Noctilux VS Summicron @ f2

[Ampalang]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone know of where i can find photos comparing these two 50mm lenses at f2?

 

Preferably taken with the same camera...

 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Jan1985]

Which Summicron and which noctilux? You must define more... I have Nocti 0.95 and APO Summicron 50mm

[duckrider]

first infos:

 

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Leica_Noctilux_M__50_1,2/00_pag.htm

 

perhaps translate with google

Thomas

[Ampalang]

Sry!  I meant Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH  VS  APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2 ASPH...

[Ampalang]

first infos:

 

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Leica_Noctilux_M__50_1,2/00_pag.htm

 

perhaps translate with google

Thomas

Thank you for that one, i will see what a translation gives me!

[gvaliquette]

first infos:

 

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Leica_Noctilux_M__50_1,2/00_pag.htm

 

perhaps translate with google

Thomas

 

Thanks, Thomas

 

I love Marco's postings.  Fortunately, I can read, and speak, Italian as I lived in Milano for 4 years (in a previous life!)

 

However, I presume the OP is referring to the current f0.95 Noctilux.

 

Thanks, again, for pointing to it.

 

Guy

[uhoh7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lensrentals Optical Bench:

 

 

From the very interesting blog:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7

 

You can see both of the modern crons here. What is not entirely clear is the pre-APO cron is spectacular closeup at F/2, according to Puts it out performs the Lux ASPH in that scenario.

 

Note the Nokton 50/1.1 is outperforming the .95 at F/2 Well....mostly

[Ampalang]

Thank you for that chart and link, it gave me a real insight against what lens to choose. 

Now i just have to see some picture and get a feeling for them.

[MarkP]

I'm surprised by the poor performance of the Zeiss 2.0/50 ZM Planar in this bench test.

[Hayek]

I'm surprised by the poor performance of the Zeiss 2.0/50 ZM Planar in this bench test.

Is it poor performance or merely curvature of field?

[MarkP]

Is it poor performance or merely curvature of field?

 

Unlikely, not expected on this lens.  I wonder whether a faulty copy was tested.  This always a problem with a group size of n=1. 

 

We all know of significant sample variation even with Leica lenses. This wouldn't get published in any scientific journal.  It's beyond me why such tests aren't done with a number of lenses from each group, even n=3 would be just acceptable.  

 

Serious reviewers should be able to get more than one sample to test, and one would think that it is in the interest of the photographic companies to provide a number of samples.  Even Reid Reviews, Digilloyd, etc. (who must have such access to the companies if they asked) only test one lens and if it doesn't perform as expected just say 'well maybe there might have been sample variation'. As consumers we really shouldn't accept such statistically dubious reviews.

 

I'm not saying this because I'm a die-hard Zeiss Planar owner - in fact I don't have one.

[pgk]

As consumers we really shouldn't accept such statistically dubious reviews.

Absolutely. I find that simply reading through numerous owner's comments about a specific lens and its performance/characteristics is a much better way to gauge its real world usability than are individual (numerically orientated) reviews. To some extent they agree but sometimes there is simply too much of a gap and its obvious that the lens used for the review was a 'poor copy' or in need of service/adjustment. This is not limited to any particular manufacturer's lenses either.

[CheshireCat]

Serious reviewers should be able to get more than one sample to test

 

 

... and serious readers should read reviews fully.

From the same page:

 

While I always like to test multiple copies it's not always possible with some of the more unusal lenses. We only have a few copies each of the Noctilux and APO Summicron and most were out on rental so I only had 1 copy of each of those available. For the other lenses I tested 3 copies.

[uhoh7]

I find that simply reading through numerous owner's comments about a specific lens and its performance/characteristics is a much better way to gauge its real world usability than are individual (numerically orientated) reviews.

Would you prefer your doctor base his diagnosis on anecdotes or a systematic study?

 

Obviously this chart does not tell us which would be the nicest lens for our personal taste. It measures sharpness across the frame in a very careful manner with a genuine optical bench as opposed to the Immmatest which is in wide use and as I understand it, far inferior, but alot easier for lens testing.

 

In fact this chart is showing one of the most carefully run tests of these lenses in this century, by anyone.

 

Many have claimed the ZM 50/2 is the equal of the pre-APO cron in sharpness. No, it is not. Thank you, Walter Mandler. That said, the ZM 50/2 is a very fine lens, which somebody might well prefer for other reasons.

 

To the OP: you should mention which 50 Cron you are interested in, APO?

 

Of course there are plenty of photographers who would rather have a .95 than a 50 Cron of any flavor. They are very different lenses. The easiest way to start to get an idea of how they are different is a search on flickr.

 

e.g. "Leica 50 Summicron APO" will bring up thousands of images as will "Leica 50 .95". For sure you will learn much in addition to the sharpness across the frame shown by the chart.

[CheshireCat]

To the OP: you should mention which 50 Cron you are interested in, APO?

 

 

The OP has clearly specified the 50 APO in a subsequent message.