Jump to content

50 APO - what do you see as the difference?


Jon Warwick

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Serious question, I'm seeing a few used 50 APOs for sale and considering getting one.

 

It would replace a v5 Summicron.

 

A very things for consideration:

 

- I can print very big, up to 45" on the long side. I use very good tripod technique here. Any extra resolution would be useful.

- Perfect edge-to-edge sharpness and zero field curvature would be useful - I often nodal stitch 3 vertical files together to make mammoth 45" tall x 60" wide pictures of mountain landscapes.

- VERY importantly, I'm looking for a rendering that produces as much tonal depth as possible. I want as much of a 3D look and tonal depth & microcontrast as possible.

 

It's not clear to me if a 50 APO would be visibly and obviously better for the above compared to the v5 Summicron, given when I tried the 50 APO it was such a short experience and didn't do any like-for-like comparisons.

 

Any thoughts if you have properly compared and contrasted would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reid Reviews has a detailed head-to-head (with lots of images) comparison of the current Summicron 50s.  It is a subscription site, but if you are not a subscriber and are considering the 50 APO a one year subscription at $40 might be a good expenditure.  From the review - if you like to shoot at or near f2.0 the APO is a no brainer.  Stopped down the choice is more complex.

Edited by Luke_Miller
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not one who pays much attention to analytical reviews of lenses. Either the language is meaningless and subjective (as far as I'm concerned "rendering" is something you put on a house, or its a technique for getting meat off the bone in an abattoir; "pop" is the sound of a champagne cork)), or I don't find it easy to translate assessments of characteristics such as "field curvature" or "edge to edge sharpness" to making my own photos better: they're are highly appropriate to photographing a brick wall, but how often do you need zero field curvature or edge to edge sharpness for a portrait?

 

OTOH I do pay a lot of attention to the opinions of photographers I trust, especially when they try to describe the effect a lens has on the impact of an image overall.

 

Over the couple of years I've owned the Apo 50 I've started (subjectively!) to recognise a distinctive and rewarding look to my better photos taken with the lens. I can only describe it as an extra clarity that I don't see with any other lens that I have for the M and SL (though the 90-280SL sometimes reminds me of it). Clarity?  microcontrast? brightness without over-exposure? ability to do more with it in post? These are just words that hover around the actuality of what I see, without being truly accurate.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I rented the APO and compared it to my 50 Summilux. Apart from IQ differences, I did not like the loose aperture ring on the APO (an increasingly common characteristic on some recent offerings), nor the focus ring, which isn't fully knurled like the Summilux. Its compact design made it less user friendly for me.

 

This is another reason why I recommend real life use, not forum reviews, to make critical assessments. Our needs and tastes vary.

 

Jeff

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Main difference is visible at f/2 and to a lesser extent f/2.8 indeed. Field curvature is minimum there and edge-to-edge sharpness is close to be achieved with the apo. Also the latter has no visible focus shift compared to the slight one of v5. But perfection does not exist with any lens and no significant difference will be seen in matter of resolution if the OP shoots mostly at smaller apertures with mere 24MP cameras even Leica's. The rest is subjective and depends on one's tastes and preferences IMHO let alone on the choice between raw converters. I prefer the focus ring of the apo for instance but i like more the size and handling of the v5. YMMV.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The APO Summicron is light, compact and takes beautiful renditions of what it (or you) sees. Compared to the bigger 50mm lenses it is a dream.

By comparison the Noctilux is a nightmare because it is a lump of heavy glass that blocks the viewfinder.

 

I've used both, and the prize winner by a mile is the APO Summicron.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I would describe the 50mm APO is that it has more acutance than any of my other lenses.  I'm not sure I see any additional true resolution, but boundaries are crisper than with pretty much anything else--at least when I am careful with aperture, focus, tripod, etc..  If I'm not careful--if I'm shooting hand held, for example, or have a subject that isn't stationary or don't take the time to get the focus point right or make sure the depth of field adequately covers the critical portion of my subject, then it's really no different from any of my other lenses. 

