Summilux what for?

[lincoln_m]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For a while I thought I needed to change from summicron to summilux for my 35 & 50mm. But then I realised that I almost never use them wider than f4 for portraits and f5.6 or f8 would be the widest for landscapes.

 

I've tried my summicrons at f2 but the DoF is really shallow, f1.4 would be even less. It is difficult to get the eyes in focus with such narrow DoF.

 

So my question is what type of image needs f1.4? Or is it about the quality at f4 and summilux being ahead of summicron?

 

I'd like to see why you need summilux over summicron or even Elmarit or Summarit as for my images these small units are probably adequate?

 

Thanks Lincoln

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest Marc G.]

As a part time photojournalist I often shoot in dark places for the newspaper. This is where I need the f/2 from my 28mm or the f/1.4 from the 50mm. Aside the available light photography aspect the 50mm Summilux-M ASPH is optically slightly better than the 50mm Summicron-M at the same apertures.

 

Other than that I often shoot at f/4-f/8 where I wouldn't need the Summilux but it's awesome wide open and perfect stopped down so why should I bother with another expense when the big one I already did is perfectly usable?

 

If the smaller, lighter and less expensive lenses are better for your needs then you're better off than I am as you save a lot of money when you get a Summarit or similar lens instead of the Summiluxes or Summicrons. At f/5.6 or f/8 the differences are negligible.

[helged]

At f/5.6 or f/8 the differences are negligible.

 

Agree - but the flaring can be quite different and it goes, I will say, in Summicron's dis-favour. See for instance here and here (and the following two posts for each link, comparing 50 APO, 50 Lux and 50 Cron in tricky and not-that-tricky light conditions). That being said, flaring can also be used in an artistic way...

[IWC Doppel]

How different we all are. I shoot most at f1.4, f2 indoors and f4/5.6 outside but often use a 3 stop ND filter to allow me to shoot at f1.4 outside.

[gyoung]

In my case, the Summilux is indistinguishable from the Summicron at the apertures I 'normally' use , 4,5.6,8, buitt is much better on the odd occasion I need 1.4

 

Gerry

[tom0511]

Hi, I own both 35 and 50 Summilux asph and Summicrons.

My take: in film days and also with the M8 and even M9 having f1.4 for certain dim situations was helpful.

Now with the new M I dont feel the need so much, but it doesnt hurt to have it.

Also-even though I am not a shallow DOF-"lover" sometimes for some subjects it can be a nice effect.

 

I just recently compared a 35 Summicron asph with my 35/1.4asphFLE. Here the Summilux beats the Summicron also when stopped down. The Summilux 35 is slightly sharper, has better corner performance. I would say the Summilux 35 FLE is overall the lens with better performance (which doesnt mean the Summicron would not be a very good lens). By the way the 35 Summarit seems very close to the Summicron.

 

In case of the 50mm lenses my samples of the lenses the 50/1.4asph and the 50 Summicron seem close together in performance. The Summilux draws warmer color than the 50 Summicron and the Summilux "pops" very slightly more and has a slightly smoother Bokeh.

[Guest Marc G.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, I own both 35 and 50 Summilux asph and Summicrons.

My take: in film days and also with the M8 and even M9 having f1.4 for certain dim situations was helpful.

Now with the new M I dont feel the need so much, but it doesnt hurt to have it.

Also-even though I am not a shallow DOF-"lover" sometimes for some subjects it can be a nice effect.

 

I just recently compared a 35 Summicron asph with my 35/1.4asphFLE. Here the Summilux beats the Summicron also when stopped down. The Summilux 35 is slightly sharper, has better corner performance. I would say the Summilux 35 FLE is overall the lens with better performance (which doesnt mean the Summicron would not be a very good lens). By the way the 35 Summarit seems very close to the Summicron.

 

In case of the 50mm lenses my samples of the lenses the 50/1.4asph and the 50 Summicron seem close together in performance. The Summilux draws warmer color than the 50 Summicron and the Summilux "pops" very slightly more and has a slightly smoother Bokeh.

 

Just for informational purposes I made a comparison between the 35/2 asph and the 35/2.5 Summarit for landscape purposes and the Summarit beat the Summicron at every aperture until f/8 albeit with slight differences at f/5.6. Otherwise the Summarit is the preferrable lens (with smoother bokeh and a sharper rendering).

