Apo-Summicron 50 and MM?

[stephan_w]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm thinking about a 50 Apo-Summicron to complete my MM. Actually, in the 50 mm range I have a Summilux ASPH, but the MTF-curves of the Cron are significantly better, and this may make a difference on the MM. Anyone tested this combo? Especially at 2.0 and 2.8?

[Advertisement]

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

[wattsy]

There are a few floating about that could be tried out (I think the Leica shop in London has at least one available to demo) but it is a product unlikely to be available to buy before next Summer. Just out of interest, what do you need the nth extra 'performance' for?

[stephan_w]

Just out of interest, what do you need the nth extra 'performance' for

 

well, the first question is if there is any extra performance or not on the MM with this lens.

 

Then, printing large b&w landscapes is something I do sometimes, so for this it may be an advantage ........

[01af]

Compared to the Summilux-M 50 mm Asph, the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph is not significantly sharper in the frame's center but is near the corners. It also has less lateral chromatic aberrations which is welcome in the M Monochrom because unlike colour pictures, you cannot correct B/W pictures for chromatic aberrations in post-processing.

 

The most impressive improvement over the Summilux, however, is not sharpness or CA but the absence of artifacts in the transition from sharpness to blur and the smoothness thereof. No hint of swirliness in the foreground or background bokeh! The lens appears entirely transparent; the captures are just picture, no lens. It's marvellous! Some may feel it was 'clinical' but I feel that's the wrong point of view. Instead, it's as close to perfect as it comes.

 

What I don't like about the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph are the built-in twisting hood (gadget-ish but way too short), the strong vignetting at full aperture (no better than the current Summicron), and—worst point overall—the absurdly short focusing throw (very hard to focus accurately ... which sort of counteracts the whole point of this lens ).

[brill64]

whilst only showcased with the release of the MM but not available, perhaps the extra performance of the 50-Apo. Summicron is required to get the best out of the new generation of c-mos sensor in the new M, to be released next year..?

[diogenis]

Erm, a better lens will always give better results to the new Ms.

They retain theri benefits, and also their price

[Nick_S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

and—worst point overall—the absurdly short focusing throw (very hard to focus accurately)

Thanks for pointing this out, which is unfortunate. How much shorter is the throw compared to the current version of the classic 50mm summicron?

 

Nick

[01af]

How much shorter is the throw compared to the current version of the classic Summicron-M 50 mm?

A point on the distance scale will travel only 85 %, compared to the classic Summicron. Basically, it's the same insanely short focusing throw as in the current Summilux-M 50 mm Asph ... but for some reason, feels even shorter. Maybe a psychological thing.

 

Generally, in the Leica M 50 mm, 75 mm, 90 mm, and 135 mm lenses, the focusing throws have become shorter and shorter with each generation over the recent decades, and have crossed the borderline of not making sense many years ago

 

Strangely, it's better with the wide-angle lenses. Their focusing throws also became shorter over time but, unlike the longer lenses, not beyond sanity.

[tobey bilek]

Perhaps a steeply pitched helical is cheaper to make ( two per lens ) not counting the one that drives the RF or it is a size/weight savings.

 

I certainly hope they do not find it necessary to come out with all new APO lenses at $7000 a pop.

 

Do you do landscapes at 2.0 or 2.8 where the finest details need to be sharp in the corners? Certainly the depth of field will not be useful in either case being too shallow. Real world is different from test charts.

[johnbuckley]

A point on the distance scale will travel only 85 %, compared to the classic Summicron. Basically, it's the same insanely short focusing throw as in the current Summilux-M 50 mm Asph ... but for some reason, feels even shorter. Maybe a psychological thing.

 

Generally, in the Leica M 50 mm, 75 mm, 90 mm, and 135 mm lenses, the focusing throws have become shorter and shorter with each generation over the recent decades, and have crossed the borderline of not making sense many years ago

 

Strangely, it's better with the wide-angle lenses. Their focusing throws also became shorter over time but, unlike the longer lenses, not beyond sanity.

 

I find this very interesting and, begging the indulgence of others on this thread, wonder if you could elaborate. I am used to focusing both with the 50 Summilux and the Noctilux 0.95. Are you saying this Apo-Summicron will likely be harder than either to focus when wide open?

 

Seems like you are saying, lovely Bokeh, sharp at corners, but your subject will be put of focus. Is that it?

[MichaelRabern]

Bump for John.

[diogenis]

Do you do landscapes at 2.0 or 2.8 where the finest details need to be sharp in the corners? Certainly the depth of field will not be useful in either case being too shallow. Real world is different from test charts.

 

Both depth of field and surely sharpness in the corners are clearly indicated on those "test charts", therefore "Real World" isn't different at all

[philipus]

Compared to the Summilux-M 50 mm Asph, the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph is not significantly sharper in the frame's center but is near the corners. It also has less lateral chromatic aberrations which is welcome in the M Monochrom because unlike colour pictures, you cannot correct B/W pictures for chromatic aberrations in post-processing.

