50mm Summilux Pre-A Version 3 vs ASPH

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Real weights of my Summilux-M 50mm (E46, 70cm mfd), no caps :

- black anodized 275g

- titanium coated 368g maybe the same "brass-base" weight as silver which I don't have (yet ?)

[Advertisement]

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

[Winedemonium]

On 8/18/2015 at 1:16 AM, farnz said:

I am fortunate to own both the last pre-sph 50 Summilux (v3?) and its asph sister and to me the difference is simply Walter Mandler vs Peter Karbe.  Personally I prefer the look of pictures produced with Mandler-designed lenses but I also deeply respect the skill and expertise that underpin Karbe-designed lenses.  The Karbe-designed lenses push the boundaries of physics to produce lenses with as close to optical perfection as possible, which means high contrast, faithful colour reproduction, sharpness in the corners and minimal vignetting. The Mandler-designed 50 Summiluxes produce more character (which is not used here as a synonym for poor performance) and deliberately have lower contrast, which allows pictures to capture more detail in shadow and highlight areas, and the colours are slightly warmer.

 

Both lenses are exceptional and produce out of focus areas that are very appealing to me.  The asph is 'almost' too sharp for some subjects such as portraits of elderly ladies and to my mind is a razor blade to the pre-asph's carving knife; both sharp but you wouldn't use one for the other's job.  I haven't yet decided which of the two I shall keep.  I may still be deciding in 10 year's time ...

 

Pete.

Are you still deciding?

[farnz]

4 minutes ago, Winedemonium said:

Are you still deciding?

It's been more than 8 years since I wrote the post and I have made my decision, which is to sell the children* and keep both Summiluxes since they excel in different circumstances.

Pete.

*I might have made that up.😇

[brickftl]

I am SO UTTERLY CONFUSED/UP IN THE AIR about whether to get the asph or pre asph version.

Positives of pre asph: on the one hand regarding bokeh and aesthetics, I can't figure out if for me this is a significant aesthetic difference that should compel me to disregard the focus drift and inferior optics of the asph version. It's such a subjective criterial, although it seem throughout this thread, more people have weighed in on the side of this aesthetic attribute of the pre asph being significantly better/more pleasing than the asph. I mean, how am I to decide??

positives of asph: supposedly less (or no?) focus issues wide open versus what I've read about focus drift on the pre asph. Frankly this one concerns me a lot and pushes me toward the asph and away from the pre asph. But again, if my eyes could see a significant positive difference in aesthetics of the pre asph over the asph, then should I disregard that the asph seems to have better optics in terms of focus and sharpness.

Wish I could figure out what to do

 

[lct]

I cannot decide for you but having both lenses i prefer the pre-asph for portraits and the asph for general phtography. Problems of the asph, to me, are a rather clinical rendition that shows every defects of human skins and ninja-star bokeh balls at f/2.8. Otherwise it is an almost perfect lens. Pre-asph v3 is more forgiving for human skins but it s significantly softer at edges and corners below f/4. It has also more CA than the asph.

[brickftl]

1 minute ago, lct said:

I cannot decide for you but having both lenses i prefer the pre-asph for portraits and the asph for general phtography. Problems of the asph, to me, are a rather clinical rendition that shows every defects of human skins and ninja-star bokeh balls at f/2.8. Otherwise it is an almost perfect lens. Pre-asph v3 is more forgiving for human skins but it s significantly softer at edges and corners below f/4. It has also more CA than the asph.

I don't care about edge/corner sharpness, and not to worried about CA either. As long as the pre-asph is sharp at center wide open then I'd be fine with it, but I've read that's not the case with all pre asph lenses. 

what's your take on v2 versus v3 of pre asph, other than the v3 having built in hood and closer min focus distance?

[costa43]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I only own the pre asph but have owned the asph. I like family pics and portraits more with the pre asph and that’s most of what I do with a 50mm. It’s a people focal length for me. Otherwise the asph is probably the best lens Leica has in current production. It’s exceptional. 

