lct Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share #21 Posted February 16, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) May i recall that the focus point is the same for the two pics, the "IX" of the clock. Please feel free to download the M240 pics by clicking on the links of my OP. You may wish also to download the pics i've taken with my M8.2 and 50/2 apo & non apo (same OP). The statuette was not exactly at the same place then but it is again significantly softer with the 50/2 non apo than with the 50/2 apo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Hi lct, Take a look here 50/1.4 asph vs 50/2 apo. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
BerndReini Posted February 16, 2015 Share #22 Posted February 16, 2015 different focus field shape Meaning the plane of critical focus shifts with the 50lux, which leads to it being softer at the middle distance from center. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 16, 2015 Share #23 Posted February 16, 2015 May i recall that the focus point is the same for the two pics The problem here is that unlike many people think, the focus field is not a plane but has a complex shape depending on lens design and even aperture. Therefore, the only way you could make sure the statuette is in focus is using Live View on that portion of the frame. But unfortunately, the M does not allow moving the magnification area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share #24 Posted February 16, 2015 I prefer focussing in the center personally but the statuette was not my subject matter so i did not try to get it in focus at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted February 16, 2015 Share #25 Posted February 16, 2015 Read up on field curvature. Noticeable field curvature is apparent in all Summilux designs by design, as it adds a flattering effect for many pictures, and is why many traditional designs are loved for their character. The APO-Summicron has zero to no field curvature. The field of focus is flat, meaning that everything on the same plane of focus will be in focus on the APO, no matter where in the frame it is. On the Summilux (any Lux - 21/28/35/50/75) it won't. Not on the Noctilux either (even more field curvature compared to the 50 Lux). The APO is more or less like the Sony/Zeiss Sonnar FE 55/1.8 and Zeiss Otus: Clinical drawing, flat field of focus, no field curvature, no character. Perfect? Yep. If transparency and pixel-peeping is your thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi996sps Posted February 16, 2015 Share #26 Posted February 16, 2015 Ali, you are aware that the images are crops from the same picture, the clock being in the center and the statue at the edge, correct? You have to download the images to see them in full. Maybe this is what throws you off. There is a discernible difference, but it is not as big as it seems once you look at the full picture. Ahhhh, that will explain it then. I thought they were separate images. Yes, i would indeed expect a difference between the APO and the lux in regards to image sharpness at the edges. Thank you for the clarification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 16, 2015 Share #27 Posted February 16, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) In everyday use these lenses look identical. Sorry but I think that when it comes to picture making the aspherical 50mm is no better than a F3.5 Elmar or a F2.5 Summarit. I hope you mean the latest Elmar 2.8, because if not I am afraid something might be wrong with your eyes. The Elmar 3.5 has a noticebale lower contrast and not an ideal color rendition Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 16, 2015 Share #28 Posted February 16, 2015 In everyday use these lenses look identical. Sorry but I think that when it comes to picture making the aspherical 50mm is no better than a F3.5 Elmar or a F2.5 Summarit. To me and I'm sorry that this won't be what many want to hear, it's just an unnecessary lens that for 99.9% of use won't be any better than what went before which were all already very good and also in practical terms identical as well. Still if Leica can sell these it can only be good for the company so hey if it makes buyers happy then nothing wrong with that!! You are a good man Paul so i will take the diplomatic route. I think you need a new monitor. However...your wording leaves some room for interpretation and I agree that 'picture making' doesn't require anything special. Just a great picture. But it's like a great wine, you don't need a £500 bottle to have a good time do you? But some want to create something extra, visually refined, perfected, and this lens gives you that in spades. When it's on top of a great picture, that is where the magic happens — not without, though this goes without saying, no? When a lens gives you a quality that makes you feel something, you're on a good thing, IMO. It also depends on the way you like your pictures. If high contrast post processing is your thing, which in this case it is Paul (and looks great, might I add) then sure, you are not going to see the all strengths of this lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 16, 2015 Share #29 Posted February 16, 2015 Perfect? Yep. If transparency and pixel-peeping is your thing. The flat field of focus and incredible sharpness can create breathtaking results though. Every now and the I come across a photograph that looks different from what I see from any other lens, and after this thread, I have come to the conclusion that they seem to be photographs were the subjects are along the edges. The round highlights are also quite beautiful and I have seen quite a few portraits that are were shot wide open where the contrast from in focus areas to out of focus areas isolates the subject in a very beautiful way. It is just a bummer that 50 Apo had to be so expensive. I certainly understand why people love it though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted February 16, 2015 Share #30 Posted February 16, 2015 The flat field of focus and incredible sharpness can create breathtaking results though. Every now and the I come across a photograph that looks different from what I see from any other lens, and after this thread, I have come to the conclusion that they seem to be photographs were the subjects are along the edges. The round highlights are also quite beautiful and I have seen quite a few portraits that are were shot wide open where the contrast from in focus areas to out of focus areas isolates the subject in a very beautiful way. It is just a bummer that 50 Apo had to be so expensive. I certainly understand why people love it though. I agree with