Recommendations for a 50f1.4 or faster

[Bill Livingston]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Again, the thing about money sounds like"my engagement ring is better then yours cause it cost more."  And my comment about jewelry still applies.

 

 

I wonder why you asked the question in the first place... you ignore all the advice in the responses.

 

This is beginning to sound like baiting... How about a polite thank you to all those that took the time to reply to your original post.

 

This isn't a particularly good start on the forum for someone we all welcomed as a new member...

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Actually, not a new member. According to the profile, a member since 2008? With 30 something posts?

[Advertisement]

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

[ktmrider2]

Don't post if I agree to something that has been said by other members.  And no it is not trolling but honestly the fetish some people have here for anything "Leica" borders on craziness.  For example, the 35f2.8 C Biogon has been tested by independent reviewers and may be the sharpest 35mm lens made but you would never know that by reading these forums. 

 

I spend a lot more time over at Rangefinder Forum as the koolaid has not been drunk by such a large percentage over there.  And I have owned Leicas continuously since 1974 but I am not blind to their imperfections.

[MarkP]

...well I think Leica gets served more than its fare share of shit on this forum, probably more that elsewhere.

[ShivaYash]

Again, the thing about money sounds like"my engagement ring is better then yours cause it cost more." And my comment about jewelry still applies.

Sure if your engagement ring takes incredible subject isolation photographs!

 

I think the point is all about desire. Sure I can afford a brand new 35f2ASPH but I prefer my 4th version, the pre-ASPH. It's not better but just what I prefer.

 

I find the 50f2 too sharp and prefer the rendering the 1.4 gives. It's almost painting like.

 

But like I said, you have made up your mind. Which is a little bit of a shame, given your jewellery analogy, which I disagree with. As I'm sure so many others do too.

 

I still have my 'cron and will keep it.

 

Good luck.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lct]

[...] For example, the 35f2.8 C Biogon has been tested by independent reviewers and may be the sharpest 35mm lens made but you would never know that by reading these forums. [...]

 

You should read the LUF a bit more

[michaelwj]

I wonder why you asked the question in the first place... you ignore all the advice in the responses.

 

This is beginning to sound like baiting... How about a polite thank you to all those that took the time to reply to your original post.

 

This isn't a particularly good start on the forum for someone we all welcomed as a new member...

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Actually, not a new member. According to the profile, a member since 2008? With 30 something posts?

Umm, actually Bill the question was asking opinions between the Noktons, the ZM 1.5 and the pre asph 1.4, stating that he didn't want to spent the money on the latest 1.4 asph. The overwhelming response was not answering the question, but saying that he should get a lens that he doesn't want to buy. Sure the responses are well meaning, but the didn't answer the question.

 

The OP ended up getting one of the lenses in the original list. I don't see what your issue is? Is it that he asked for thoughts between a few ~$1000 lenses and everyone said he should buy a $4000 lens? Personally, I don't care if it is the best lens in the world, I'm not going to spend that cash on a lens. Like the OP, I can't see the value to my photography.

 

I've had many conversations with the OP over on RFF, and they have always been kind and thoughtful. I hope he hangs around here more. It actually is a nice place with loads of nice people.

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not quite Michael. 

 

  If you think the latest offerings from Leitz are worth the money, then by all means go for it.

 

He also wrote this which opened the door for a discussion about Leica lenses.  

 

Most of us thought the 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH to be the better lens.  That doesn't mean that the OP should get the Summilux as it is very pricy. All these Leica lenses are obviously well into diminishing return for price vs performance.  

 

But for most here who use Leica lenses they are not jewellery. Unlike expensive watches or jewellery most people wouldn't have a clue about the relative value of a Leica vs Zeiss vs Voigtlander lens.

 

And I agree that this is actually a nice place with loads of nice people. :-)

[ShivaYash]

Not quite Michael.

 

 

He also wrote this which opened the door for a discussion about Leica lenses.

 

Most of us thought the 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH to be the better lens. That doesn't mean that the OP should get the Summilux as it is very pricy. All these Leica lenses are obviously well into diminishing return for price vs performance.

 

But for most here who use Leica lenses they are not jewellery. Unlike expensive watches or jewellery most people wouldn't have a clue about the relative value of a Leica vs Zeiss vs Voigtlander lens.