[lct]

9 minutes ago, brickftl said:

I don't care about edge/corner sharpness, and not to worried about CA either. As long as the pre-asph is sharp at center wide open then I'd be fine with it, but I've read that's not the case with all pre asph lenses. 

what's your take on v2 versus v3 of pre asph, other than the v3 having built in hood and closer min focus distance?

Both pre-asph are softer than the asph at f/1.4 but i feel hard to tell which is which on photos between v2 and v3.

[RexGig0]

If anyone needs a recently-produced audiovisual presentation, on the several 50mm Summilux-M lenses:

 

[brickftl]

46 minutes ago, costa43 said:

I only own the pre asph but have owned the asph. I like family pics and portraits more with the pre asph and that’s most of what I do with a 50mm. It’s a people focal length for me. Otherwise the asph is probably the best lens Leica has in current production. It’s exceptional. 

If I'm being honest, I think I'm leaning towards the asph. I do very few portraits as it is with my Sony, and primarily will use the 50 as an adjunct street shooter to the summilux 35/1.4 (2022) that I just picked up used/mint for a great price. Basically with the 35 and whatever 50 I get, paired with my M10 (don't even get me started, I frickin LOVE that camera), I'm done and done with my photo kit.

[farnz]

1 hour ago, brickftl said:

I don't care about edge/corner sharpness, and not to worried about CA either. As long as the pre-asph is sharp at center wide open then I'd be fine with it, but I've read that's not the case with all pre asph lenses. 

what's your take on v2 versus v3 of pre asph, other than the v3 having built in hood and closer min focus distance?

The only version of the pre-asph to be a bit unsharp in the centre wide open is the v1.  And here's where it can get confusing with the versions:

• The v1 11114 (1959 to 1961) "SOOME 1a" was actually both LTM (quite rare now) and M-mount and both have the same optical design. 
• The v1 11114 (1962 to 1968) "SOOME 1b" was released with some cosmetic differences but the same optical formula and glass types.  (Some people refer to this as the v2.)
• The v2 11868 (1968 to 1991) was the v1 redesigned with an air space between elements 2 and 3 and new glass formulae to increase contrast and resolution in the centre, which for many people appears 'sharper'. 
• The v3 (1991 to 2004) was the same optical design as the v2 but had a built in hood and improved coatings.  Around the year 2000 Leica produced a limited batch of the v3 in LTM for the Japanese market and I've heard this referred to as the v4.
• Leica released the asph in 2004 and discontinued the v3 pre-asph at the same time. 
• In 2015(?) Leica released a limited edition 'retro' version of the asph (v1) in black chrome with a knurled focus ring.
• In 2022/2023 Leica the asph v2.

I hope this helps but you need to answer a question to yourself: "Do I prefer bitingly sharp, modern-looking pictures?" or "Do I prefer gentler pictures with slightly less contrast but able to resolve more detail in brighter light?"  If the answer is the first then it's the asph, and if it's the second then it's the v3 pre-asph.

If, however, you're torn between the two options then prepare to sell the children and have both. 😄

Pete.

[Winedemonium]

4 hours ago, farnz said:

It's been more than 8 years since I wrote the post and I have made my decision, which is to sell the children* and keep both Summiluxes since they excel in different circumstances.

Pete.

*I might have made that up.😇

Yes, you said in 2015 that you may still be deciding in ten year's time. I couldn't resist checking in just a little early. 😉

I'll check back in 2032 or so, if you don't mind. (And a few more pages on this will have been written here by then).

 

My 2c worth -

my current consideration for the v3 pre-ASPH, having owned a v1 1b some years ago, and recently - again - selling my ASPH version: the v3 is the lightest 1.4/50 (275g), is compact, and focuses to 0.7m, while offering the more Mandler rendering. It seems like a sweet spot. 

 

[Pyrogallol]

By 2032 you will want the Super Noctilux f0.4 with direct mind control.

[farnz]

13 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

By 2032 you will want the Super Noctilux f0.4 with direct mind control.

I had one of those but I sent it back because it was trying to get me to put some shelves up in the garage.

Pete.

