Trading in Noctilux for APO Summicron?

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own the 50lux aspherical and I am very tempted by the 50Apo. What is the mid-field weakness of the 50lux aspherical? I have tested the 50lux against the 50Apo in a quick field test (with the M9, not the MM though) and it was not easy to discern the difference between the two at f2.

[james.liam]

I own the 50lux aspherical and I am very tempted by the 50Apo. What is the mid-field weakness of the 50lux aspherical? I have tested the 50lux against the 50Apo in a quick field test (with the M9, not the MM though) and it was not easy to discern the difference between the two at f2.

 

There's a good reason. Roger Cicala at Lensrentals.com did an analysis and posted these results on a series of 50 RF's as well as the Otus and Sigma.

 

This graph tells the story at ƒ/2, and the "mid" refers to zones/distances from center of the frame. The old Summicron is consistent across the frame while the Summilux is not (?field curvature). What it does is keep apace of the APO in the center quite well.

 

However, at ƒ/1.4, the Lux out-resolves both the Otus (surprising) and Sigma (the runaway bargain).

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 January 26, 2015 by james.liam

[Advertisement]

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

[CheshireCat]

However, at ƒ/1.4, the Lux out-resolves both the Otus (surprising) and Sigma (the runaway bargain).

 

That is not certain. Check the comments at the bottom of that article.

The results should be taken with a big grain of salt, as the test system did not "emulate" the sensor optical stack that is supposed to be in place when using the actual cameras.

[james.liam]

True enough, but the M series will have sensor stacks consistently thinner than that of either the Nikon or Canon DSLRs. In an "all things being equal" assessment, the optical bench testing does give you both the native capabilities as well as the relative ranking of where each of these resides in comparison to the others, give or take a few % performance in either direction for unaccounted factors.

Edited January 26, 2015 by james.liam

[lct]

[...] The results should be taken with a big grain of salt [...]

+1. I have never seen a Summicron 50/2 non-apo with same resolution on center and edges so far. My two samples cannot do that below f/3.5 or f/4.

[KM-25]

I'm confused. Why would anyone pay $8,250.00 for a 50mm f2 lens?

 

Because that is what Leica wants people to pay for the best 50mm lens this side of universe, as per their congregation. When I got into Leica in 2006, the then new 50mm 1.4 Asph was touted as a masterpiece, the best 50 ever and people were tripping over themselves to get it so they could have the "best".

 

So as I contemplated the purchase of one, I watched for examples of brilliant vision using this lens to see what it could do. After a reasonable amount of time, 6 months, there were just a handful of images that spoke to me...the rest were terrible, no sense of light, color or nuance, hardly any talent using the lens that I could see. So I tried it for my self, like I did the .95 that a friend had and the 50AA late last year as rented from Lens Rentals.

 

I find my 50 1.4 ASPH to be exactly what I want or need on my M3, nothing else makes sense. The .95 is virtually a one trick pony who's look is not hard to replicate by a lens that is infinity easier to use and produce great work with, the Nikon 85mm 1.4G ( Canon 85 1.2 is even better ) and the AA was nice but not real world mind blowing nice over the 1.4 enough to lose a stop of light and 4-5K additional over, and that was with Techpan by the way.

 

It's cool to know these lenses are out there, but anytime I spend a fair bit of time looking for awe inspiring shots on places like Flickr or the galleries here and RFF....my god it's bad...riches of embarrassments......the work is just not at all good for the most part.

 

It's not about the photos, it's about the lenses and the prestige that one thinks they have when owning them. You can tell that to be the case for the enthusiast because of how much they talk of regret in moving equipment around ( never ever sell a Leica lens! ) where as actual photographers will not hesitate to optimize equipment for the betterment of photographic vision.

Edited January 26, 2015 by KM-25

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's not about the photos, it's about the lenses and the prestige that one thinks they have when owning them.

 

lol. These sort of comments are always funny, what a load of crap. It's no more ridiculous and generalised statement than an owner of these lenses professing that anything else is inferior and not capable, only real photographers use "x".

 

And when on earth did flickr and forums become a barometer of good photography? I think you might find that the people who are making great work a) very rarely mention the gear don't post their work on flickr and forums.

 

If you don't have a use for the gear, don't understand why someone else does, or don't like the look of it, or any other of the hundreds of reasons people find and use tools to their needs, doesn't mean the user of such gear is a clueless but cashed up attention whore.

[jrp]

I find my 50 1.4 ASPH to be exactly what I want or need on my M3, nothing else makes sense. The .95 is virtually a one trick pony who's look is not hard to replicate by a lens that is infinity easier to use and produce great work with, the Nikon 85mm 1.4G ( Canon 85 1.2 is even better ) and the AA was nice but not real world mind blowing nice over the 1.4 enough to lose a stop of light and 4-5K additional over, and that was with Techpan by the way.

 

It's cool to know these lenses are out there, but anytime I spend a fair bit of time looking for awe inspiring shots on places like Flickr or the galleries here and RFF....my god it's bad...riches of embarrassments......the work is just not at all good for the most part.