 

And I agree that this is actually a nice place with loads of nice people. :-)

My responses wasn't baiting I hope. Just sharing my experience. Which is what I'd expect had I posed such a question.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ktmrider2]

My comment on the 50 ASPH Summilux was that if you felt the lens was worth the money, then you should buy it.  I never wanted or planned to buy that lens as there are so many other lenses which deliver more bang for the buck.  

[lct]

My comment on the 50 ASPH Summilux was that if you felt the lens was worth the money, then you should buy it.  I never wanted or planned to buy that lens as there are so many other lenses which deliver more bang for the buck.  

 

Aside from the Summilux pre-asph, which used to be a "jewelry" lens in the past as well, which ones(s) do you envision if i may ask? 

[jrp]

There are indeed plenty of other manufacturers making M-mount lenses. Some of them are, on paper, and even in the pixel/print better than the nearest Leica equivalent.

 

But in many cases they are not so much better in performance as just different (in their rendering, contrast, flatness of field, etc) and they are often bigger than the Leica lenses. But they can also be much less expensive, so if it's an off-brand lens or no lens, then the answer is clear.

 

In my case, I value being able to record the lens used in the image metadata, so that automatic corrections can be applied and so that I can more quickly learn what works. The workflow simplification alone is worth a bit of a price difference.

[gwpics]

I own the latest version of the 50 Summicron and looking for a faster 50.  I know this is a Leica lens forum but frankly I think most new Leica lenses are way over priced.  I can afford them but I really don't like wearing jewelry.  And I do not want to offend anyone with this comment.  If you think the latest offerings from Leitz are worth the money, then by all means go for it.

 

I recently sold my Leica M and returned to film with M2 and M5 bodies.  I am leaning toward the 50f1.1 Nokton or the 50f1.5 from Zeiss or the pre ASPH Summilux.   I have been told that focus shift is not an issue using the 50f1.5 Zeiss on film.  Can anyone comment on this?  I would also like to hear from users of the 50 f1.5 ASPH Nokton and the 50 f1.1 Nokton.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

I am extremely happy with my Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f1.5 which is probably the finest lens I have ever owned. I bought it used (although you would never guess) and have had a great deal of success with it including images published by National Geographic on their website.

 

Gerry.

[ShivaYash]

I am extremely happy with my Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f1.5 which is probably the finest lens I have ever owned. I bought it used (although you would never guess) and have had a great deal of success with it including images published by National Geographic on their website.

 

Gerry.

I was tempted by this offering too. Would love to see your work with it.

[gwpics]

I was tempted by this offering too. Would love to see your work with it.

 

 

Here is a link to an article which was shot 100% with the lens: https://spark.adobe.com/page/vNzf3Tpw9WonI/ and so was this: https://spark.adobe.com/page/vy7ZT/ (the latter by available light at 800iso). Both were using an M9.

 

Gerry

[ktmrider2]

Well, without citing used lenses, I think I listed most of them in my initial question-Zeiss 50f2 and 50f1.5, Voightlander 50f2, 50f1.5 ASPH, or 50f1.1.  Now the most expensive lens in this group is the Zeiss 50f1.5 and I believe it sells for $1200.  The Zeiss 50f2 goes for about $900.  The Nokton 50f1.5 goes for $800 in black finish and $1100 or so in chrome (solid brass!).  And the Nokton 50f1.1 goes for $1100.  And by the way I found a mint 50f1.5 ASPH Nokton for $600 at Photo Village in NYC.

 

Am not going to get into an argument concerning lenses and their prices from Leica.  As I said in the original post at the start of this thread "If you think they are worth the money, go for it."  As I have said several times, I do not think they are worth the money to me or my photography.

 

And it would be interesting to photograph and post photos from each of the above lenses as I doubt most people could match results with lenses used.  I always thought composition, subject matter, and the "decisive moment" were a bit more important. 

[michaelwj]

Not quite Michael. 

 

 

He also wrote this which opened the door for a discussion about Leica lenses.  

 

Most of us thought the 1.4/50 Summilux ASPH to be the better lens.  That doesn't mean that the OP should get the Summilux as it is very pricy. All these Leica lenses are obviously well into diminishing return for price vs performance.  

 

But for most here who use Leica lenses they are not jewellery. Unlike expensive watches or jewellery most people wouldn't have a clue about the relative value of a Leica vs Zeiss vs Voigtlander lens.

