colonel Posted January 28, 2014 Share #1  Posted January 28, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I want a lens to cover fully open shots for portraits and other types of shots.  I need only the centre to be sharp wide open (although the sides shouldn't be a disaster).  I have used the 50mm f1.4 ASPH previously on a M9 and enjoyed it immensely, especially wide open.  I now have an M240.  Despite the expense, cost is one issue, but the picture quality is another or equal weight.  For those that have both, a compare and contrast will be very interesting  thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Hi colonel, Take a look here Wide open, Zeiss 50 1.5 vs Leica 50 ASPH 1.4. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Ecar Posted January 28, 2014 Share #2 Â Posted January 28, 2014 Have both. Love both. They render very differently and have been discussed at length on this forum (and others). I don't have a straight comparison, I'm afraid, but could possibly do so in a few days if that helps. In a nutshell, however, if I could buy either of them, but not both, I'd get the Summilux, which is a better all-rounder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Jones Posted January 28, 2014 Share #3 Â Posted January 28, 2014 I have both but the Summilux is my favourite lens bar none so my opinion is heavily biased. If you ever want to shoot at 1.4/1.5 and have the sonnar optimised for that then it's great. Smaller, lighter a lovely lens to shoot with, focus speed and weight are excellent and the results are great, a good copy is very sharp wide open in the centre. Â I recently looked at a noctilux and because the shop had a sonnar I wanted to compare side by side (as that's a lens I know). The salesman and I were shocked at the quality of the sonnar, I would say it was better than mine which is supposed to be optimised. So there does seem to be more variance than Leica between copies. Â Overall the Sonnar fills a gap but the Summilux can do everything, it's sharper across the frame, noticeably sharper and the colour balance is near perfect to my eyes. It can be unflattering for portraits unless you deliberately miss the focus a little! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share #4  Posted January 29, 2014 I have both but the Summilux is my favourite lens bar none so my opinion is heavily biased. If you ever want to shoot at 1.4/1.5 and have the sonnar optimised for that then it's great. Smaller, lighter a lovely lens to shoot with, focus speed and weight are excellent and the results are great, a good copy is very sharp wide open in the centre. I recently looked at a noctilux and because the shop had a sonnar I wanted to compare side by side (as that's a lens I know). The salesman and I were shocked at the quality of the sonnar, I would say it was better than mine which is supposed to be optimised. So there does seem to be more variance than Leica between copies.  Overall the Sonnar fills a gap but the Summilux can do everything, it's sharper across the frame, noticeably sharper and the colour balance is near perfect to my eyes. It can be unflattering for portraits unless you deliberately miss the focus a little!  yes, I meant to say that the dealer will order it optimised from Zeiss at f1.5  Its possible that your one is not optimised as there shouldn't be that much sample variation, i.e. shocking Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 29, 2014 Share #5 Â Posted January 29, 2014 ...I need only the centre to be sharp wide open... It won't be so with the Sonnar which is softer than both Summilux asph and pre-aph in the center. Superb lens for soft portraits though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfhrased Posted January 29, 2014 Share #6 Â Posted January 29, 2014 The voigtlander 50 1.5 is much closer to how the summilux 50 1.4 renders, if you wanted to consider that as an option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share #7  Posted January 29, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) The voigtlander 50 1.5 is much closer to how the summilux 50 1.4 renders, if you wanted to consider that as an option.  interesting  how is sharpness and contrast ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted January 29, 2014 Share #8 Â Posted January 29, 2014 I have both the older (LTM mount) and new M mount Voigtlander 1.5 and they are very sharp. When the LTM version was new Erwin Puts evaluated it and was impressed. Subjectively he rated it a bit higher than the non-asph M Summilux, and a bit behind the last Summilux R. The M mount version has the same optics. The older LTM version is styled like the original Summilux, and I prefer it's handling to the new M version; but the new version has very nice mechanical build. Wide open it does have some "purple fringing" which lessens as it is stopped down. (But it is on the same order as my 50 Summicron, so not bad.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 29, 2014 Share #9 Â Posted January 29, 2014 Has the current version less focus shift than the earlier one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted January 29, 2014 Share #10 Â Posted January 29, 2014 Still has some focus shift - but in my testing about the same as my Summicron 50. