Leica 50mm Summicron APO vs 50mm Summilux (unmarked, but also APO) - is there a drastic difference at f/2?

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I test shot a 50 Lux several months ago so I'm not familiar with it's performance in detail.  But could the curvature you mention also apply to the 50 Cron?  I ask because I like to focus and then recompose and the subject ends up out of focus, or at least in soft focus.  This happens at medium distances, like 20 feet, and with aperture in the mid-range.  

 

The 50Apo does not exhibit this curvature, which makes it very predictable. There is also no focus shift as you stop down. All this makes it a very reliable lens as far as focusing. The one issue the 50Apo has is its tendency to flare. This makes it especially tricky with film when you don't really know how badly flare may have affected the exposure until you get the film processed.

[Mr Fjeld]

Here's a contribution to the Lux versus APO competition. Pretty nice bokeh and depth of field going on here

APO 50 with M246

Edited March 16, 2017 by Mr Fjeld

[Advertisement]

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

[Keith_W]

I already own a 50 Lux. I have the opportunity to buy a 50 APO at a very attractive price. 

 

My question is: at f/2, which one wins? The 50 Lux or the 50 APO? If it is much of a muchness, I might stick with my 50 Lux - save some money and I get the opportunity to shoot at f/1.4. 

[lct]

I already own a 50 Lux. I have the opportunity to buy a 50 APO at a very attractive price. 

 

My question is: at f/2, which one wins? The 50 Lux or the 50 APO? [...]

 

Depends on what you mean by win. I did a comparo a couple years ago here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/241092-5014-asph-vs-502-apo/

At f/2, in a nutshell the 50/2 apo has more vignetting, less field curvature and a smoother bokeh.

[james.liam]

What ‘lct’ said...the APO still achieves higher resolution at f/2; the differential becoming quite apparent on a Monochrome. The bokeh has no ‘signature’ look like the ASPH or Noctilux. Hard to describe; there’s a particular ‘clarity’ to things at the plane of focus and the bokeh is uniformly softer and lower contrast. It works well to starkly isolate the subject. In day-to-day usage on a color sensor, I doubt the difference is worth the cost for most subject matter.

Edited February 4, 2018 by james.liam

[Jeff S]

I prefer the ergonomics of the Summilux. The 2 APOs I tried had loose aperture rings, and the compact design places the aperture and focus rings very close together and sacrifices a fully knurled focus ring.

 

Both lenses have superb IQ capability, subject to the usual subject, lighting, workflow and user variables.

 

Jeff

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

The tables tell you all that you need to know.

[Jeff S]

I prefer taking pics and making prints to evaluate.. Tables never tell the whole story.

 

Jeff

[Keith_W]

Hrm, that lensrentals table is very interesting. What is says is: 

 

- At f/2, the 50 Lux is very near as sharp as the 50 APO (1680 vs 1488). It loses out a bit in the middle (1368 vs. 1152, with more astigmatism) but improves again at the edges, with both lenses scoring the same (1368 each, but with the 50 Lux having more astigmatism). 

- At wide open aperture, i.e. 50 Lux at f/1.4 and 50 APO at f/2, the 50 Lux retains its performance at f/2 (1488) but is softer in the middle and edges than the 50 APO, but not by much. 

 

I guess all those diverging opinions in the other thread - some say the difference is negligible, others say the difference is huge - may be due to shooting style. i.e. do you tend to place your subject in the center or slightly off to one side. I can see from the sample images that the 50 APO is noticably sharper but maybe I should try to borrow one and see the difference for myself. 

[lct]

Those tables are hard to believe as far as the Summicron 50/2 non apo is concerned as at full aperture, it is not as sharp at the edges as in the center and the middle. 

[james.liam]

Those tables are hard to believe as far as the Summicron 50/2 non apo is concerned as at full aperture, it is not as sharp at the edges as in the center and the middle.

I’d written to LensRentals at the time asking them about those number and they acknowledged that the listed data for the 50 v.5 weren’t correct. For some reason, they never went back and amended them.

[wizard]

 

50/1.4 asph at f/2: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3878259694_cZN3DN2-D.jpg

50/2 apo at f/2: http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3878262917_vFtxJSS-D.jpg

(M240, tripod, self timer, focus on "IX" with EVF and 10x magnification, 11 MB files)

50/2 apo has less field curvature and bokeh is more round shaped but 50/1.4 asph has less vignetting at f/2.

Edit: Welcome to the forum BTW

 

 

LCT, are you sure those two images were taken with the same aperture? The reason I ask is that the difference in background blurring (cf. right side of the images) is rather pronounced, and would suggest that the Summilux was opened up more than the Summicron. On the other hand, it seems clear from the highlight in the middle of the image that the Summilux was in fact stopped down (as the aperture blades are visible). Personally, I like the Summilux background rendering better than the Summicron's, as it provides more separation from the main object than the Summicron (if indeed the apertures used were identical).

