50mm f2.0 APO Summicron M + SL ??

[Dr. G]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So after reviewing my photos, I'm noticing two things.  In good lighting the APO is fantastic.  Nothing bad to say about it at all - stunning, actually.  In low light, I could probably use an extra stop or a bit more.  Not that it can't take great photos in low light, it can - but I'm relatively intolerant of noise in low light. I'd like to keep things below 3200.  This is a personal issue and nothing more.  That leaves me with some choices - a Summilux-M, Summilux SL or Noctilux.  I love shooting at night and in low light - AF vs Manual focus is not really an issue.  The Steve Huff review of the Summilux SL 1.4 looks promising for low light shooting.  The Noctilux is still the king of low light, though.  Mind you, this would be for low light, low ISO performance over shallow DOF.  Finding a good pre-owned Noctilux could be a challenge. 

 

Any thoughts?

Edited December 10, 2017 by Dr. G

[geetee1972]

 

So after reviewing my photos, I'm noticing two things.  In good lighting the APO is fantastic.

 

Everything looks great in great light, that's er, sort of the point of photography.

 

It sounds like you're trying to make a rationa; argument for buying a faster lens. If you want to buy a faster lens buy a faster lens and sell me your APO. One stop more on the lens isn't going to make much difference, but the M Summilux is very lovely and if you're serious I have a mint condition M Summilux I will swap for your APO.

[LD_50]

I have both of the Summiluxes you mentioned. Both are excellent. I like the AF on the SL version and the weight is not much of an issue as it’s well balanced. In low light the AF is not as useful (hunts and relatively slow) so I would recommend you rent the Summilux-SL and a Noctilux to compare.

 

If you find the f1.4 aperture works for you, you’re okay with manual focus, and you want a smaller lens the Summilux M is great.

[thighslapper]

A tripod is a lot cheaper than a Summilux 50/1.4 SL.

 

I personally get agitated if I see ISO climbing to 800 

 

There are 101 ways of stabilising a camera for low light shots ..... I have wedged mine in a tree before now ......  and often carry some form of table top tripod just in case. 

 

Buying yet more lenses aint going to completely solve the problem .......

[ramarren]

Lessee: it has come down to that what I use on the SL most are the two zooms (SL 24-90 and 90-280), but my usual carry around lens is the Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm. After those three come the Summicron-R 90mm and Super-Elmar-R 15mm, and the Summilux-R 50. I don't really like the ergonomics of M lenses on the SL very much, I find them clumsy in use.

 

That said, I've been using the M-D almost exclusively for the past several months and the Summicron-M 50mm almost never comes off it anymore. When it does, it's a toss up as to whether I fit the WATE, the 35,or the 75. Probably the 35 most of the time.

 

As I look through my year in pictures, most were taken with the 60 Macro on the SL or 50 on the M-D. These two lenses on the respective camera are light, fast, and make beautiful photos. While the APO and Nocti for the M are nice, they make the camera heavier than I prefer; the SL is heavier anyway, and bigger, so the larger lenses are less of a detraction.

[Donzo98]

So after reviewing my photos, I'm noticing two things.  In good lighting the APO is fantastic.  Nothing bad to say about it at all - stunning, actually.  In low light, I could probably use an extra stop or a bit more.  Not that it can't take great photos in low light, it can - but I'm relatively intolerant of noise in low light. I'd like to keep things below 3200.  This is a personal issue and nothing more.  That leaves me with some choices - a Summilux-M, Summilux SL or Noctilux.  I love shooting at night and in low light - AF vs Manual focus is not really an issue.  The Steve Huff review of the Summilux SL 1.4 looks promising for low light shooting.  The Noctilux is still the king of low light, though.  Mind you, this would be for low light, low ISO performance over shallow DOF.  Finding a good pre-owned Noctilux could be a challenge. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

The 50 SL may not up to the task in low light in terms of AF.

[Dr. G]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 50 SL may not up to the task in low light in terms of AF.

 

 

I'm ok with MF, but even there I think the M lenses have the advantage in the way the ring responds.

[Donzo98]

And that’s why I have the Noctilux instead of the SL 50....

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

And that’s why I have the Noctilux instead of the SL 50....

 

I wish I still had my SL

[ramarren]

I'm ok with MF, but even there I think the M lenses have the advantage in the way the ring responds.

 

 

The feel is different (mechanical helicoid vs micro-stepper servo motor) but I don't find any difference in the rings response or precision between my SL zooms and my M or R lenses. In fact, the SL zoom lenses' focusing feel is more consistent ... the mechanical lenses each have a slightly different feel: some have a tiny bit of stiction, etc. 

