28mm for the M camera: f/2.8 Elmarit, f/2 Summicron or f/1.4 Summilux?

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When we choose one lens over another in a given focal length - for example in 28mm - we pay extra money for (1.) faster maximum aperture, (2.) image quality and (3.) shallow depth of field when used wide open.  There is a significant difference in price between the current 28mm lens offerings; the Elmarit currently goes for $1980.00, the Summicron for $3779.60, and the Summilux for $5950.00 (all in USD).

 

These significant differences in price give rise to the following questions:

*Is the image quality significantly different between the three lenses?

*Is the shallow depth of field significantly different between the three lenses?

*Which of the three lenses offers the ultimate image quality for the 28mm focal length?

*Given the high ISO capability of the M240, M-P and M Monochrom, is f/1.4 truly needed in terms of low light photography?

 

The Elmarit has its devotees and seems to be preferred (by some) over the Summicron in terms of image quality.  However, when the Summicron was released and for a number of years afterword, it was heralded as one of the best lenses in the world.  Does the Elmarit equal or surpass the Summicron at a given aperture or apertures? 

 

Meanwhile, some reviewers are less than staggered by the image quality of the newly released Summilux 28mm; this seems curious, seeing how it was designed and is being built utilizing design software, lens design knowledge, technology and manufacturing processes that were not available when the Elmarit and Summicron were designed.  How could the newest 28mm not surpass its predecessors in terms of image quality at a given aperture?

 

I am trying to make sense of all the above and to sort out why one current production 28mm lens is preferred over another.

 

Thoughts?

[Advertisement]

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

[hiepphotog]

I think the latest Lux 28 was designed for low distortion and phenomenal performance at 1.4. With these two goals, they have to sacrifice in CA control and absolute sharpness when stop down.

 

After seeing direct comparisons between lenses on Lloyd's blog (not just reading his opinion):

 

1. The Luxes tend to have more wavy field curvature than the slower lens. Not necessarily a bad thing but less predictable

2. The difference in DOF would be less obvious as the subject distance increases.

3. Ultimate IQ at 1.4 would go to the Lux . Stopping down, the Cron and Elmarit are about the same, and I imagine the Lux would be a little bit inferior to both.

4. Personally, I think f/1.4 and high ISO don't exclude the use of each other. For instance, people are still looking for a good 1.4 WA for wide-field astrophotography (amazingly, only the Samyang 24/1.4 would be good enough). Other than the astro stuff, I don't particularly have any other use for f/1.4 under low light condition in the regular basis, but stage/bar/club shot could need that f/1.4.

[Jeff S]

You failed to mention size, ergonomics (e.g., focus throw, hood design, balance/weight, etc), VF blockage, build quality, and other factors some find important when choosing and buying lenses.  This can even apply across brands, e.g., some people are willing to pay more for Leica than Zeiss lenses of same focal length and similar quality due in large part to size and weight differences.

 

Only way for you to know what works best for you is to try them (rent, borrow or buy) and incorporate each into your own personal shooting style (and related gear) and print workflow.  Even when there are IQ differences (e.g., many report higher contrast from the Elmarit vs the Summicron ASPH), these might be addressed through PP.  These are tools after all, and not everyone uses tools in the same way, nor with the same end in mind.

 

Otherwise, you'll get every imaginable opinion, which btw is already available to a great extent by using the search box, especially regarding the Elmarit and Summicron.

 

Jeff

[gpwhite]

I have never used the Elmarit, so I cannot comment on that one in your threesome.

 

The Summicron is subject to greater sample variation than most other Leica M lenses, or so it seems from my experience with four copies (two rented) and what you can read on this forum. Nevertheless, a good copy is an wonderful lens with good correction for spatial distortion. For some reason, in my hands, it is not so good for portraits at close range. Corners are very good from f/4 onwards.

 

Relative to my Summicron (now sold), my Summilux gives better illumination across the frame, brighter colors, and even more illusion of 3D. From f/2 onwards, the Summilux has more micro-contrast in the center 50% of the frame, but the Summicron gives somewhat better corners (if you are conducting a lens bake off). To my taste, the Summilux is a masterpiece...  as though Karbe got tired of hearing about Mandler this and Mandler that, so he led his team to make a 28mm that renders glowing images without spatial distortion. Thorsten has posted shots at f/1.4 that convey this delicately sharp character that the Summilux offers.

 

Those are my opinions, as you requested, but I suggest that you shoot these lenses back-back-back. Certainly the Summicron and the Summilux draw differently from each other. Once you have shot them, you will quickly see in your prints why Leica offers three different 28's. You will prefer images from one lens over another, and then you can decide how the cost differences figure into your choice.

[sblitz]

I always preferred the summicron on my M9.

[jdlaing]

Summilux. That speed is very nice when you need/want it.

[uhoh7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well jeez who would not want a 28 Lux?