[me111]

The first one is ASPH; the second one is E43

Both were at F1.4

Both are cropped a little.

Both were shot on a tripod.

w/ M240

...............................................

My observation:

- ASPH is warmer.

- ASPH is sharper at the focal plane (Look at "1:2.8". This is where I focused)

- ASPH has LESS color cast (Look at "Rolleiflex".)

- ASPH is otherwise less contrasty.

To me, some of these characteristics make ASPH also a characterful lens, and they give me the impression that ASPH should have an edge even with portraiture since its images seem to look less crisp overall. However, in the real life photography, based on my observation, ASPH is not very forgiving for portrait photography.

I have had them for awhile, but like @farnz, I cannot decide which one I like more.

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!

[brickftl]

52 minutes ago, me111 said:

The first one is ASPH; the second one is E43

Both were at F1.4

Both are cropped a little.

Both were shot on a tripod.

w/ M240

...............................................

My observation:

- ASPH is warmer.

- ASPH is sharper at the focal plane (Look at "1:2.8". This is where I focused)

- ASPH has LESS color cast (Look at "Rolleiflex".)

- ASPH is otherwise less contrasty.

To me, some of these characteristics make ASPH also a characterful lens, and they give me the impression that ASPH should have an edge even with portraiture since its images seem to look less crisp overall. However, in the real life photography, based on my observation, ASPH is not very forgiving for portrait photography.

I have had them for awhile, but like @farnz, I cannot decide which one I like more.

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!

I prefer the ASPH being a bit less contrasty. If/when contrast is needed it can be added in post, probably not something I'd do for portraits.

In my case after long consideration, including some reported cases of lens elements coming unglued in the pre asph, as well as possible focus issues, I went with asph version 1.

[evikne]

1 hour ago, me111 said:

The first one is ASPH; the second one is E43

Both were at F1.4

Both are cropped a little.

Both were shot on a tripod.

w/ M240

...............................................

My observation:

- ASPH is warmer.

- ASPH is sharper at the focal plane (Look at "1:2.8". This is where I focused)

- ASPH has LESS color cast (Look at "Rolleiflex".)

- ASPH is otherwise less contrasty.

To me, some of these characteristics make ASPH also a characterful lens, and they give me the impression that ASPH should have an edge even with portraiture since its images seem to look less crisp overall. However, in the real life photography, based on my observation, ASPH is not very forgiving for portrait photography.

I have had them for awhile, but like @farnz, I cannot decide which one I like more.

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!

This is not how I know the ASPH. The contrast should have been much more prominent. Are you sure the lighting conditions were exactly the same in both images? It looks like some sunlight may have caused veiling glare.

Edited February 29, 2024 by evikne

[lct]

9 minutes ago, brickftl said:

I prefer the ASPH being a bit less contrasty.

Owning v2, v3 and asph v1, my experience is opposite i must say but you cannot go wrong with the asph anyway, except if you expect it to render gentler portraits. Ninja-star bokeh balls at f/2.8 is a matter of tastes but it is also a reason why i have kept v2 and v3. Now, to be honest, i use v2 and v3 less and less since i have an M11 as another favorite of mine, the Sonnar 50/1.5, works superbly on it w/o showing significant focus shift issues, don't ask me why.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[me111]

25 minutes ago, evikne said:

This is not how I know the ASPH. The contrast should have been much more prominent. Are you sure the lighting conditions were exactly the same in both images? It looks like some sunlight may have caused veiling glare.

They both were on a tripod, exactly the same position, and at most two minutes apart.

I do not claim this experiment to apply to all lenses. It might be different each copy. Or It might be because my lenses needs CLA. (I often shine UV torch to the glass to make sure there is no haze, and ASPH is one of the clearest, though.) Or it might be because of the CA from the Pre-A that gives many people the impression that it has less contrast than the ASPH.

I hope some other people who have both chime in with some more comparison.

[lct]

Both v2 and v3 have less contrast than the asph v1. Especially less micro contrast (acutance). If your copy of the asph v1 shows less contrast it may be that it needs some CLA.