you. I haven't used the APO-Summicron 50, but I've used the Zeiss Otus and the FE 55/1.8 which has a very similar ways of drawing the image. My point is that better is very subjective in regards to lens design, and what one prefers, wants, desires or needs. After owning the Noctilux 0.95, and using similar lens designs as the APO, I have come to the conclusion that I love the Lux 50 very much. The 50 Lux was my first Leica lens and I didn't really appreciate it as much as I do until after I've tried lenses that drawed in very different ways. Now I love the Lux for what it is, and would not want to use neither a APO or a Nocti to replace it. All-in-all it's just good enough for all sorts of images. I could never give up the extra stop of flexibility that the Lux gives me. Well, not until the M offers a truly usable ISO value of 6400-12800. The current M240 is usable up to 2500 in my opinion. At 3200 it shows banding in shadow areas no matter how the image is exposed. Until a new M is as good as 6400 as the M240 is at 2500 then the APO is really not an option. That stop is critical with the current limitations of the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 16, 2015 Share #31 Posted February 16, 2015 That stop is critical with the current limitations of the M240. And even more so with the M9 and film. I barely ever wish for ISO higher than 1000, but I do use a 50 lux and 35 lux wide open regularly. I want to go to the Leica store and compare the 50 lux and 50 Apo on the MM. I wonder if the difference is more noticeable, not that I want to spend $16,000 on that combination anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 16, 2015 Share #32 Posted February 16, 2015 I don't agree the improvements are small, you can see them online in small jpgs. It's not about creating something satisfactory, good enough, or even good, it's about smashing the ball out of the damn park and sending it further than you have before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 16, 2015 Share #33 Posted February 16, 2015 have we now reached the limit of the laws of optics?? That would mean a lens that is diffraction limited on all future generations of sensors. Don't think so. Speaking of which, a big advantage of the 50 APO might be the extra resolution on new high-density sensors. But ironically, many owners of this lens are against more MP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 16, 2015 Share #34 Posted February 16, 2015 @Paulmac What Leica tries to do with Noct 0.95 and 50 APO is IMHO not only commercial and/or getting linearly further on optical perfection. Of course there are optical nerds involved in the process which is also driven by economic reasons. I think, that what Leica drives is also exploring possibilities for a new image language in the formal-esthetic sense. This has nothing to do with 'normal', where you're referring to. Why do you think Leica introduced the Leica S? It is completely unnecessary and probably not a very big deal for them in the commercial sense. It's just the drive for exploration and pushing boundaries, of which we do not know what comes out of it. It is just fun and fun is healthy, same reason why dolphins play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share #35 Posted February 16, 2015 The best apo lenses can show their advantages on modest 6MP to 13MP cameras so there is no need to lead the pixel race to benefit from them fortunately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi996sps Posted February 16, 2015 Share #36 Posted February 16, 2015 That would mean a lens that is diffraction limited on all future generations of sensors.Don't think so. Speaking of which, a big advantage of the 50 APO might be the extra resolution on new high-density sensors. But ironically, many owners of this lens are against more MP Perhaps i will try it out on my A7r and see ... I have read similar elsewhere that the 50APO was designed to account for future development in sensor resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted February 16, 2015 Share #37 Posted February 16, 2015 Are we seriously saying that as photographers we need to use the 50 mm Apo lens in order to take good sharp pictures—come on please! No-one ever said we as photographers need the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph in order to take sharp pictures ... neither seriously nor in jest. So what are you fantasising about? The 50 mm Apo is no doubt a very very good lens but we are splitting hairs here. It's superior performance will only be obvious in looking at an image really closely at high magnification. Umm—no. For normal picture-making ANY Leica 50 mm will be just as good. Umm—no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted February 16, 2015 Share #38 Posted February 16, 2015 I bet if I were on an assignment in some far away land and all of the sudden got a text that I had to do some low light aerials, the 50 APO would really rock, plenty sharp wide open and flat field. But....if I only had my 50 1.4 asph, I would make do and in all likelihood so would my editors because I can not recall the field curvature in the 50 asph being all that out of control and the lens is one of the sharpest I own wide open. There are people who seem to be genuinely happy with the new 50 and good for them. But when the statements start flying about how much "better" one lens is over the other and all there is to justify it are technically oriented images....I just don't see the point, especially when what remains in terms of sheer creative use of the tool falls noticeably short of great images made with far lesser equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Focus Posted February 16, 2015 Share #39 Posted February 16, 2015 Ah so the the crops are from the same image. So the APO is clearly more sharp at the edges. What's with all the fuss though? If you want flat focus plane and the most sharpness and are ok with f/2 get the APO and if you need the extra stop plus don't want the flat plane get the f/1.4. Different lenses which appeal to different people; both are awesome! I'd love to see another comparison shot or two preferably from further away from the subject. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted February 16, 2015 Share #40 Posted February 16, 2015 Some good points, however in my view, going by both comparisons I cannot justify double the price of the APO 50 over the 50 Lux. I have two fifties, the 50mm f2 R and the 50mm1.4 asph M and love both of them, personally I am satisfied by their performance. Perhaps I could buy the Planer 50 F2 but then again it might be just GAS once again. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.