[lct]

LCT, are you sure those two images were taken with the same aperture? The reason I ask is that the difference in background blurring (cf. right side of the images) is rather pronounced, and would suggest that the Summilux was opened up more than the Summicron. On the other hand, it seems clear from the highlight in the middle of the image that the Summilux was in fact stopped down (as the aperture blades are visible). Personally, I like the Summilux background rendering better than the Summicron's, as it provides more separation from the main object than the Summicron (if indeed the apertures used were identical).

 

No no exact same aperture (f/2), you know me . Take a look at the whole thread i seem to recall having given some explanations then. Especially about 50/1.4 asph's bokeh compared to both 50/2 apo and 50/1.4 pre-asph. You will see also a comparo at f/2.8. The links are still working hopefully.

[a.noctilux]

LCT thanks for showing the Atmos aerial beauty.

Out of topic, you made me re-read this nice and complete article:

http://www.lepoint.fr/montres/jaeger-lecoultre/l-atmos-l-autre-icone-de-jaeger-lecoultre-03-12-2012-1991062_2770.php

 

and discovered "Atmos millénaires" .

[lct]

I’d written to LensRentals at the time asking them about those number and they acknowledged that the listed data for the 50 v.5 weren’t correct. For some reason, they never went back and amended them.

 

I have nothing against LensRentals and the 50/1.4 asph is certainly one of my favorite 50mm lenses ever but in my modest experience, it is not as sharp as the 50/2 apo at edges either. It is true neither at f/2 nor at f/2.8 where the 50/2 apo is still superior from this standpoint. Leica graphs below sound more serious by comparison. 

 

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!

[onasj]

Lct’s experiences are totally consistent with my own. Also, I appreciate that many photographers want to prioritize experiences over graphs and data, but after owning quite a few Leica lenses, my sense is that their MTF curves are a very accurate measure of sharpness (but not character or bokeh or mocrocontrast, etc of course) IF your copy of the lens is well centered. And it’s pretty easy to read the sharpness data from Leica‘s charts and tell exactly where the lens is more sharp or less sharp. Sharpness isn’t everything, but it’s a major factor in most photographer’s desiderata. It’s also easy to post-process to be less sharp, but difficult to do the opposite without creating artifacts.

 

I should also mention that to me an even more apparent difference between the lux and the APO than sharpness is higher CA in the lux at wide apertures.

Edited February 5, 2018 by onasj

[Flu]

I no longer use both my 50 lux, they just sit on the shelf as decor, tho they do look pretty enough! I find them simply unusable if you are shooting a subject wide open (filling most of the frame ~ 75%) and you want a flat depth of field to capture the entirety of the subject in focus. The center of the image is perfectly sharp, but towards the sides, it's just muddy as heck! Focus and recomposing while shooting wide open is also an issue in this case do to the curved depth of field. Of course, this issue is not prominent once you stop down. I keep thinking (going on 3 years), perhaps I should sell them one day as I do have enough 50 apo crons to keep me company.

[M11 for me]

I prefer taking pics and making prints to evaluate.. Tables never tell the whole story.

Jeff

This sounds to me as if you would say: „I prefer to believe emotions than facts“.

[Jon Warwick]

I no longer use both my 50 lux, they just sit on the shelf as decor, tho they do look pretty enough! I find them simply unusable if you are shooting a subject wide open (filling most of the frame ~ 75%) and you want a flat depth of field to capture the entirety of the subject in focus. The center of the image is perfectly sharp, but towards the sides, it's just muddy as heck! Focus and recomposing while shooting wide open is also an issue in this case do to the curved depth of field. Of course, this issue is not prominent once you stop down. I keep thinking (going on 3 years), perhaps I should sell them one day as I do have enough 50 apo crons to keep me company.

Just how far do you (or others) find you need to stop down to get the images perfectly sharp? I was recently looking at some images that I took — using the 50mm Summicron v5 — of a mountain scene that fills the frame from left to right. Up to f4, I’d say about 20% of both the left and right of the image (40% of the image in total) is very obviously less sharp than the centre of the image. At f5.6-8, it’s getting better, and probably takes f8-11 for the whole image to be equally sharp from left to right.

 

Is that level of stopping down normal in order for this lens to get both sides in full sharpness?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

This sounds to me as if you would say: „I prefer to believe emotions than facts“.

Quite the contrary, I trust my own eyes and hands. And print workflows vary; otherwise we’d each produce the same results. The lens is but one tool in the chain from subject to print display.

 

Apart from IQ, had I not rented the APO, I would not have known the ergonomic issues I noted above. Didn’t see that in a table.

 

Nor anything about color or tonal transition. Or flare. Or....

 

And yes, a lot about photography escapes measurement. Thank heavens.

 

Jeff

Edited February 5, 2018 by Jeff S