red_dot Posted January 21, 2014 Share #1 Â Posted January 21, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi all, I am sure the subject has been discussed numerous times before and a search on the forums didn't really yield a definitive answer. I am looking to purchase a 50 Lux and not sure exactly which one would be best for me. I shoot with M9 (I have a Monochrome planned for the next year or so), mainly portraits (either available light or using studio strobes) but also some landscapes and street scenes. For landscapes I have the 35 Cron ASPH. However, the portraits part is what is important for me (I am using a 90 mm tele-Elmarit at the moment). So, which lens would give me excellent rendition of colours, sharpness and character for portraits work? I have read lots of reviews, looked at a ton of samples online and so far, the Lux ASPH is a bit too modern for my taste, though I have seen some examples with what I am looking for. The pre-asph looks to be better suited but I am worried that it isn't good enough. One more thing, I will be taking the new lens in my upcoming trip to Havana this March. Please help me in my quest to the next lens. Really appreciate your support. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 Hi red_dot, Take a look here 50 Lux pre-asph or 50 Lux asph?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted January 21, 2014 Share #2 Â Posted January 21, 2014 I own both and use the asph for sharp portraits and the pre-asph for softer ones. Main objective difference lies at f/1.4 where the asph is significantly sharper, also on borders and corners where the asph is sharper at all apertures more or less. But the pre-asph is not really a soft lens. It is sharper at f/1.4 than the Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph for instance and i find it slightly sharper at f/2 than the Summicron 50/2 at the same aperture, in the center at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted January 22, 2014 Share #3 Â Posted January 22, 2014 +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 22, 2014 Share #4 Â Posted January 22, 2014 Main objective difference lies at f/1.4 where the asph is significantly sharper..... When I changed my pre-Asph for the Asph I went into the shop and tried (identical as I could) handheld shots on my M8, wide open. The difference was clearly visible on the camera screen. If you demand absolute clarity wide-open then the Asph IS a better lens. That said the pre-Asph is still an extremely good lens too, and stopped down there is very little real world difference, and what difference there is is subtle - I could live with either if I didn't shoot wide open at times whilst demanding very high clarity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted January 22, 2014 Share #5 Â Posted January 22, 2014 ...I own both lenses and shoot wide open approximately 75% of the time. I shoot B&W film. Since picking up the ASPH in 2005, my pre-ASPH/ASPH usage split has hovered somewhere around 80/20. Critically, I also print (up to 20"x30") with Leica glass and consider this an integral part of the image-making process. My subjective view is that the ASPH may be sharper but, at full bore, the resulting 'low-light' prints of the pre-ASPH are more pleasing to the eye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted January 22, 2014 Share #6 Â Posted January 22, 2014 I have both (the pre-asph in LTM but there's no difference in the optical formula). The pre-Asph is a truly excellent lens. The Asph also. It's often said the pre-Asph is slightly softer wide open than the Asph and that it doesn't depict fine detail as well, but in real usage, at least on film which is what I use, I don't see much difference. Â If money is an issue the pre-Asph will most definitely not disappoint. The Asph is a modern lens with modern rendition, it can look a bit clinical, perhaps. Â LFI had a test of 50mm lenses in 2011, I think. It might be worth ordering a copy of that. Â Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen.w Posted January 22, 2014 Share #7 Â Posted January 22, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have the asph version, also only using on film. If corner-to-corner sharpness across the aperture range is important to you, then get it. There is also the Zeiss C-Sonnar, which, if I could justify anther 50mm to myself (also have the Elmar-M), I would add to "the bag". It is more compact and renders completely differently to the Leica lens wide open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smkoush Posted January 22, 2014 Share #8 Â Posted January 22, 2014 Having experience with both, I prefer the ASPH for f1.4. Truly stunning, and nothing else is like it. Â From apertures smaller than around f2 I prefer the pre-ASPH, especially around f4, there is something magical about it around that aperture. Â By the way, I never find the ASPH to be clinical at all at 1.4. But at smaller apertures, yes it does have the crisp clinical look. Â People say that there is no difference between the two at e.g., f8, but on paper (i.e., print) in my opinion there is, the pre-ASPH is just ever so more pleasing, hard to quantify. Â By the way, all of the above observations are on film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billo101 Posted January 22, 2014 Share #9 Â Posted January 22, 2014 preASPH, better bokeh, more Leica look. Â Â Â Inviato da mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_dot Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share #10 Â Posted January 23, 2014 Thank you all for helping and advising me. I will talk with my dealer and ask if I could borrow the used pre-asph for the weekend or at least one day to test it out, then decide. The listing claims the lens is in mint condition. I will post some shots taken with it once I have them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted January 24, 2014 Share #11 Â Posted January 24, 2014 One thing, you should be aware of, when swaying to the pre ASPH: Â It never gets really sharp in the corners, even stopped down to f8 and beyond! Â This is one (among a few) MAJOR differences between the latest pre ASPH design and the contemporary, modern ASPH lens. Â I had an ASPH for a few years, but sold it, when I found, that I prefer for general photography older lens designs. I hunted for a long time (and many copies) to find my dream 50 Summilux pre ASPH, a E46 black paint version in M mount. It is now my majorly used 50mm. I prefer this lens especially between f2 - f4. Wide open the two lenses could not be more different. Â Go for the 50 ASPH, if you need your 50 Summilux also for perfect imaging (the occasional really sharp landscape shot or portraits with A LOT detail). The bokeh of the ASPH is also much more neutral and often smoother in heavily distracting background situations. Â The pre ASPH is a lens you must love. I suggest you try one first (second hand black anodised aluminium barrel v2 samples are often for sale and can be easily turned around, once you made up your mind). They share the same optical design even with the latest E46 version. Major difference is the close focus ability of the latest models and the different mechanical built. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_dot Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share #12 Â Posted February 7, 2014 Hi all, first, I would like to thank all of you for your help in selecting my 50 lens. I have finally decided upon the current version of the 50 Summilux. I have got today the Asph. version, brand new, in black. I will post some shots once I get to shooting some interesting stuff. For now I've got only boring things, around the house. Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.