 

And I agree that this is actually a nice place with loads of nice people. :-)

 

 

Hi Mark,

I took this comment as "if YOU want to spend the money that's fine by me".  He asked a valid question and got few valid answers, and hence I don't think Bill's response was warranted.

Sure, the comment re: jewellery obviously started a second discussion. I agree that most people here use their Leica lenses and use them well, but there are alternatives that get so close for a fraction of the price. About watches and jewellery, the cheapest quartz watch keeps excellent time, I don't see the value in spending thousands on  a watch. Regular jewellery? There is only value as a pure investment, otherwise it is decoration, and a desire to appear wealthy. Like Shiva said, its mostly about desire, not value, but there's nothing wrong with that. We should continue the discussion in the Bar 

[ShivaYash]

Mechanical watches are pretty nice too. But poor time keepers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lct]

Well, without citing used lenses, I think I listed most of them in my initial question-Zeiss 50f2 and 50f1.5, Voightlander 50f2, 50f1.5 ASPH, or 50f1.1.  Now the most expensive lens in this group is the Zeiss 50f1.5 and I believe it sells for $1200. [...] 

 

The ZM 50/1.5 is my favorite 50 for soft portraits at full aperture but it has a lot of focus shift so i use it with my A7s mod essentially. Hard to advise it to RF users for this reason. Also my only CV 50 is a 50/2.5 that i find very good indeed but i prefer my favorite 50/2.8 v2 or the excellent Summarit 50/2.5 by far. I have no experience with the other lenses sorry but i am spoiled with Leica already.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ShivaYash]

Just thinking about the jewellery point again... realistically, what is the issue here? Leica is a brand we all like, it's a lifestyle and if you can't accept that, perhaps there isn't much point going further? I shoot with Leica's because they inspire me, I enjoy the process, I enjoy the quality. It's the same reason I drive a Mercedes and wear a Rolex. Desire.

 

I don't think there is really anything wrong with this acceptance. Are you better that me because you don't but into the sales pitch? The key message has been this, that Leica glass is the best, offers incredible results. If you can live without it, good luck to you. But given this is a Leica forum, and many shoot daily, I certainly do, what other reaction were you expecting.

 

Yes, I am happy to admit that little red dot means a lot to me. As does using the best.

 

Rant over. Good night.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarkP]

Hi Mark,

I took this comment as "if YOU want to spend the money that's fine by me".  He asked a valid question and got few valid answers, and hence I don't think Bill's response was warranted.

Sure, the comment re: jewellery obviously started a second discussion. I agree that most people here use their Leica lenses and use them well, but there are alternatives that get so close for a fraction of the price. About watches and jewellery, the cheapest quartz watch keeps excellent time, I don't see the value in spending thousands on  a watch. Regular jewellery? There is only value as a pure investment, otherwise it is decoration, and a desire to appear wealthy. Like Shiva said, its mostly about desire, not value, but there's nothing wrong with that. We should continue the discussion in the Bar 

 

Yes I see now.

I took it to mean that if one thought the offerings were worth he money then go for it and discuss it here.

 

May well have been my mistake.

 

..anyhow we should ll move on.

 

Now regarding the 1.5/50 ZM C-Sonnar, I had one (optimised for f1.5) for about 3 years. It was indeed 'arty' wide open and sharp shut down - lovely lens! One could work around the focus-shift but it was always a bit of a pain.  In the end I thought the Summilux the better all-round lens so with mixed feelings at the time sold the Sonnar-C but subsequently haven't regretted it.

 

It's compact size, rendering, and bang-for-buck is there with doubt (oh and I really like the Zeiss bayonet mount hoods once they're on).  I must admit that I also really liked the handling of the Zeiss lenses  except for the 1/3 stop aperture clicks. I prefer my clicks in 1/2 or full stops to work opposite the shutter speed dials which work in half-full stops

 

 

I had a four-lens Zeiss set for some years including the 4.5/21 (amazingly good except for the red edge on digital), 2.8/25 (couldn't fault it really), 1.5/50 and 4.0/85 (again remarkably good value for money but always annoyed that the long hood didn't lock on the lens backwards . All excellent lenses but over time and for various reasons they were replaced with Leica lenses. 

 

One should not ignore the 2.0/50 Biogon. You would recall Ming Thien compared it to the APO-50 and it came up very well.