 

Overall, it's probably my best single lens.  Versatile, small, a screw-up lens hood that does a reasonable job of protecting the front element from knocks and fingerprints, superb color correction, easy to focus, and sharp as a tack.  The downsides?  It's not particularly resistant to flair and it's expensive.  Occasionally I also miss the narrow depth of field I could get with my Summilux, but not very often.

 

Here are two crops that will illustrate what I'm talking about with respect to acutance.  This is a fairly dramatic example, and not all subjects or lenses would show as obvious a difference, but it still illustrates what you can expect.  These are two crops of an oil painting.  They were taken on the same tripod from the same location, one on the M10 and one on the SL.  The shot on the M10 was taken with the 50 APO at an aperture of f/4 (it gives roughly the same performance from f/2.8 to f/8 on the M10).  The shot on the SL was taken with the 24-90 set to 50mm at the same f/4.  In both cases the canvas of the oil painting was the point of focus.  In both cases a 2s shutter delay was used to reduce vibration.  In both cases the shutter speed was somewhere between 1/45s and 1/60s.  The crops aren't quite identical, and the magnification is slightly different despite having the cameras mounted in the exact same location (so either one is slightly more or slightly less than 50mm).  I find edges much sharper in the APO and that appears to provide more three dimensionality to the brush strokes.  

 

Note that the 24-90, while an excellent zoom, is still not a fixed focal length lens, and f/4 is pretty much wide open at 50mm so this isn't exactly a fair comparison.  They would have been more similar if I had shot the zoom at f/8, for example.  This is just to illustrate the acutance on the APO which I consider to be its defining attribute.  Even at f/2 edges are crisper with this lens than any other 50mm I have owned.

 

If you look at the two files at 200% magnification the differences should be pretty obvious.

 

First, the APO...

 

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!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is the zoom...

 

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!

 

- Jared

Edited by Jared
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi!

I have also got SL 601, SL 24-90, M10, M Apo 50, M Lux 75.

I fully agreed the comparision of M Apo 50 with SL 24-90 at 50 f4 from Jared. The images of M Apo 50 is 3D, lively, magic render, micro & marco detail, easy focus, light, very sharpness from edge to edge even at low light, less digital look (vs SL Lux 50 and other) ...

I more love M Apo 50 on M10 day by day! In my private opinion, I feel that at f2.0 and smaller, M Apo 50 is the winner vs any Leica lens, except the price!

Have a good day!

Thanks!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time i did comparos between M 50/2 apo and M 50/1.4 asph i could hardly tell a difference at f/4 to be honest.

See a couple of test pics at f/2 and f/2.8 below.

- 50/1.4 asph, f/2.0: http://tinyurl.com/yazz846v
- 50/2 apo, f/2.0: http://tinyurl.com/ybofwxdw
- 50/1.4 asph, f/2.8: http://tinyurl.com/lekoloq
- 50/2 apo, f/2.8: http://tinyurl.com/n6dyqd4
(M240, tripod, self timer, focus on "IX" with EVF and 10x magnification, 11 MB files)
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes when we spend a lot of cash on a lens... we like to think it is better..even micrometrically so...lol...

That said..I do see something really cool in the color rendition and contrast of the 50 apo and thought about buying one..esp since I'm back to using a 50 a lot..

But 6K better..well..

But in regard to the SL zoom on tripod pic of the oil painting..I would think..the zoom would need at least 10 sec to settle down timerwise..on a good solid tripod that is...not 2 sec..

Edited by tsleica
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes when we spend a lot of cash on a lens... we like to think it is better..even micrometrically so...lol...

That said..I do see something really cool in the color rendition and contrast of the 50 apo and thought about buying one..esp since I'm back to using a 50 a lot..

But 6K better..well..

But in regard to the SL zoom on tripod pic of the oil painting..I would think..the zoom would need at least 10 sec to settle down timerwise..on a good solid tripod that is...not 2 sec..

There's a bit of truth here, but the truth varies from shot to shot and photographer to photographer, if you see what I mean.

