Summilux 50 f1.4 ASPH & New C/V 50mm f1.5ASPH some images

[gsgary]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Lux has more detail and better, more vibrant colour rendition.

 

Is it £2000 better ?

[Advertisement]

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

[IWC Doppel]

I agree the new CV looks very good, not that much in it from what I see, the trouble with older Leica lenses is they appreciate, are the real McCoy and you feel comfortable owning them

[jdlaing]

Is it £2000 better ?

 

Every penny.

[Tonki-M]

Is it £2000 better ?

 

for me, yes! Leica is never about bang-for-buck anyway, if the premium for that perfection is not justifiable, then that lens will be viewed as too expensive.

[gsgary]

Any film shots ? mine will be used for film

[zlatkob]

The CVs are very good, but the Summilux is amazing.

[SteveYork]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I owned the Summilux ASPH from '05 until just recently, and it was the only lens I've owned that was really special. I only got rid of it because I largely got out of rangefinders, but to be honest the quality of light had a bigger impact on the photos then the optics of this lens. I've shot a ton of better pictures with worse lenses but better light. It's a great lens, but not $3000 greater then the competition (when I purchased the Summilux it only cost $2595, and it felt expensive then). And I never liked the bigness of the Summilux; way too long for a standard rangefinder lens. I suspect in 90% of the time you won't notice a difference between the two. But I would've kept it if I still used rangefinders much.

 

It's nice to have so many good choices.

[Adrian Lord]

Is it £2000 better ?

 

That's only for the individual to judge - their personal finances will affect that subjectively.

 

I would remind you of the bettr resale value of Leica gear versus lesser makes, however.

 

Incidentally, I enjoyed and was inspired by your Jupiter thread just now with the Nikon shooters pic. When I get home I shall dig out my Zorki and Jupiter. So thanks!

[gsgary]

That's only for the individual to judge - their personal finances will affect that subjectively.

 

I would remind you of the bettr resale value of Leica gear versus lesser makes, however.

 

Incidentally, I enjoyed and was inspired by your Jupiter thread just now with the Nikon shooters pic. When I get home I shall dig out my Zorki and Jupiter. So thanks!

 

Cheers ive got a Zorki 4 but don't use it much since getting my Leica's

[michali]

Is it £2000 better ?

 

I own a fairly serious collection of lenses: Leica M, Leica R, & CZ V series for Hasseblad. The 50mm Summilux is my favorite lens of all.

However to be perfectly honest, NO it's not ₤2, 000- better.

[Tonki-M]

makes me wonder, what is $2000 better? i'm sure if you ask various amount of people concerning Leica glass and their price vs competitors like Zeiss or CV, no Leica glass would get the award of being worth the premium, but they're selling it as if they're giving them away for free.. are we missing something?

[gsgary]

I own a fairly serious collection of lenses: Leica M, Leica R, & CZ V series for Hasseblad. The 50mm Summilux is my favorite lens of all.

However to be perfectly honest, NO it's not ₤2, 000- better.

 

I can't see £2000 worth of better imaging

[gsgary]

That's only for the individual to judge - their personal finances will affect that subjectively.

 

I would remind you of the bettr resale value of Leica gear versus lesser makes, however.

 

Incidentally, I enjoyed and was inspired by your Jupiter thread just now with the Nikon shooters pic. When I get home I shall dig out my Zorki and Jupiter. So thanks!

 

Resale price does not interest me, i have just picked up an M4-P 70 year anniversary (mint) with all paper work for less than i have seen scratched M4-P, my friend who has one of the biggest Leica collections your likely to see has offered me a mint M7 plus cash he cringes every time he see's me out shooting with it, it gets used more than my not so mint M4-2 but i will never sell it or put it on a shelf it was bought to use

[luigi bertolotti]

I can't see £2000 worth of better imaging

 

Me too... the fringing is noticeable, but is really a "borderline" situation, and it seems disappeared at all at f 5,6 : Summilux is fantastic in this sense, but the price difference is fantastic too... CV is good value for money, Summilux is top value for who doesn't care of money...

[gyoung]

Interesting to see comparison with the pre aspheric Summilux, I thought the Voigtlander was not as good as that. If the margin to the aspheric Summilux is so small, presumably the Voigtlander would be 'better' than the old Summilux (last version, not original)?

 

Gerry

[TomB_tx]

When Erwin Puts reviewed the LTM version of the Nokton he indicated it might rank ahead of the pre-asph (this was before the asph was introduced) - depending on your criteria.

[joeswe]

Interesting to see comparison with the pre aspheric Summilux, I thought the Voigtlander was not as good as that. If the margin to the aspheric Summilux is so small, presumably the Voigtlander would be 'better' than the old Summilux (last version, not original)?

 

Gerry

 

Puts rates the Nokton (LTM version) a bit above the old Lux. According to him, at f1.4 the Nokton's performance stretches further into the field, while the Lux has higher contrast on axis. Puts also points out that the Nokton is quite prone to flare, maybe a reason why the coatings were updated? It could be just a coincidence, but when regarding the f5.6 sample shots in this thread, the v1 Nokton indeed seems to exhibit some flare.

[Jeff S]

Is it £2000 better ?

 

Well, the APO Summicron is roughly £3000 more than the Summilux asph, so by this standard, the Summilux is a fairly middling lens.

 

The only way to assess these things is to try and see for yourself. Here in the US there are places to rent for reasonable amounts considering the purchase price of any of these expensive Leica lenses...or cameras.

 

I've made many value assessments over the years by making my own print comparisons. Only your prints*, and only your value judgment, matters.

 

[ * If you don't make prints, and just look at screen shots, then save your money.]

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[philipus]

Any film shots ? mine will be used for film

 

I only use film and I absolutely love this lens. It never ceases to amaze me, regardless of the lighting (or should that be darkness) situation.

 

Lonely in the subway. Singapore 2012 | Flickr

 

Here's a link to images I've tagged; I haven't tagged all i've shot with this lens though, but hopefully these give you an impression.

 

If you want more specific examples let me know.

Cheers

Philip

[Mauribix]

just a clarification.

 

The purple halo that you see, is not "fringing" (which is actually a sensor issue occurring where high contrast zones show up), that is in fact an optical Chromatic Aberration (of the lens itself).

 

Anyway, I have the feeling that the Summilux frame has been applied a CA reduction profile (as that included in the Lightroom available set, for example), because I can clearly see some desaturated halo where the CA should lie.

 

@Michali, are you sure you didn't apply (or left applied) the automatic CA correction when developing the file?

If this is not the case, well, the summilux is once again a clear winner even if, since I had both the CV and the Leica, this is not my personal experience.

 

Ciao,

Maurizio