Rate your 50mm lenses

[Dikaiosune01]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not sure if i get what you mean. Why would we use different lenses if they rendered the same? An Elmar does not render the same as a Summilux for instance, suffice it to take pics with them to view it. The easier way to check this is to use an early and a modern lens at full aperture. Can be night and day.

 

When you compare the elmar with a summilux, is it more about the 'rendering' or the 'out of focus' area provided wide open? Or maybe they are the same? I agree with what your saying if what you mean that shooting at different apertures at different look. That's why some people choose to shoot with a notilux instead of a summarit. I get that. However, is there that big of a difference between using an early summicron vs the current summicron. Is there really that big of an improvement when jumping to the APO? I don't see it. If the difference is there, I would like to be explained where that difference is, so I can notice and fully appreciate it.

 

I think the nature of my frustration is when i begin to read about differences between the various versions of the summilux. Mostly due to how I can't follow the discussion about the lens rendering. One part is because I never shot with summilux's before. The other is the language used is so vague that I have a difficult time conceptualizing it.

[lct]

It is matter of experience of course but if you find the opportunity, try to shoot a Summilux asph and a Summilux pre-asph at full aperture and you'll see immediately what i mean. It is not only a metter of bokeh but you'll find that the sharpness of the asph is significantly superior to the point that you may feel it too sharp for less than perfect human skins for instance. Reason why i prefer the pre-asph for portrait generally.

[wattsy]

I am hoping to pick up some information that might help me select a certain lens for this day or that or this body/lens combo for this day or that.

 

Now you are just taking the piss.

[almoore]

you'll find that the sharpness of the asph is significantly superior to the point that you may feel it too sharp for less than perfect human skins for instance

 

I quite agree, it's far too sharp for humans, but excellent for portraits of aliens with their very smooth skin. It also renders their green tint with sublime accuracy.

[jto555]

No-one will learn anything useful from this. To the contrary—it's just hollow and deceiving. Hence pointless.

 

 

Then why did you post???

[swamiji]

I would rate them all a 10+, each in there own way.

 

Just because a lens is very stylized, does not make it inferior to a more mainstream lens. My order of preference is mostly to do with what I want to achieve, and that changes with each photo shoot.

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ict, why do you like the 2.8/50 Elmar-M so much?

[lct]

Makes aliens smile, the tube recalls them their UFO. Otherwise it's the lens that renders best for my taste. Sharp w/o harshness, smooth bokeh, negligible flare, distortion & CA, a somewhat grainy rendition that i like much, the Tessar look perhaps, hard to explain but i have always an Elmar in my bag.

[algrove]

I may try to explain why i like or dislike a lens or where it shines or not for me, but i'm unable to rate them sorry. Just to take a couple examples, the latest Elmar is my all time favorite but i would not use it in low light. Or the Summilux asph is my favorite in low light but not for portrait. Or the Summilux pre-asph is my favorite for portrait but not for landscape. And so on...

 

That is good information. Thanks.

[jdlaing]

I have one and one third fifty millimeter lenses.

 

The 50 Summilux Asph.

The 50 on a Tri Elmar MATE.

 

I love them both.

[algrove]

I have one and one third fifty millimeter lenses.

 

The 50 Summilux Asph.

The 50 on a Tri Elmar MATE.

 

I love them both.

 

But I bet at 50mm on both the 50 lux is your most used?

[jdlaing]

But I bet at 50mm on both the 50 lux is your most used?

 

Actually no. I keep the MATE on the bulk of the time,

I use the Lux in low light or when I want narrow DOF.

 

I am enamored with the MATE and WATE.

 

I am glad I bought the Lux.

[IWC Doppel]

Happy to give a few thoughts.

 

Never owned 2,3,4,6,10. So can't comment with any substance, I did try the new 50 APO and wanted to dismiss it as its a 'silly' price, but I was very impressed. On the covet list....