 

The most impressive improvement over the Summilux, however, is not sharpness or CA but the absence of artifacts in the transition from sharpness to blur and the smoothness thereof. No hint of swirliness in the foreground or background bokeh! The lens appears entirely transparent; the captures are just picture, no lens. It's marvellous! Some may feel it was 'clinical' but I feel that's the wrong point of view. Instead, it's as close to perfect as it comes.

 

What I don't like about the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph are the built-in twisting hood (gadget-ish but way too short), the strong vignetting at full aperture (no better than the current Summicron), and—worst point overall—the absurdly short focusing throw (very hard to focus accurately ... which sort of counteracts the whole point of this lens ).

 

This is interesting, thanks for posting first-hand experiences with this lens. On the highlighted bit, such performance would put me off from owning the APO. But I can see that it is of imporance in order to attain image quality that mimics what we see with our eyes every day, a clean, clear, transparent view of the world. It's just not what I am after.

 

About the focus throw issue - I have absolutely no problem whatsoever to focus my Summilux Asph. We're all different, naturally, but if this is how the APO's focus throw is then its importance as a possible obstacle to properly focused images shouldn't be exaggerated.

[lct]

Never tried the 50/2 asph so far but the focussing thow of the 50/1.4 asph is roughly the same as both tabbed 50/2 v4 and latest 50/2.8 ones. Not a big deal for me but it is a matter of taste naturally.

[hhanebeck]

Thanks for pointing this out, which is unfortunate. How much shorter is the throw compared to the current version of the classic 50mm summicron?

 

Nick

 

Likewise, how much harder is the APO to focus than the Noctilux? A lot of people have said that the Nocti is extremely hard to focus at 0.95, which goes contrary to my own experience. There certainly was a learning period, but after a couple of hundred shots I became very comfortable (and consistent) with it. The point being that, if the APO focus is comparable to the Nocti wide open, then all's well in Leicaland.

 

Cheers, Chris

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

I find the approximately 135 degrees of rotation of a 35mm Summicron focussing mount to be a useful balance of accuracy of focus as opposed to speed of focus in a lens of that focal length.

 

I find the roughly 180 degrees of rotation of the focussing mount of a 135mm Tele-Elmar to be too short. It would be better if they had retained the focus travel of its predecessors of approximately 300 degrees.

 

I think that when the decision was made to replace the later M3 range/viewfinder with the M4 using the range/viewfinder from the M2 this was a decision made to de-emphasize the range/viewfinder's capabilities with longer lenses.

 

More emphasis was placed on speed of focus as opposed to accuracy of focus. Including shorter focus travel.

 

I think this was also done because it was becoming clear that range/viewfinder cameras were declining & their place was being more & more taken by SLR's which were seen as better with longer focal lengths. Longer focal lengths require greater accuracy of focus.

 

Speed of focus is 1 of the reasons that Leica M's survived SLR dominance.

 

Now that electronics are a major part of range/viewfinder camera technology there is another problem: This expensive mechanical dinosaur from another Century works reasonably well & the electronic alternatives are not perfect.

 

Hopefully once electronics technology reaches equivalence with the range/viewfinder of a later M3, or even better surpasses it, then perhaps there might be a return to a reasonably magnified viewing/focussing system & a return to lenses with focussing mounts with somewhat more extended focussing travel.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[lct]

(…) I find the approximately 135 degrees of rotation of a 35mm Summicron focussing mount to be a useful balance of accuracy of focus as opposed to speed of focus in a lens of that focal length (…)

I find it a bit long personally as the focus tab becomes difficult to use for closeups. I would prefer something in between it and the more or less 90 degrees of the 35/2.5. The slower the lens, the shorter the focussing throw can be anyway. I don't know how long the latter is on the current Noctilux but this lens is four times faster than the 50/2 asph. Not sure why the new Summicron should be different to the 33 y/o tabbed v4 from this viewpoint.

[01af]

Likewise, how much harder is the Apo-Summicron to focus than the Noctilux?

Don't know how much harder ... but harder it is for sure.

 

 

A lot of people have said that the Noctilux is extremely hard to focus at f/0.95 ...

Which is nonsense. I suppose that's a myth made up by people who never have actually used a Noctilux.

 

 

The point being that, if the Apo-Summicron focus is comparable to the Noctilux wide open, then all's well in Leicaland.

Yeah but ... unfortunately, it is not. The Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph is significantly harder to focus than the Noctilux-M 50 mm Asph.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[k-hawinkler]

Don't know how much harder ... but harder it is for sure.

 

 

 

Which is nonsense. I suppose that's a myth made up by people who never have actually used a Noctilux.

 

 

 

Yeah but ... unfortunately, it is not. The Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph is significantly harder to focus than the Noctilux-M 50 mm Asph.

 

What's the reason?

[Jeff S]

What's the reason?

 

Possibly because of the short focus throw he mentions in post #4.

 

Just to show personal preferences in this regard, this review complains about the older Noctilux's long focus throw as a detriment to focusing.

 

One needs to be careful about sample differences when it comes to focus ease or difficulty with respect to certain lenses. The 50 Summilux asph, for instance, has been reported by many (including me) to have a less than smooth fine-focus action, while others report no problems with their particular sample. That's the nature of hand craftsmanship for some assembly.

 

Jeff