 

I agree that with having the Leica M and the ability to go to 6400 ISO the need for a larger aperture goes away but the wish to play a little more with depth of field might still be there

[jedi996sps]

 

I'd like to see why you need summilux over summicron or even Elmarit or Summarit as for my images these small units are probably adequate?

 

Thanks Lincoln

 

For your need, have you not 'probably' answered your own question? :-)

 

Personally, for portraits, i always use my 50lux wide open where-ever i can.

[pgk]

So my question is what type of image needs f1.4?

What sort of image needs f/2? f/4? f/8? etc.

Depends on so many factors. If you need f/1.4 you need it, if you don't, you don't. I'm sure a web search will reveal lots of photos taken a f/1.4 - some because it produces an effective image by using this aperture, other because the lens has a maximum aperture of f/1.4;). With an f/1.4 lens you CAN use f/1.4 if you want to, but if you don't have such a fast lens you obviously can't, but I'm not sure that you can fit f/1.4 shots into an image 'type'.

[CalArts 99]

Otherwise the Summarit is the preferrable lens (with smoother bokeh and a sharper rendering).

 

Plus smaller size, lower weight, and lower price. It's a true 'sleeper' lens that is probably worth its asking price, at least in comparison to the inflated (imho) prices of the Summicron and Summilux options.

 

If the choice comes down to the Summarit 35 or the Summicron 35, the Summarit wins in my book.....

[David Freeman Photography]

I use my Summilux 1.4 wide open for Portraits..its awesome

 

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!

[appleman]

Hmm. End of debate I think.

[lincoln_m]

There seems to be too much DOF for f1.4 in the B&W shot, from the DOF charts I'd say the model was ~3m from the camera to give ~30cm DOF. In this one taken with 50mm summicron @ f2 on Provia 100F I only get about 4 inches (10cm) in focus and on this occasion the face is out of focus as the plane of focus seems to occur in front of the head. Maybe I need to step back a pace more to get more DoF and get all of the person in focus?

 

It seems that from this quick survey that Summilux do have slightly better performance than summicron in the f2-f8 range but are heavier, larger and ~ £1000-£1500 more than their summicrons for the occasional times when F1.4 is useful.

 

Flare can be an issue and Summilux at F2 can be worse than summicron at F2 because of the wider front element gathering light.

 

For landscapes with 35mm it does seem that a 35mm summarit & my 50mm Elmarit may be a good combo for light weight kit on the hill while offering great performance at F4-f8.

 

I think I'd need to perfect my use of 35/50 summicrons at F2 before moving on to the summilux and the additional cost.

 

I was hoping for more examples of why you guys need f1.4 but it seems that in most cases it's a nice to have if you can afford it but not many really convincing reasons that would be justifiable to your partner. £1000 f2.5 or £3500 f1.4.

Cheers, Lincoln

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!

[mabbo]

I use my Summilux 1.4 wide open for Portraits..its awesome

 

yup i concur!

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!

[Gerard]

The images that 'need' to be shot at 1.4 are those where the situation requires it to achieve your goal.

 

This includes low/poor light situations where you do not wish to use high ISO or flash, and also includes those where creative isolation is in you mind eye. I can totally appreciate the Summicrons can deliver some amazing results at f2, but the Summilux lenses at 1.4 seem to create a silky 'dream state' quality to the image that I don't see often in images shot with the Summicrons.

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!

[Paul J]

I shoot 0.95 to f2 mainly.

 

It's about just practice. Lots of practice.

[rramesh]

Nice, nice, nice and nice!

 

It's a pity that some folks in Asia think that the Summilux is for those who cannot afford the Noctilux. :-(

[lincoln_m]

Gerard,

Yes I agree with your summary of the f1.4 usage, and you have proven to be a master as your shot is spot on.

 

I suspect that at these narrow DoF we may also have the issue of the focus point changing as we re frame after focusing on the centre, as happened with my post of a side on head pic. I suspect this is all the more tricky at f1.4 compared with f2.

 

Thanks, Lincoln

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[aesop]

...<snip> I'd like to see why you need summilux over summicron or even Elmarit or Summarit as for my images these small units are probably adequate?

 

Thanks Lincoln

 

 

...bags of low-light film M photography only (despite owning a dinky D-Lux 6). I will therefore always opt for a Summilux over a Summicron, unless the Summilux is seriously flawed.

[mmx_2]

I would say it really depends on your taste and style. I, for one, like shots with very short DOF, like these two:

 

 

 

Both with Summilux 35 FLE wide open.