preasph with pull out hood and 0.7m close focusing? I have it and like it a lot.

 

Can someone kindly provide the part number we are talking about for the pre-ASPH. Thanks.

Edited August 4, 2012 by algrove

[Nuit]

I have owned both of them as well. I always pick up the pre-ASPH as my first choice when shooting

[IWC Doppel]

11114 with the later focus ring known as the II, the later III has a built in hood and focuses down to 0.7m

[mctuomey]

The differences that I've noticed b/w the ASPH and pre-ASPH 50s are handling, sharpness across the frame, bokeh, and color rendering.

 

I prefer the handling of the pre-ASPH, since I like a simple knurled ring to the tab.

 

While both the ASPH and pre-ASPH seem very close in sharpness in the direct center of the frame, the pre-ASPH's performance drops off drastically off-center. Stopping down doesn't help the pre-ASPH much, in my opinion. The ASPH is just better across the frame, making it a more useful for a wider range of work..

 

Bokeh - the ASPH is remarkable, period.

 

Color rendering - in low light, the ASPH holds subtle color transitions better than any lens I've used. It's just more "faithful" to tonality. It's hard to describe, you have to see it.

 

I may end up selling my ASPH copy, because I really don't need its performance for what I do, but I have no doubt it's head-and-shoulders better than any 50 I've used for shooting and printing at the limits of small format.

[Scarlet]

I have both lenses but use the asph almost exclusively because I prefer its handling and flare performance.

 

I do feel (nb: opinion) when reading people's descriptions of these lenses that differences are often exaggerated in a way which makes them seem very different in real-world usage. In my experience - I shoot film only - they are not

 

True, the asph usually renders smoother out of focus backgrounds with highlights that blend in with the surrounding blurriness. The pre-asph tends - though not at all always - to emphasise the edges of highlights, giving them a tiny bit of glow and twinkle. Still the pre-asph can also render highlights like the asph. It is all situation-dependent, a difference in degree, rather than in kind.

 

The test in LFI 2011/6 (August) is interesting. Clearly there are smaller differences between the asph and the pre-asph v.2, than between the asph and the pre-asph v.1.

 

So if one wants a lens that differs a bit more from the asph, then it is not the latest pre-asph one should go for but v.1. Of course one doesn't get the 0.7m minimum distance which may be a deal breaker.

 

/s

Edited August 4, 2012 by Scarlet

[gyoung]

My Summilux certainly gets sharper in the corners as you stop down, which is what I tested it for, a lens that didn't would be no use to me.

The aspheric would be nice if I could afford it, but I can't, and I have used 1.4 so rarely in 50 years I wouldn't pay much for it.

 

Gerry

[Scarlet]

My Summilux certainly gets sharper in the corners as you stop down, which is what I tested it for, a lens that didn't would be no use to me.

The aspheric would be nice if I could afford it, but I can't, and I have used 1.4 so rarely in 50 years I wouldn't pay much for it.

 

Gerry

 

I also find that 1.4 is practically difficult to use because the shutter speed dial only has full stops whereas the aperture ring has half stops. So it happens that to obtain correct exposure I need to adjust the aperture ring half a stop. If I am at the widest end that means moving to 2 or greater. That said, I'm not one of these who need the wide open look so it doesn't bother me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[nelly]

I had the same questions over which 50 to buy and after doing some research and getting opinions from owners I ultimately purchased the 50mm Summilux ASPH fle

A fantastic lens and very happy here.