 

I really love the 50/1.4 pre asph, it has a fantastic balance of sharpness and interesting, but not distracting bokeh, shifts a little between 1.4 and 2.0, but that's life. Love the colouring and rendering. A bargain IMO, I now have the e46 version for the 0.7 focus distance. I could shoot this all day at 1.4. I tried hard to tell any real difference between the e43 and e46 and it was very hard, if I had to take one I'd punt for the e43, but that's if it was .7m, it isn't so I kept the e46

 

The Elmar f2.8 is great for all the practical reasons ( size price etc) and renders with some 'texture' and interest and is very sharp, particularly at f4-8, and no slouch at 2.8. There is something about this lens that is hard to describe but is somehow sharp and contrasty without being uninteresting if thats not junk !

 

The 50 Cron, superb I only have experience of the v4. I can't decide if it is too polite or I need to stop craving after something with character when this is more sophisticated than me. Something most people will and should have as their base 50, I don't I can't tell you why ?....

 

The 50 f1.0 is a legend for all the right reasons. I was really surprised by the quality of low light colours, awesome. The bokeh has movement which can bring your attention to the moment of the stationary subject and it adds life IMO. The B pencil is used here, like the 75 Summilux, no 3H in the way it draws and it's all the better for it. yummy

 

1. 7

4. 9 (I think)

5. 9

7. 10 ( the longer I own it the more I like it)

8. 9 (I'll never part with this lens, £450 and all it's virtues it's gotta be a 9)

9. 9

[01af]

Currently I have seven different Leitz/Leica 50 mm lenses for M bayonet (none of them Canon, FED, Industar, Jupiter, Konica, Nikon, Voigtländer, or Zeiss, and a whopping three of them on algrove's list). All of them have their special characters, strengths, and weaknesses. The idea to rate them on a one-dimensional scale from 0 to 10 is so ... absurd.

[Paul J]

Ahhhh the LUF. The best place to come and talk about your favourite lenses. Conversely the best place to be scorned for talking about your favourite lenses.

 

This place just gets more strange by the day.

 

[lct]

We don't have too many killjoys fortunately.

[tobey bilek]

50 1.4 Summilux. Noct are to big. Summicron is a bit sharper, but with worse bokeh.

1.4 image is similar to my 75 Summicron so they match.

 

50 collapsible. Same as 1.4 from 4 on in a smaller package, nice for travel or packing in smaller bag. Nice bokeh and sharp as anything @4-11.

 

3.5 red scale is tiny and very good from 5.6. No smaller 50 made.

 

But the current 1.4 is a nice blend of sharp, size, and nice bokeh. If I could have one only, it is my choice easily.

[agfa100]

Like someone else stated all the 50's I use I like but for different reasons.

1. 50 mm Summilux V2 very early lovely wide open.

2. 50 mm Kern Macro-Switar 1.9 very smooth and very sharp. Very close to the 50mm Summicron APO design, just 40 years older.

3. 50 mm Hexar 2.0

4. 50 mm Jupiter 8 2.0

5. 50 mm Fed 3.5

6. 50 mm Fed 2.0 pre-war uncoated (summar copy) for all the same reasons people like the summar!

[flyalf]

Overall usability rating:

1: 10

12 (Jupiter 3 P): 3

 

Landscape:

1: 9

12 (Jupiter 3 P): 3

 

Humans:

1: 7

12 (Jupiter 3 P): 9

 

Street:

1: 7

12 (Jupiter 3 P): 7

 

Build quality;

1: 10

12 (Jupiter 3 P): 2

 

Status show-off:

1: 2 (what,could only afford a "Cron"?)

12 (Jupiter 3 P): 7 (Interesting choice, you must really be into this)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Marc G.]

Sorry, but this whole thread (to me) shows the cases of gear paralysis.... I'd rather have (and do have) only 1 50mm and just use it for anything rather than have 10 different lenses of 1 focal length and need to carry multiple ones around without the advantage of different perspectives. I agree with some of the posters that this topic seems kind of pointless.