That much difference between 50 Lux Asph vs v3?

[memorylane]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got a chance to use 50 lux pre asph version 3 for few days and loving it.  I saw countless threads on the comparison (sharpness, bokeh, etc) but can you really differentiate between these two?  With flickr, it's quite challenging to tell them apart.

 

Also, the preasph has purple coating vs greenish coating on the asph.  Don't know if that's also a concern as I see some prefer purple coating.  

 

I'm looking to purchase it but it's going to take awhile to find one on a used market.  With the asph, I can get it in two weeks.

 

I'm currently using 50 apo and 35 asph II on mp240.  Maybe this can be a great addition to them.

Edited May 9, 2017 by memorylane

[Jager]

Well, there's some difference.  

 

Probably the easiest way to cut it is to say that the 50 ASPH will give you a closer rendering, in terms of resolution and sharpness and chroma, to your current 50apo and 35 ASPH than will the earlier pre-ASPH 50.  But all the older lenses have their own unique signatures.  They each have their charms.

 

Just get what you like.  Whatever brings you pleasure.

 

Welcome to the forum!

[a.noctilux]

Hello,

 

You would not be helped to choose which one here, I bet 50/50 for Pre or Asph. .

 

So I begin to relate my love/hate of Summilux 50mm since 80's.

For slow film Lux/Noct had their glory day, but now it's another affair for me.

 

Just keep your Apo 50 or try those two Lux to have your idea by yourself.

 

I used Summilux-M 50 Asph. now replaced by Pre-asph. (I own two actually, black and Ti  ) only because the blades are "rounder" in mid-aperture than asph.

Problem remain for Noctilux 1.0  which is nice wide open but "ugly oof" stop down a bit.

 

But that said, you may prefer asph. and you are right.

 

As side note: look at this link http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/50mm_f/1.4_Summilux-M_III

- the Lux pre-asph is difficult to find in good condition/price because people keep them and not so many produced

- I suggest that you find version I or II (the best for money and easy to have, I have one chrom also) if the long focus throw is not a trouble for you

Edited May 9, 2017 by a.noctilux

[reddot925]

Yes definitely, the Asph gives a very modern looking images and color, basically very close to reality,  while the pre gives certain warmth and character, a timeless feel to the photo.

 

Don't let anyone tell you it's similar, I owned and even tried many copies and the two lens are not the same.   I always love the photos from the pre more.

 

As a bonus, the pre is less sharp so less skin flaw shows through if you use it for casual portraits,  the asph would be too similar to your APO for sharpness.

Edited May 9, 2017 by reddot925

[gpwhite]

The Summilux 50 v3 (pre-ASPH) gives quite different performance than the ASPH. Both designs are attributed in the forum wiki to Herr Karbe.

 

The ASPH has greater micro-contrast until about f/2.4, in my samples. But it also has substantial curvature of field and can give strange chromatic aberrations on round shapes in OOF. By f/2.8, my opinion is both lenses offer equal illusion of 3D.

 

The v3, IMHO, renders beautifully. It is a sharper, smaller, contrastier 50/1. And close focus remains excellent, even without FLE. Masterpiece! 

[lct]

Main difference is sharpness at f/1.4 where the asph is clearly sharper. Same in edges and corners at f/5.6 and below. The pre-asph is not the better lens for landscapes for this reason. Also the asph has less CA but the pre-asph's bokeh is less contrasty and its relative softness at f/1.4 may be an advantage for portraits. Both great lenses anyway, the asph's rendering being closer to that of your 50/2 apo and 35/2 asph. 

[memorylane]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you folks.  I guess I'll have to wait for version 3.  This is for portraits mostly.  I tend to use 50apo for landscape.  There's something about v3 that I truly enjoy.  It gives this warm feeling and nice rendering throughout.  I enjoy it more than the rigid.

 

Well if any of you want to sell ....

[adan]

Some confusion here - there IS no "v.3" Summilux, in terms of optics.

 

-There is a version 1 (1959-61)

 

-There is a version 2 (1962-2004) - very late copies of this lens had mechanical and cosmetic lens mounts changes, to add an integral lens hood and closer focusing (down to 0.7 meters) - but their imaging properties did not change. Thus not really a new version. And NOT designed by Peter Karbe - it is still the Mandler design from 1961. The Forum wiki is fantasizing - or just confused.