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Jones Posted February 1, 2014 Share #11  Posted February 1, 2014 yes, I meant to say that the dealer will order it optimised from Zeiss at f1.5 Its possible that your one is not optimised as there shouldn't be that much sample variation, i.e. shocking  Yes, mine is supposed to be factory optimised at 1.5. Perhaps shocked is too strong a word, but the salesman and I could see very little wrong with the sonnar image and it certainly seemed sharper than my copy. On the other hand sharpness with these designs wide open is a fantasy. Of course the Summilux asph does deliver amazing results wide open and that is why I like it. However my partner prefers her portrait taken with the sonnar, her favourite ever was the 35 cron asph on the M8 though.  Here are the 2 pics, I'm sure that everyone will spot which is which. Sonnar 50/1.5 @1.5 Noctilux 50/1 @ 1. M240. London leicaphiles will recognise the model! 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/221073-wide-open-zeiss-50-15-vs-leica-50-asph-14/?do=findComment&comment=2523140'>More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted February 1, 2014 Share #12 Â Posted February 1, 2014 Here are the 2 pics, I'm sure that everyone will spot which is which. Sonnar 50/1.5 @1.5 Noctilux 50/1 @ 1. M240. London leicaphiles will recognise the model! Â Well, I like one and loathe the other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted February 1, 2014 Share #13 Â Posted February 1, 2014 Id expect some softness when wide open, but both images look to be oof in the critical area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2014 Share #14 Â Posted February 1, 2014 240 has Live View Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfhrased Posted February 2, 2014 Share #15  Posted February 2, 2014 interesting how is sharpness and contrast ?  Marginally less contrast but just as sharp, from what I can tell. A little bit more light falloff. Otoh, 1/4 the price of the summilux. There are a number of comparisons and reviews floating around - shouldn't be too hard to find. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Jones Posted February 3, 2014 Share #16 Â Posted February 3, 2014 Id expect some softness when wide open, but both images look to be oof in the critical area. Â We debated this at length in the store over a number of test shots too, the Noctilux was very soft wide open, I think this is a characteristic of this lens. The Sonnar also exhibits some softness wide open. This seems to be the general consensus in any case. In the end I opted for the Summilux because I wanted the sharper more modern look. Â I couldn't get a sharp photo wide open from the Noctilux, not to say that it didn't exhibit the painterly bokeh which it's famed for and stopped down it gets very sharp very quickly. Â I didn't use live view because it's not my preferred method of shooting and I like to have a lens that I can get results from with the rangefinder. That was my main reason for looking further than the Sonnar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Jones Posted February 3, 2014 Share #17 Â Posted February 3, 2014 Well, I like one and loathe the other. Â Just out of curiosity, which one do you like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted February 3, 2014 Share #18 Â Posted February 3, 2014 Just out of curiosity, which one do you like? Â I loathe the second image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
horosu Posted February 9, 2014 Share #19  Posted February 9, 2014 Since I have both lenses, I figured I could do a comparison on the M240. In fact, I wanted to see how sharp the C-Sonnar really is, when properly focused using the EVF.  Here are the two shots. The Sonnar at 1.5, the Summilux at 1.4 (both shot at ISO 1600 and 1/250, hence the Summilux shot is overexposed by 1/3 EV)  First the Summilux (crop of the central area) 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!  Then the Sonnar (same crop)  What I can see is that the C-Sonnar matches the Summilux's resolution wide open, in the central part of the image, however one must use the EVF in order to focus properly this lens. I could post more comparisons using other apertures, but the results are the same, from my experience.  An important point: my C-Sonnar sample is calibrated for 2.8  Hope this helps, Horea Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!  Then the Sonnar (same crop)  What I can see is that the C-Sonnar matches the Summilux's resolution wide open, in the central part of the image, however one must use the EVF in order to focus properly this lens. I could post more comparisons using other apertures, but the results are the same, from my experience.  An important point: my C-Sonnar sample is calibrated for 2.8  Hope this helps, Horea ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/221073-wide-open-zeiss-50-15-vs-leica-50-asph-14/?do=findComment&comment=2528846'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.