 

But 28 cron on M9 is very versatile and gives great clarity even at f/11. Some like it less on the 240? The Elmarit asph is a great tiny 28. As pointed out in that 35 cron v lux discussion, with all the love for the 35/2 asph: size is a factor which might trump speed.

 

I would like to have them all where are the lux samples !!

 

Here is my 28 cron around f/8:

 

Meander by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Over the Salmon by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Just smokes at f11:

 

Hot Spots by unoh7, on Flickr

 

and of course it rips at f/2

 

It makes killer portraits, but it's too scary (for them) when I move in towards MFD LOL

[ShivaYash]

I think the f2 is the best deal... but get it second hand. 

[mmradman]

Concur with second post, dark places like bars, clubs or parties where people move and light is poor need fast lenses, alternative is to use flash (blitz) or maybe alternative camera with higher ISO capability than current Leica offering like Sony Alpha 7S.

 

All the aesthetics discussion about of out of focus rendering of various lenses (bokeh) is muddying the issue.  Real purpose from the day portable camera with fast lens was introduced until today is photography with available light.

 

Anyone remembers one of these   http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ermanox

[Herr Barnack]

I think the latest Lux 28 was designed for low distortion and phenomenal performance at 1.4. With these two goals, they have to sacrifice in CA control and absolute sharpness when stop down.

 

After seeing direct comparisons between lenses on Lloyd's blog (not just reading his opinion):

 

1. The Luxes tend to have more wavy field curvature than the slower lens. Not necessarily a bad thing but less predictable

2. The difference in DOF would be less obvious as the subject distance increases.

3. Ultimate IQ at 1.4 would go to the Lux . Stopping down, the Cron and Elmarit are about the same, and I imagine the Lux would be a little bit inferior to both.

4. Personally, I think f/1.4 and high ISO don't exclude the use of each other. For instance, people are still looking for a good 1.4 WA for wide-field astrophotography (amazingly, only the Samyang 24/1.4 would be good enough). Other than the astro stuff, I don't particularly have any other use for f/1.4 under low light condition in the regular basis, but stage/bar/club shot could need that f/1.4.

@hiepphotog,

It would be interesting to see where the erosion of sharpness/IQ begins to manifest when stopping down, and how much loss we are talking about.  I would have thought with the FLE design and the aspheric element incorporated in the design - as well as the availability of the latest lens design software - the loss of sharpness/IQ would have been a non-issue.

 

Do you have a link to the blog you mention?

 

@uhoh7,

Those are some beautiful images from your 28 'cron!  It is obviously a lens that should not be overlooked when on the hunt for a 28. 

 

I have read that some copies of the 28 'cron are less than stellar in terms of IQ, which should never be the case when investing almost $3800 USD in a lens.  I am still trying to understand what the cause of that is.

[hiepphotog]

@hiepphotog,

It would be interesting to see where the erosion of sharpness/IQ begins to manifest when stopping down, and how much loss we are talking about.  I would have thought with the FLE design and the aspheric element incorporated in the design - as well as the availability of the latest lens design software - the loss of sharpness/IQ would have been a non-issue.

 

Do you have a link to the blog you mention?

 

I thought with so much animosity displayed here, most would know who Lloyd Chamber is . You have to pay to read his blog though (http://diglloyd.com/). So unless you can buy/rent these lenses and compare them yourself, this is the next best option. We all know lens comparison is not a fun task and it can get awfully inaccurate if you don't shoot a proper scene.

 

In my experience, Leica MTF charts are quite accurate as to what their lenses are capable of (purely in technical term here ). The Lux 28 has among the least amount of field curvature in all the Luxes, but it has an enormous amount of astigmatism and LCA at the edges/corners compared to the Cron and Elmarit. gpwhite also confirms the weaker corners since he did his own comparison. FLE would help with closer distance performance (hence seemingly less focus shift) and ASPH can only help so much with suppressing those CAs. Again, all of these compromises are the trade-offs for very low distortion and good WO performance in a relatively small package. If they can make it as big as the Lux 24/21, it would have less compromises for sure.

 

And don't underestimate the optical distortion correction. Inexpensive lenses with good performance, like Samyang and Voigtlander, often sacrifice this a lot more than Zeiss and Leica to get better sharpness/less CA. Personally, I don't think it was a sound decision that Karbe decided to place so much emphasis in distortion correction. After all, if you have more optical distortion, you will have less perspective distortion (your nose would not look abnormally big). 28/1.4 is more of a people lens than an interior/architecture lens.

[smkoush]

I have not used the new summilux, but I have experience with both the little elmarit-ASPH and the summicron. My experience with both lenses is based on film (so may not be appropriate for digital sensors).

 

Without looking at technical specifications, in my opinion the summicron has a very pleasing drawing compared to the elmarit. At small apertures I'm sure they are indistinguishable, but at f4 or less the summicron is absolutely wonderful, while I found the elmarit a bit harsh and as others used the term "clinical". 