 

I am currently taking part in an 'open studios' programme, so our house is an exhibition space for weekends in July. I have prepared five sets of prints, each with different subject matter and style. Three of them (loosely described as: striking architectural geometry, street, and low key spotlit dancers) would look the same whatever the quality of lens (within reason). Their impact is totally unrelated to the lens characteristics that this thread has talked about. One set is of softly lit middle eastern interiors where subtle colour variation is important: most of these were taken with the SEM 21, and I had to use the Adobe flat field plug in to clean up the corners - acceptable, but definitely a lens failing. The last set were minimalistic shots of big cloudy skies reflected on wet sandy beaches; I could have used a wide range of focal lengths without making much difference to the scene shown, but I doubt if any of my lenses would have produced quite the same delicate pastel colours as the Apo 50 (on the M240, with minimal post processing).

 

So yes, the differences can be micrometric, but only you can decide if the difference, once seen, is worth the extra cost.

 

(Let's not get too precious about cost here: we're all Leica owners for a start, and, unless we're pros, there is no measurable value for the money of any of our Leica purchases).

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize the sample I gave makes the 24-90 look soft by comparison. That was the intent, frankly. And given the tripod used, I have no concerns about 2s being enough damping time. I've done this same test before with a remote trigger and the results are consistent.

 

The relatively poor performance on the zoom comes from the fact that it, like the APO, was shot at f/4. That's less than half a stop away from wide open for the zoom. The lens is very good indeed, but at 50mm and above and shot wide open it's just not in the same class as a good prime lens closed down a full two stops.

 

I was trying to show a contrast without actually doing anything dishonest. This really is what one could expect out of these lenses with these real world conditions, even if the conditions were selected carefully.

 

The point was to use an image rather than words to highlight what I see as the one special quality of the 50mm APO and that's its acutance. If I had taken the same images (shifting the camera to get the same framing) with my 35mm FLE or my 75 Cron APO or my 50mm Lux (now sold) or my 90mm Macro Elmer M you'd still be able to pick out the 50 APO from its sharp-edged micro contrast--though the differences would have been less dramatic.

 

While the acutance is real I don't see it in every shot. It's almost never this striking in a hand held shot, for example. But it would unquestionably be the lens I chose if high acutance/micro contrast was a core requiremen for the success of the imaget. The only real flaw I ever notice in the APO is a greater tendency to flare than many other modern lenses. And, no, my sample is well past the serial number where Leica had solved the more serious issues with veiling flare. It's not terrible in this regard, but it's worse than many other designs from Leica.

 

- Jared

Edited by Jared
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jared

 

I own both these lenses. No doubt the APO is amazing, but something looks wrong in your SL shot, even taking into account different lenses on different camera. The 24-90 image isn't even close to sharp. That's not consistent with most people's experience of that lens, including my own. Are you using OIS or something on the tripod, because while I'm not doubting the ability of Leica's second best modern 50mm lens (after the Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH), there is no way the APO outperforms the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm f/2.8-4 ASPH by the degree shown in your photo in normal use (or even stopped down two stops against the zoom). Not even close. 

 

Can you shoot both shots again, perhaps using the same camera and making sure OIS is off on the zoom? 

 

To the OP, the APO 50 is an amazing lens. At f/2 it renders beautifully and delivers an apparent depth of field that seems greater than you would expect, especially with a fairly flat image plane. However, it is expensive and I doubt it's going to change your life if you already have a v5 Summicron. I think the suggestion to get your hands on one - renting or borrowing - is sensible. Take it out with your current lens, load up a couple of cards with images and see if you prefer it to the v5 Cron. Of all the M lenses I own, I love the handling and rendering of the 35 Lux ASPH, 50 APO and Summicron 75 APO. I'm not techy enough to articulate why, but all of those lenses tend to make images I really love and the ones I end up printing. I don't think it's MTF charts, it's just something about the rendering that attracts me. 

 

The APO 50 is certainly one of those lenses where Leica got it right. That said, the Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH makes the 50 APO look very much second best on the SL, albeit it is absolutely huge... there is always a bigger dog. It would be highly hypocritical of me to suggest to anyone to hold off chasing the next best thing though, and if you pick up the APO 50 I'm sure you'll be delighted. In terms of size, performance and handling on an M body I think it's probably the best M lens out there. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...