 

-There is the ASPH (2004-  )

 

cf. page 43: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/3/3a/Puts-2002-M-lenses.pdf

 

My own take is that there is a huge difference between the ASPH and the v.2 (late or early) - at almost any distance and any aperture. I'm a big Mandler-lens fan, but this one was really past its sell-by date by  about 1980. Too bad the good Dr. couldn't squeeze out his own revision (a real v.3) before he retired - something a little closer to the 1980 50 Summicron or 75 Summilux.

Edited May 10, 2017 by adan

[memorylane]

Thank you for the clarification adan.  I too wondered how it was designed by Karbe.  

 

Some confusion here - there IS no "v.3" Summilux, in terms of optics.

 

-There is a version 1 (1959-61)

 

-There is a version 2 (1962-2004) - very late copies of this lens had mechanical and cosmetic lens mounts changes, to add an integral lens hood and closer focusing (down to 0.7 meters) - but their imaging properties did not change. Thus not really a new version. And NOT designed by Peter Karbe - it is still the Mandler design from 1961. The Forum wiki is fantasizing - or just confused.

 

-There is the ASPH (2004-  )

 

cf. page 43: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/3/3a/Puts-2002-M-lenses.pdf

 

My own take is that there is a huge difference between the ASPH and the v.2 (late or early) - at almost any distance and any aperture. I'm a big Mandler-lens fan, but this one was really past its sell-by date by  about 1980. Too bad the good Dr. couldn't squeeze out his own revision (a real v.3) before he retired - something a little closer to the 1980 50 Summicron or 75 Summilux.

[lct]

Indeed v3 is the third commercial version of the Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph, the one with built-in hood.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/50mm_f/1.4_Summilux-M_III

[adan]

lct - only if you count external cosmetic changes as a "new" version. There's an old saying:  "You can put lipstick on a pig - but it's still a pig."

 

The Leica wiki is not an authoritative source - as demonstrated by the fact that it gives optical designer Peter Karbe credit for the design of a lens whose optics date to 1962. As far as this lens is concerned, it is just "alternative facts."

[lct]

lct - only if you count external cosmetic changes as a "new" version. There's an old saying:  "You can put lipstick on a pig - but it's still a pig."

The Leica wiki is not an authoritative source - as demonstrated by the fact that it gives optical designer Peter Karbe credit for the design of a lens whose optics date to 1962. As far as this lens is concerned, it is just "alternative facts."

 

The only reference to optical versions is too restrictive IMHO. We all know that 50/1.4 v2 & v3 have the same optical formula but v3's built-in hood, 46mm filters and 0.7m minimum focus distance are enough differences to justify its designation given that it is a successor to v2 actually. Same for Summicrons 50/2 v4 & v5 from this standpoint and i do disagree with the unique v4 designation given by LeicaWiki there, especially knowing that v5 has less flare than v4 as far as my copies are concerned at least. YMMV.

Edited May 10, 2017 by lct

[UliWer]

One may quibble about the question, what a "version" means - but adan is certainly right that "version" 2 and 3 have the same optical design - introduced in 1962 (when Mr. Karbe wa a very young boy...) starting with no. 1844001. The change was never officially announced by Leitz, but it was a significant one. The 1. version was closer to the old Summarit than to the new design which replaced it.

 

I know that the pre.asph is often preferred to the asph. because of bokeh, colour, "glow" etc. From all I know trying both lenses side by side on the same object, the asph. outclasses its precedessor in every respect, not just sharpness and contrast.

 

The older version is just special in one respect: it shows a very steep decline from the center to the outward parts of the fov - not only fully opened but still at f 5.6. In certain situations this may reveal a sort of three-dimensional impression, which you may perhaps find from the old Summar but from now other lens.

[pgk]

I've had both the 'v3' and aspheric. It took very little testing to show that the aspheric was undoubtedly the better performer wide open. I like Mandler lenses like Adan, but some of the current designs are stunningly good and the aspheric 50mm Summilux is amongst them. Quite simply, in real world photography, it offers better images at full aperture, stopped down the difference is less significant so it depends on whether this is of interest and if not, then its more about nuances that anything else.

