Insane thought?

[leicashot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The best way to understand this situation is by interpreting this one fact.

 

> The Summilux 50 ASPH was conceived years AFTER the APO-Summicron 50 ASPH was. The 1.4 was made with the know-how of the APO but to put APO lenses into a 1.4 design would be too difficult and expensive, and probably, large.

 

Therefor, it wouldn't be foolish to assume that the Summilux is the better overall lens. I'd love to see the two compared at f/2 and f/2.8 to really see the ultimate differences.

 

The one place where the APO would be better is with CA and distortion, but the Summilux is not known to have significant issues in these areas.

 

Finally, if the APO-Summicron was produced earlier, and Summilux ASPH released now, people would be lusting after the Summilux, IMHO. Technically, the Summilux is about as perfect as a 50mm lens can get, almost too much so. From samples I've seen the Summilux also has smoother gradation of bokeh, with maybe slightly lower contrast.

 

The APO has turned the Summilux into a bargain, and we all love a bargain...yeah right ;-)

[bpalme]

When does it start shipping?

[leicashot]

When does it start shipping?

 

September

[Messsucherkamera]

Since your 50 'lux is the newest version, I would keep both it and the 28 'cron rather than upgrading to the new 50/2 ASPH at the cost of both your lenses.

 

Awhile back, I poked at the idea of upgrading from my 2003 era 50/1.4 (non-ASPH) to the new 50/1.4 ASPH. I would have had to sell my 50 'lux and cough up another $2000USD to go with it. After talking with a Leica tech guy, I kept my 2003 50/1.4.

 

The gent I spoke with said that yes, the new 50/1.4 ASPH was an improvement - but that the vast majority of people would never be able to discern which print had come from which lens in a side by side compairson of two prints of the same size.

 

This rings true - based on my experience, easily 90% of people who are not serious photographers are oblivious to the differences between a finely crafted photographic print (silver based or inkjet) and a photo on a page torn from a magazine. Many enthusiastic photographers are also shockingly unable to discern between fillet mignon and lunch meat when it comes to prints.

 

This may sound snobbish or elitist, but that is not my intent. It is simply a statement of the unfortunate reality of the situation as I have experienced it. I suppose that given that reality, in the end we sweat blood in the pursuit of printing perfection not for the blind masses but for ourselves.

[MarkP]

How important is losing 15% of your shots?

 

How important is losing f1.4?

 

What's lacking in your Summilux shots (or lens ergonomics) that you hope to correct, and is that worth the above two considerations?

 

The only way to know how differently the lenses render is to compare for yourself using your print methods, which means of course that you need to either rent, borrow or buy. No two people will extract identical results.

 

The prints with my 50 Summilux asph today are much better than they were 3 years ago, irrespective of my shooting abilities. That's because software (LR) has improved, my papers and profiles have improved, my print workflow has improved, and so on. And hardly any of that cost more than my time and effort. No need for lens lust. YMMV.

 

Jeff

 

You are so right!

[MarkP]

Insane thought?

 

Yes!

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This rings true - based on my experience, easily 90% of people who are not serious photographers are oblivious to the differences between a finely crafted photographic print (silver based or inkjet) and a photo on a page torn from a magazine. Many enthusiastic photographers are also shockingly unable to discern between fillet mignon and lunch meat when it comes to prints.

 

This may sound snobbish or elitist, but that is not my intent. It is simply a statement of the unfortunate reality of the situation as I have experienced it. I suppose that given that reality, in the end we sweat blood in the pursuit of printing perfection not for the blind masses but for ourselves.

 

Very true, but the quest for perfection in the print by technically proficient photographers is often at the expense of it being an interesting photograph in the first place. I don't think its snobbish to want to see a fine print, but it means nothing if the content is poor. I would rather look at one average print of a great image made with a bog standard Summicron than one hundred technically perfect boring images made using a 50mm APO. A technician is not necessarily a good photographer. And that is what anybody thinking of buying the APO should consider, does technical perfection really matter if the only way anybody may be able to tell it apart from a Summilux or a standard Summicron is if an identical picture is made at the same time using the other lens.