 

Size-wise, the summicron is bigger and heavier, so that is something to consider in these comparisons. 

[Jennifer]

I'd have to say that, imo, the Elmarit 28 is a really great little lens, especially given its price (cheap for Leica) and diminutive size. When travelling light I tend to pick the Elmarit 28 and APO 50 as my preferred a two lens kit. That said, I've not tried either the Cron or Lux in this FL.

[gpwhite]

@hiepphotog,

It would be interesting to see where the erosion of sharpness/IQ begins to manifest when stopping down, and how much loss we are talking about.  I would have thought with the FLE design and the aspheric element incorporated in the design - as well as the availability of the latest lens design software - the loss of sharpness/IQ would have been a non-issue.

 

Do you have a link to the blog you mention?

 

@uhoh7,

Those are some beautiful images from your 28 'cron!  It is obviously a lens that should not be overlooked when on the hunt for a 28. 

 

I have read that some copies of the 28 'cron are less than stellar in terms of IQ, which should never be the case when investing almost $3800 USD in a lens.  I am still trying to understand what the cause of that is.

 

 

FWIW, whereas hiepphotog says "I imagine the Lux would be a little bit inferior to both.,"  I have not found evidence of that at all in my shots. Indeed, in my experience is the opposite (re the Summicron).

 

In simple terms of "sharpness," my Summilux is superior at every stop to my best Summicron. The corners on the Summicron are superior from f/4 onwards. Anyways, the rendering is quite different between the two lenses, and I suggest checking that out.

[algrove]

For travel I vote with Jennifer-the 28/2.8 has great contrast for my needs, lowest price among the 3 and perfect small size. If I want a 1.4 I use my 1.7 Q for $4250 instead of $6k.

[Herr Barnack]

In thinking about the three 28mm M lenses, it is apparent that the little f/2.8 Elmarit is a fine lens and could (probably) be called the all-around 28 while the f/2 Summicron could be regarded as the middle way.  

 

It seems that the two extra stops of light provided by the Summilux 28 are in some ways like insurance in that they both seem like a waste of money.  Until you are caught in a situation where you need them.

 

I think it is safe to say the Summilux will cost you like no other 28 - and in return, it will produce images that no other 28 will produce.  In the end, you get what you pay for.  That's not to say that it isn't godawfully expensive sometimes.

[algrove]

Understood. However,I often just increase my ISO and feel happy having the $4k difference in my pocket, either in cash or in the form of a 28/1.7 Q.

[sml_photo]

Understood. However,I often just increase my ISO and feel happy having the $4k difference in my pocket, either in cash or in the form of a 28/1.7 Q.

I'm watching this thread...and I must say, I'm beginning to agree with this thinking more and more.  That's an awful lot of  money for a small and likely imperceptible difference in the final image.  That is, we're comparing Leica glass to Leica glass....there is no bad choice.

Fast lenses, for me, are just for depth of field control nowadays given the high ISO capabilities of modern cameras.  And f2.8 is plenty wide enough for a 28mm lens in most cases, I would think.

I checked this AM and the Elmarit is even smaller and lighter than my 35mm Summicron.  Wow...THAT is appealing.

Looking forward to continuing input on this thread.  I find it very interesting to read people's opinions on this specific topic with this focal length.

(By the way, the 28 Elmarit seems to be out of stock at many places including B&H.  B&H hasn't had them in stock since July sometime....maybe even earlier in the year than that!  I wonder why...??)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[algrove]

They are trying to convince us to buy the 28/1.4. I bet they are out of the Q too.

[Herr Barnack]

Understood. However,I often just increase my ISO and feel happy having the $4k difference in my pocket, either in cash or in the form of a 28/1.7 Q.

Very true - buying the Elmarit will save a person an awful lot of money compared to the Summilux.  But the Elmarit will not produce the same shallow DOF that the Summilux will - and therein lies the rub.

 

Regarding jacking up the ISO with the Emarit to solve low light issues, if you shoot with the Monochrom, you have a ton more latitude to do that than with the M240 or M-P. 

 

In the M-P (which I shoot with), you have a maximum ISO of 6400; you start to see objectionable noise at ISO 3200.  The best results (imho) come at ISO 1600 and lower (or maybe I don't know how to process high ISO files properly, which I admit is a possibility). 

 

I prefer to use a tripod or monopod over pushing the ISO so high that noise becomes a problem, but tripods are not always welcome in some locations.  A lens like the Summilux - while painfully expensive - helps avoid high ISO shooting and the noise that comes with it and the need for a tripod.  And it gives you very shallow DOF, which the Elmarit cannot.

 

So the question boils down to:  How much does a person want/need that shallow DOF and low light performance that you get with the 28 Summilux?