50 Lux upgrade conundrum

[skinnfell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some more clarifications. My 50 is a black type 4 (current optics but focusing tab and separate hood), and I use it with the hood, no filter and on a tripod at F8 most of the time when I am doing "serious" stuff, in other words an architecture/city landscape project I am doing. My 50 cron has absolutely no faults for this project. The other times its handheld at F2-2.8 usually. This is to allow for some focusing error. As far as hand-holding go, the diminutive size of this lens is absolutely great. I had a silver type 5 before and it balanced terribly in my opinon (330g vs 190g).

 

The 50 cron is pretty screaming good at F8, but there is definitely some room for improvement at F2. Hence my question wether the upgrade was worthwhile, both for somewhat higher sharpness but also for the ability to use higher apertures. Flare is an issue sometimes, but it hasn´t really ruined shots for me like the flare on my 35 cron does. The 35 has a way of flaring which will ruin the color of the whole picture, and is almost invisible on the LCD.

50 cron will either flare badly or not at all, and it is also much more predictable.

 

The more I read here the more I think the decision to get on a waiting list for the 35 lux was the right one.

 

And here is another reason:

Yesterday I rounded up my fifty best shots from this last year, and used LR to give me stats on which lens actually produced the "keepers". (I did keep my architecture project out of this equation.) . Lo and behold, around 50% were done with my other lenses, 24, 28, 90 . But between the last two, 40% were done with 35mm and only 10% with the 50mm.

 

So, while I shoot much more often with the 50, it seems the 35 produces proportionately many more keepers.

 

Thanks to everyone who contributed!

 

[Marignac]

But then, unless flare is a problem, the Summicron-M 50 mm is the best 50 mm lens for architectural use because of all current Leica M 50 mm lenses it has the best corner sharpness at medium apertures as well as the lowest distortion.

Better than 50 Summarit? I'm asking because I'm acutally having a Nokton 50/1.5 asph and a cron 50 IV. I've been thinking of selling both and getting a 50 Lux.

 

Then I became aware of a lot of applause for the Sumarit 50: flare- and backlit resistant, sharp even in extreme corners, great micro-contrast. Just the way my Summarit 75 renders the images - my most favourite lens.

 

So I wonder if I should just sell the Cron, buy a Summarit for landscape, on the road, documentary jobs and keep the Nokton for atmosphere, low light etc.

[01af]

But then, unless flare is a problem, the Summicron-M 50 mm is the best 50 mm lens for architectural use because of all current Leica M 50 mm lenses it has the best corner sharpness at medium apertures as well as the lowest distortion.

Better than Summarit-M 50 mm?

With regard to those two particular criteria (corner sharpness at medium apertures; distortion)—yes. But then, the differences are subtle, so you'll be hard-pressed to actually see any differences in real-world pictures. Umm, with the possible exception of flare. The Summarit-M 50 mm is not totally flare-resistant (no lens ever is), but it is significantly less flare-prone than the Summicron.

 

So, if flares and glaring veils frequently are a problem for you then switching to a Summarit would make sense. If not then better just keep what you have.

 

 

Then I became aware of a lot of applause for the Summarit-M 50 mm: flare- and backlight-resistant, sharp even in extreme corners, great micro-contrast. Just the way my Summarit-M 75 renders the images—my most favourite lens.

If you like the Summarit-M 75 mm then most likely you'll also like the Summarit-M 50 mm.

 

 

So I wonder if I should just sell the Summicron, buy a Summarit for landscape, on the road, documentary jobs, and keep the Nokton for atmosphere, low light, etc.

Maybe you should buy the Summarit, keep the Summicron, and take your time to compare the two. Then decide which to sell and which to keep.

 

Your original idea to sell all your 50 mm lenses and replace them with a Summilux-M 50 mm Asph also sounds like a good plan. It's an excellent lens with lots of pros and hardly any cons ... with one minor exception: the sharpness fall-off in the farthest corners is slightly worse at medium apertures than with Summicron or Summarit. But again: the differences are subtle.

 

I love the Summarit-M 50 mm (and, by the way, the Summarit-M 35 mm, too) for the small size, low weight, low profile (makes the Leica M look like daddy's point-and-shoot), and excellent performance. They suit landscape, road trips, documentary, etc just perfectly. Only the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph would be significantly better here, but uh, the cost! (And no-one knows yet how flare-resistant the Apo-Summicron-M 50 Asph is.)

[FlorianM]

 

So, while I shoot much more often with the 50, it seems the 35 produces proportionately many more keepers.

 

Thanks to everyone who contributed!

 

 

But which one gets shot most often wide open, thus be the better candidate for a summilux upgrade?

 

I personally use my 50 'lux at f1.4 or 2 for the nice effect, and I'm led to believe the 50 is noticeably, albeit subjectively, better in this regard.

[philipus]

There was a long thread not too long ago (here) about the 35's performance shot straight into the sun.

 

I did a similar test with my copy, posted here fwiw.

 

I have used my 50 Asph a lot more than the 35 but I can't off the top of my head remember one image where it has flared, though I am certain it can be forced to.

[Marignac]

So, if flares and glaring veils frequently are a problem for you then switching to a Summarit would make sense. If not then better just keep what you have.

Well, in fact the differences in sharpness & contrast between Nokton and Summicron are non-existent at medium apertures. Micro-contrast full open is low with the Nokton, but the Cron hasn't got f1.5, at f2 the differences are subtle to non-existent. In difficult light / backlight the Nokton might get a bit weaker, definitely more (uncritical for LR repair) CA. In other words: what I feel I'm looking for is a more crisp, cooler image. It appears that the Summarit is heading more towards that road.

 

What difference in size and weight between Cron and Summarit?

 

Since you mention the 35 Summarit - same relation: I do have the Nokton 35/1.2 II asph which I adore, a wonderful, a great lens. And I do have the Cron asph. The cron asph is next to a perfect lens in all disciplines - but it gives me no thrills. Maybe the Summarit is more complementary to the Nokton.

 

A 50 Lux might incorporate all what I'm looking for, but a Lux 35 FLE is out of the question. Well if you might want to comment here or here (where I raise the topic reorganization of my lens-park in the .de forum).

 

That is also a point:

I love the Summarit-M 50 mm (and, by the way, the Summarit-M 35 mm, too) for the small size, low weight, low profile (makes the Leica M look like daddy's point-and-shoot), and excellent performance. They suit landscape, road trips, documentary, etc just perfectly.