 

Steve

[Jager]

I'm on the list at my local dealer's for the new 50 APO, and I await its arrival with great anticipation. I fully expect it to be a remarkable lens.

 

That said, both the 50 Summilux ASPH and the 28 Summicron ASPH are exceptional lenses. Any notion that the the new 50 APO will significantly advance what one is able to do with the 50 Lux - considering that most of our most interesting shots are made handheld and in all sorts of less than ideal circumstances - is, I think, a flawed one. I expect the new APO to have its own unique, lovely, signature. I don't expect it to provide a toolset or a capability that those of us who already own the 50 Lux don't already have.

 

It might make sense in my mind to sell your 50 Lux to fund buying the new APO. But not to sell your 50 Lux and your 28 Cron.

[ananda]

Thanks for comments. Think I'll keep the 28 and 50 lux!

[ananda]

Thanks for comments. Will keep the 50 lux and 20 summicron!

[Guest]

You have not said what M you are using, ananda.

If you want to stay with 50mm only since you use this focal length for 80% of your photos, maybe trading in soon only your 28mm and your present M body for an M10 might be an option.

[ananda]

M9 I use.

[ananda]

I am very curious to see if Leica comes up with a completely new camera that takes M lenses but is priced considerably lower than the M10, and yet has better ISO capabilities than the M9, etc. Of course, too, what Leica has in store for the M10 will be very interesting! My M9 has been so reliable so far that it will in any case be hard to part with it, if I must.

[Ellie]

It seems the 50 Lux already is an APO 50 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1691018-post33.html

[SpiritShooter]

Is this an insane thought?

 

Hmm, can't say for sure, but you might ask yourself what would Henri Cartier Bresson say?

[Guest]

Oh, an M9 and a 50LuxA!

It might get better than that, but not much and for maybe twice or three times the cost. You have an absolutely excellent set.

 

Why not put the 2/28 in the cupboard for a year, together with any thoughts of spending more on gear until autumn 2013 and concentrate on the 80%, that you are happiest doing and best at?

 

Please consider to "just" shoot, shoot, shoot (and postprocess) with the fantastic tool you have and see where you are 12 months from now?!

 

Instead of buying more tools, or replacing them with even more expensive ones, maybe booking a workshop with Eric Kim or Peter Turnley (depending on your age) might be inspirational. This only if you feel the urge to spend more money, instead of more time.

 

Have fun and please keep us posted .

 

Best regards,

Simon

[Printmaker]

... but that the vast majority of people would never be able to discern which print had come from which lens in a side by side compairson of two prints of the same size. ... .

 

From a printer's perspective, I've rarely seen a technical problem on a print made from a digital file where a Leica lens made in the last 40 years caused a visible problem. The same can not be said for modern Canon and Nikon glass.

 

I get files from professional photographers all of the time. Many want to see 40x60 inch canvases or 24x36 paper prints. To make conversation, I ask what camera and lens they used. A common answer is Canon 5D Mark II or III with a 24-105 L or a D700 with a 24-120. I give a nod of approval, look at the file at print size and try to determine if the photographer will see the purple fringe around the palm fronds or the wavy horizon or the 2-3 stop vignette in the corners. No, probably not. In fact, I've yet to meet a "professional photographer" who gets upset over their lens failures. They just want to see a colorful sunset or a beautiful bride standing under a palm tree. And the brides never complain about the technical failures of the photographer's lens. But I see the problems and it takes away from my enjoyment of the print.

 

So my advice in considering trading in two of the best lenses in the world to buy the single best lens in the world, would be to make a print at the largest size you ever would make - say 40x60 - from files made with both of your current lenses and then see if anything in these prints could be improved by owning the best lens in the world.

 

Of course, if you can afford the 50 Apo Summicron and keep you lenses or at least your 28 Summicron, then why deprive yourself? And why are we having this conversation?

[Jeff S]

Have fun and please keep us posted .

 

He did; post #29-30.

 

Jeff