[tobey bilek]

I kept my Summarit after looking at many V1,2,3 Lux.    

 

Then I found an ASPH 50 1.4.  Super happy.

[gpwhite]

Some confusion here - there IS no "v.3" Summilux, in terms of optics.

 

-There is a version 1 (1959-61)

 

-There is a version 2 (1962-2004) - very late copies of this lens had mechanical and cosmetic lens mounts changes, to add an integral lens hood and closer focusing (down to 0.7 meters) - but their imaging properties did not change. Thus not really a new version. And NOT designed by Peter Karbe - it is still the Mandler design from 1961. The Forum wiki is fantasizing - or just confused.

 

-There is the ASPH (2004-  )

 

cf. page 43: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/3/3a/Puts-2002-M-lenses.pdf

 

My own take is that there is a huge difference between the ASPH and the v.2 (late or early) - at almost any distance and any aperture. I'm a big Mandler-lens fan, but this one was really past its sell-by date by  about 1980. Too bad the good Dr. couldn't squeeze out his own revision (a real v.3) before he retired - something a little closer to the 1980 50 Summicron or 75 Summilux.

 

 

But to the point of the original inquiry, , if you find a good copy of Summilux-M 50mm ref 11623, it will offer excellent micro-contrast and colors all the way to minimum focus distance. Today's ASPH is a little bit sharper, if that is a key aim, and gives whopping field curvature.

 

True that the two lenses, whatever the myths and fake news about them might be in Leica lore [hopefully Adan will consult with Puts and others so we know what's real], do give different results. That is why the original post posed the query! Setting aside the noise of sample variation though, the 11623 is hardly past its sell date IMHO.

 

Adan, you write with such conviction, perhaps you could investigate and report back on what the wiki was intending to convey with its listing of version III and an attribution to Karbe. When the 11623 was released, Karbe was at work with the team on the ASPH. Also, if you enjoy a good Summilux 75 (let's say Solms version six-bit, so numbers don't get thrown around, which was originally calibrated to digital focus plane specification according to Leica CS Wetzlar), I am positive you will enjoy a good 11623.

[lct]

11623 was the "Millenium" black paint 50/1.4 v3. The regular black anodized v3 was 11868. A new version ("nouvelle version") according to the Leica brochure from 1994 attached below. Stubborn? Me?

LeicaM_5014_11868_broch_fr_redroc.pdf

[pgk]

Today's ASPH is a little bit sharper, if that is a key aim, and gives whopping field curvature.

 

So how come it offers better perfomance wide open - because mine most certainly does, and does so relative to a just serviced lens (by Leica) which is why I changed? I think the word 'whopping' may just be a bit of an exaggeration here.

[lct]

Night and day at f/1.4:

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[JonPB]

Not having used either, but having closely examined many samples when looking for my own 50mm choice, the pre-asph has an exceptional amount of field curvature -- much like, but not as striking as, the Noctilux f/1.0. The current Asph. has some, but with little practical consequence. (To me. For folks who shoot flat subjects, it could be meaningful, in which case the Asph. is preferable but still unlikely to be ideal. But, for those subjects, the APO 50 that you already have is the stand-out choice.) Personally, I find moderate field curvature to enrich images, and these two straddle what might be my preferred design; but, having a flat-field 50 already, the pre-asph would be my definite choice for accompaniment.

 

If central subjects are paramount, the differences are small at f/1.4. According to the MTF charts, the pre-asph outperforms the Asph. in the center (5mm radius from the axis) when stopped down, but I haven't looked for or seen this in samples. If mid-field or edge subjects are crucial, the Asph. will be far more predictable and generally well-behaved.

 

I'd say that, if field curvature isn't a problem for you with the Summilux 35 FLE, then the 50 Asph. should be fine, while if edges and corners matter at all then the pre-asph should only be purchased after careful consideration.

 

Pro-tip: when you want to pixel-peep on Flickr, make a normal search query, click advanced, set the "L" size preference, then edit the URL to set the actual size limitation. By default, "Minimum size: L" means in excess of 1024x1024 pixels. I edit the part of the URL that says "&width=1024" to "&width=3024", and the majority of the results are available at camera-native resolution.

 

Cheers,

Jon