50 Summilux pre-asph v Cron IV/V contrast and resolution differences

[Antonio Russell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

Am considering getting a 50 Summilux pre-asph for use on a film Leica and wondered if anyone had any feedback regarding contrast and resolution differences with the Cron IV/V.

 

Would you say there were about the same or is the Cron substantially more contrasty and higher resolving resolution than the Lux?

 

Thanks in advance.

[lct]

Comparing the Summicron v4 to the latest Summilux pre-asph, i don't see obvious differences in the center of the frame but the Summilux is significantly softer in the corners.

[Advertisement]

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

[russell]

My impression has been that the lux has more resolution in the centre than the cron. The edges are better with the cron.

[Antonio Russell]

Thanks! And how about overall contrast?

[russell]

If I had to call it, I'd say the cron has a bit more contrast than the lux, but there's not much difference.

 

I'm sure some will join the thread to complain about the cron's flare -- I haven't noticed any flare problems with the cron on close to 3,000 frames so far. The 90mm MEM, on the other hand, is flare beast without the hood.

[a.noctilux]

Thanks! And how about overall contrast?

 

Overall contrast is more or less the same.

 

To take things another way:

-several years of use Leica lens (Noctilux, Summilux, Summicron, Elmar, etc.), in film use, even in Kodachrome days, I use them only with the "wide open in mild", so a Summicron does not have 1.4 nor 1.0 : that's my answer

-from f:2.8 to f:8/11, I have never seen significant difference in 50mm Leica lenses in my thousands photos, or only small amount of color cast in chromes

-if you need f:1.4, don't worry, Summilux is good enough for film use

 

Arnaud

[run23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the M9, I did find the 'cron to be more contrasty than the pre-asph lux. Not a huge difference, but I can definitely tell which is which (under certain conditions) when looking through old shots. In increasing contrast: pre-asph summilux --> summicron --> Zeiss planar

[tobey bilek]

The Lux has considerable distortion and the ones I tried did not sharpen to 5.6 or 8.

 

Coma is extremely well controlled however so light sources remain round. It is a night lens.

 

I eventually bought an ASPH Lux and it has lovely bokeh and is way sharper than the pre ASPH.

[IWC Doppel]

I have both and find the Summicron to be marginally more even handed across the image, it also has a very different rendering and look. This is for me why I would pick one up over the other. The pre asph Lux has a wonderful bokeh with a very nice balance between soft and dreamy but not too distracting, it has texture and is sharp, particularly centre of frame. The Summicron is a little more 'polite' with the rendering and a little sharper. I personally think the contrast differences are not something to worry about with LR, both are excellent lenses.

 

What do you want to do with the lens, if you re looking for a portrait, people and moments of life I'd take the Lux, if you are taking more scenes with a lot of edge detail I'd take the Summicron. I also love the Elmar-M for outdoor photography a superb lens, light, small and cheap