 

It's not about the photos, it's about the lenses and the prestige that one thinks they have when owning them. You can tell that to be the case for the enthusiast because of how much they talk of regret in moving equipment around ( never ever sell a Leica lens! ) where as actual photographers will not hesitate to optimize equipment for the betterment of photographic vision.

 

I agree that it's hard to find satisfying images in the places that you mention (although that is not limited to Leica). To me it is not the lenses that are the limitation, but the difficulty in using a rangefinder effectively: manual focus, viewfinder blockage, inexact framing, etc. I suspect that it's also that most posters in these places have not yet put in their 10,000 hours and the fact that there is more to think about when using a less automated system.

 

That said, the lenses do make a difference: the 50mm Summilux is actually sharp wide open (which cannot be said of the Nikon or Canon equivalents). The 85mm Nikkor is a great lens, but the 35mm and 24mm f1.4 Nikkors are surprisingly soft wide open. Perhaps more importantly, the Leica lenses are relatively compact and so more likely to come with you. The 50mm APO is technically superb: a flat field and absence of aberrations. The Noctilux has more isolating power, even than the Summilux at overlapping apertures, although I prefer the bokeh of the latter. It also allows you to shoot at higher shutter speeds, that makes it easier to eliminate motion blur, but it does require more post-processing to eliminate aberrations and, like the Summilux, (or indeed the 58mm f1.4 Nikkor, for that matter) does not have flat field.

 

Of course, there are those that are more interested in technical perfection, than in captivating images. (The same is true of those hi-fi-buffs that are more excited by the hardware than in spending their money on music.) But the quality (optical and physical) of the lenses does matter, once you have put in enough time to understand their characteristics and get the best out of them.

[CheshireCat]

The .95 is virtually a one trick pony who's look is not hard to replicate by a lens that is infinity easier to use and produce great work with, the Nikon 85mm 1.4G ( Canon 85 1.2 is even better )

 

The .95 is a great lens when stopped down, so it can also do all the tricks other great ponies do. Same can be said about the 85mm lenses you cited.

 

In any case, I don't think it makes sense to say that a 85mm lens can replicate the look of a 50mm lens. The 70% FL difference is enough to keep them in different categories.

A proper comparison would be with the Canon 50/1.

 

Finally, the Canon 85/1.2 is a great lens, but it has some drawbacks. The CoC wide open is clipped by the mirror box, which is very noticable and spoils the background when you have out of focus highlights (especially at night). The AF is slow, and manual focusing is annoying, as this lens is focused "by wire" (which makes it a paperweight in case the motor breaks). It is also huge, no wonder people call it "The Keg"

[CheshireCat]

That said, the lenses do make a difference: the 50mm Summilux is actually sharp wide open (which cannot be said of the Nikon or Canon equivalents).

 

Actually, the Canon equivalent (EF 50/1.4) is an obsolete el-cheapo lens and replacement is long overdue.

A fair comparison would be with the Sigma Art 50/1.4, or the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4.

[jrp]

Actually, the Canon equivalent (EF 50/1.4) is an obsolete el-cheapo lens and replacement is long overdue.

A fair comparison would be with the Sigma Art 50/1.4, or the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4.

 

Yes. See above. But also compare the size / weight.

[DLS]

I think the APO Summicron is a great lens and I hope to own it someday; it has a unique drawing signature, but then so does the 0.95. The Noctilux is a beast and has required real time to begin to use it well, but trading it in for any other lens is simply unthinkable. Perhaps my wife will do so someday if she can pry it from my cold dead fingers.

[Berth]

 

 

 

The 'magic' of the Noctilux doesn't jump out in that chart, it ranks 6th, 8th & 8th in resolution.

[CheshireCat]

The 'magic' of the Noctilux doesn't jump out in that chart, it ranks 6th, 8th & 8th in resolution.

 

I guess "magic" and "resolution" are two totally different beasts

[erl]

The 'magic' of the Noctilux doesn't jump out in that chart, it ranks 6th, 8th & 8th in resolution.

The secret of using a Noctilux is to NOT photograph or read charts!

 

It is the application and artful use of (apparently) charted aberrations that make the magic.

[james.liam]

The 'magic' of the Noctilux doesn't jump out in that chart, it ranks 6th, 8th & 8th in resolution.

 

Numbers are numbers and art is art. Magic can't be defined by a neat equation. You've just got to decide what it is you want.

Edited January 27, 2015 by james.liam

[Berth]

Numbers are numbers and art is art. Magic can't be defined by a neat equation.

 

Fuzzy images can be artistic. Or just fuzzy.

[steve_hoffman]

I guess "magic" and "resolution" are two totally different beasts

 

Too bad more people don't understand that!

[erl]

Fuzzy images can be artistic. Or just fuzzy.

A bit like some logic?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[james.liam]

Too bad more people don't understand that!

 

Not so certain most don't understand.

 

Leica lays it out clearer than most, with 4 distinct offerings. Bracing clarity and resolution to entrancing dream-state to harmonious, uncompromising balance to practical, flat field compact Mandler.

 

No real overlap, all complementary. Pretty cool.