juju01 Posted February 15, 2014 Share #1  Posted February 15, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) A beginners question.  What would you say are the main differences in rendering characteristics between the various Leica lens types? Beyond the benefits of extra f-stops , my question is more about how the picture looks. Specifically :  Noctilux Summicron Summilux Summarit Elmar Elmarit  I am particularly interested in the differences between the Summilux and Summicron as i consider just one or two lenses to buy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 Hi juju01, Take a look here Difference in Rendering Characteristics Question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted February 15, 2014 Share #2 Â Posted February 15, 2014 You will find that there have been numerous discussions here about differences in rendering of various lenses already and you will also need to factor in age and specific version of the lenses too. I'd suggest starting by searching through this forum and then post specific questions about differences when you have narrowed your choices down. It would take a fair few thousand words to come anywhere close to answering your post I'm afraid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 15, 2014 Share #3 Â Posted February 15, 2014 When all are at their optimum aperture, commonly f/4 or f/5.6, there isn't much difference. Too many things can influence the final fine discrimination between them, like camera technique and processing the image, and the fact that processing is a personal thing anyway, that you can only assess the benefits of each by looking at the things that can only be compared on the spec sheet, like fastest aperture etc. Some people will say maybe one has more contrast than another, but unless you both like their interpretation and can replicate it the answer is down to personal reasons. So decide based on focal length, speed, and price, and remember that the more you spend doesn't equate to vastly better resolution etc. like any high end goods quality beyond a certain level follows the law of diminishing returns. Â If however you simply want a batch of recommendations for what works for other people, and you trust them to spend your money, I'm sure you will get plenty of suggestions. I'll start you off with the 50mm Summilux, but it's pointless me telling you how it renders (better than, worse than) because your idea's and mine will vary. Â Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 15, 2014 Share #4 Â Posted February 15, 2014 If you do a search on one or two lenses you will start to get an idea. Whilst in some respects there is some subtlety you soon get to understand and appreciate their fingerprint and character. The most obvious differences are at wide apertures, I could get close to the look of the 75 Summilux with a 50 pre ASPH Summilux or an f1 Noctilux by they are individual enough to be distinct in how they ultimately look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juju01 Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share #5 Â Posted February 15, 2014 Agreed - Upon reflection, my question is too broad. I have done a fair amount of reading here and checking out flickr galleries. Â Perhaps, I should narrow the discussion to the lens I am considering : Â 90 Summicron vs Summarit 50 Summilux vs APO Cron ( Already own a Zeiss Planar which I like but has crap lens cap ) 35 Summicron vs Summilux FLE Â Â I started another discussion thread on the APO 50 - so i have a bit more insight there about rendering capabilities vs the Summlix. Regarding the 90, I was leaning towards the cron based on pictures i have seen until I read this review just a moment ago - which seemed to say the Summarit renders nicer on the 240 than the cron. Thoughts? Â ps I have a 240 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted February 15, 2014 Share #6  Posted February 15, 2014 A beginners question. What would you say are the main differences in rendering ........ What exactly do you mean by rendering? If you consider the long list of 50mm Summicron lenses, of which I have two bought some forty years apart, the current version has more clinical sharpness; But many owners also love the slightly dreamy drawing which flatters female complexion and endows certain landscapes with more atmosphere. That is just two versions of the same lens description.  Another factor is medium. Some lenses are better with film and digital according to some owners. It becomes a highly contentious subject which is difficult to define or resolve objectively.  It is worth you while being more specific with your question and also spending time searching the Leica lens sub-section of this forum.  My view is that almost any Leica lens is capable of yielding highly satisfactory results provided care is taken in shooting and post-processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 15, 2014 Share #7 Â Posted February 15, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) If an image is worth a thousand words, tens of thousands images are worth millions of words. Â There is at least one Flickr group for each lens you cited. Example: Flickr: Search for a group Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 15, 2014 Share #8 Â Posted February 15, 2014 When you quote 35 Summicron the you do need to be specific as they do differ. Â A good example is the MkIV vs the ASPH current version. I have owned both and currently have 3 35's the MkIV, a 1968 Summaron and the rare Summilux aspherical, they are all different and all lovely. But sticking with thr 35 Summicron MkIV vs asph the ASPH is sharper at F2 and a little smoother with bokeh at f2, but is more 'pink' with its colouring and the MkIV is more 3D somehow. At f2.8 onwards the MkIV is sublime with a wonderful bokeh and real image depth. Ultimately I preferred it over the ASPH so sold the ASPH. I also prefer its smaller size and speed if focus. I can only recommend you ask specific questions as without some targets it can be difficult to draw comparisons. Â It does seem in overview the later lenses have a more even performance than older lenses (less vignetting and better edge performance) also often sharper BUT the look and way older lenses deal with the transition from in focus to out if focus is often more gradual and for me more natural. The fun is buying, trying, learning and making personnel choices. I can't think if any poor Leica lenses and they all have a well deserved place on any M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirkB17 Posted February 15, 2014 Share #9 Â Posted February 15, 2014 Besides Flickr you may have a look at the Leica magazin LFI 6/2011 which includes a comprehensive comparison of 50 mm lenses: Summilux (three different versions), Summicron, Summarit and Zeiss Planar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juju01 Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share #10 Â Posted February 15, 2014 Thank you all for great suggestions. Â IWC Doppel - I was referring to the current summicron 35. All my lens questions are related to the most current versions. Seems it is sometimes almost impossible to find older versions in much demand - or if you do, you will pay a premium for them. I recently came across a 35 AA on fredmiranda's forums going for $12K. I'll pass. Â I think as you all state, I can try things out and see how it fits. Many thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.