 

After a couple of years worth of using this equipment, all side by side, most of these little mechanical differences all come out in the wash once you are used to their feel and operation: the SL lenses are terrific, as are the M and R lenses. The subtle nuance differences in how they render are the significant differences, and even those take a while to see clearly unless you're operating at the extremes of the lenses' capability. At least in my photography, I'm only rarely so close to the extremes that these nuances are all that significant...

 

I'd buy the SL50 if I wanted AF and all the metering modes of the SL to be available for use: M and R lenses only work with manual exposure, aperture priority AE, and manual focus. That's the truly important distinction between them, quite aside from the size and weight.

Edited December 11, 2017 by ramarren

[Donzo98]

I wish I still had my SL

 

I knew you would regret that move

[Dr. G]

I just spent a couple of hours with the 50mm Summilux-SL I rented and, for me, it just feels better in the hand than the APO does.  Manual focusing is relatively straightforward and one of the advantages is that I'm getting focus peaking on the same view as my horizon and grid.  Looking at the images, there's not much to criticize.  I have a bunch of people looking to buy my APO - so at this point I thinking I'm going to go with the Lux-SL.

[Donzo98]

I just spent a couple of hours with the 50mm Summilux-SL I rented and, for me, it just feels better in the hand than the APO does.  Manual focusing is relatively straightforward and one of the advantages is that I'm getting focus peaking on the same view as my horizon and grid.  Looking at the images, there's not much to criticize.  I have a bunch of people looking to buy my APO - so at this point I thinking I'm going to go with the Lux-SL.

 

Where are you buying?? Just curious...

[sillbeers15]

So after reviewing my photos, I'm noticing two things.  In good lighting the APO is fantastic.  Nothing bad to say about it at all - stunning, actually.  In low light, I could probably use an extra stop or a bit more.  Not that it can't take great photos in low light, it can - but I'm relatively intolerant of noise in low light. I'd like to keep things below 3200.  This is a personal issue and nothing more.  That leaves me with some choices - a Summilux-M, Summilux SL or Noctilux.  I love shooting at night and in low light - AF vs Manual focus is not really an issue.  The Steve Huff review of the Summilux SL 1.4 looks promising for low light shooting.  The Noctilux is still the king of low light, though.  Mind you, this would be for low light, low ISO performance over shallow DOF.  Finding a good pre-owned Noctilux could be a challenge. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

Noctilux produces purple frindge when shot against back light. It has really shallow DOF. I do not see it as a general lens like the 50APO which is kind of a clinically perfect lens. But I still keep my Noctilux 0.95.

[IkarusJohn]

Noctilux produces purple frindge when shot against back light. It has really shallow DOF...

 

 

When shot wide open ...

Edited December 16, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[leica1215]

one thing on the 50 SL is that it has longer travel distance in terms of focusing than the 50 APO or other M lenses, I haven't get use to it yet, I have to turn more than I turn in the APO. 

[Jeff S]

one thing on the 50 SL is that it has longer travel distance in terms of focusing than the 50 APO or other M lenses, I haven't get use to it yet, I have to turn more than I turn in the APO.

The flip side is that longer focus throws allow for more precise fine focus adjustments. I don't own these 2 lenses, but that's my general experience; some M lenses have shorter throws, some longer. Other factors include tabs vs knurled rings, as well as focus action (light/tight, smooth/sticky, etc).

 

I tested the 50 APO - M and didn't like the lack of a fully knurled focus ring, nor the crowding of the focus and aperture rings due to the compact design. Can't have it all, but one learns to adjust.

 

Jeff

[Andrew Gough]

The SL50mm is fine in low light. Check my posts in the image thread. All shot AF

 

An example, hand held:

 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Andrew Gough

[Dr. G]

The SL50mm is fine in low light. Check my posts in the image thread. All shot AF

 

An example, hand held:

 

Very nice. Are you setting the shutter speed and aperture and floating the ISO? I'm still trying to figure out what the slowest shutter speed I can personally use hand-held without losing sharpness to camera shake.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

I just spent a couple of hours with the 50mm Summilux-SL I rented and, for me, it just feels better in the hand than the APO does.  Manual focusing is relatively straightforward and one of the advantages is that I'm getting focus peaking on the same view as my horizon and grid.  Looking at the images, there's not much to criticize.  I have a bunch of people looking to buy my APO - so at this point I thinking I'm going to go with the Lux-SL.

 

 

Sounds good to me ... I can't think of anything to say about it that you haven't already seen first hand. The SL50 lens performs very very well.