jaapv Posted October 8, 2017 Share #41 Posted October 8, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) The calibrating problem they had with the lens (which I had too) was the tolerance on the mechanics of the floating element - it took them months to get proper replacement parts machined . However, that has only to do with the close-up focusing accuracy of the lens. BTW, my lens backfocussed just as badly on film as on a sensor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 8, 2017 Posted October 8, 2017 Hi jaapv, Take a look here 50 lux vs 50 apo. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted October 8, 2017 Share #42 Posted October 8, 2017 You wrote that the 50 ASPH "was designed with a sensor in mind". I still rather doubt that and nothing you have written authoritatively supports your case. My experience (and I think your's too?) is that Leica initially had a lot of trouble calibrating this lens for digital. Leica tried more than once to correct mine for back focus in the close focus range and couldn't sort it. I even bought another one in 2011 and this was not much better. It wasn't until about fours years ago that I tried a 50 Summilux (the black chrome one) that seemed to be perfect. Far from being designed with a digital sensor in mind, I get the distinct impression that the 50 ASPH is a lens that Leica had to work quite hard to get it within the necessary tolerances. Interesting. I have owned both the pre-aspheric (late version) and aspheric versions of the 50mm Summilux. Both worked/work perfectly although the aspheric is undoubtedly better wide open. Whilst tight engineering tolerances are essential for digital sensors (I've discussed this with a friend who is an optical designer and QC costs are a factor in design/build of quality lenses) I would say that jaapv is correct inasmuch as its the RF mechanism and its interface (or lack of) which is the real problem we have to face up to. My opinion on the 50 apo is that if anyone really needs this lens rather than the 50 aspheric then they are working to standards which few of us will ever appreciate. I honestly can't see how any of the decent images I've taken on my 50 aspheric would be improved by the use of a marginally better lens. The 50 aspheric is a very good lens indeed - better is esoteric. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted October 8, 2017 Share #43 Posted October 8, 2017 (edited) Umm...The asph is a design from the digital age. It is a completely different lens from the previous Summiluxes.As the M Summilux 50mm Asph. was released in 2004 and the M8 in 2006, this is debatable but possible. Edited October 8, 2017 by Leicaiste Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted October 8, 2017 Share #44 Posted October 8, 2017 in the YouTube interview i posted above from 2012..he says the lens was "originally conceived of 16 years ago" You wrote that the 50 ASPH "was designed with a sensor in mind". I still rather doubt that and nothing you have written authoritatively supports your case. My experience (and I think your's too?) is that Leica initially had a lot of trouble calibrating this lens for digital. Leica tried more than once to correct mine for back focus in the close focus range and couldn't sort it. I even bought another one in 2011 and this was not much better. It wasn't until about fours years ago that I tried a 50 Summilux (the black chrome one) that seemed to be perfect. Far from being designed with a digital sensor in mind, I get the distinct impression that the 50 ASPH is a lens that Leica had to work quite hard to get it within the necessary tolerances. As for only discussing 50mm lenses here, you were the one who appeared to be referring to lenses for film and lenses for digital in generic terms. I was just responding to that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 8, 2017 Share #45 Posted October 8, 2017 My opinion on the 50 apo is that if anyone really needs this lens rather than the 50 aspheric then they are working to standards which few of us will ever appreciate. The 50 APO is more expensive and thus more exclusive. That is the standard that many are working to. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 8, 2017 Share #46 Posted October 8, 2017 The 50 APO is more expensive and thus more exclusive. That is the standard that many are working to. Exactly. I would say that Leica produced the apo as a statement piece - to illustrate that they can produce extraordinarily good optical designs of the highest calibre. But the fact that it is better on paper doesn't mean that this will translate into practice . 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted October 9, 2017 Share #47 Posted October 9, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Exactly. I would say that Leica produced the apo as a statement piece - to illustrate that they can produce extraordinarily good optical designs of the highest calibre. But the fact that it is better on paper doesn't mean that this will translate into practice . I guess you’ve never tried it... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted October 9, 2017 Share #48 Posted October 9, 2017 This looks more like a 50 apo-logy than an advertisement for it, on my iPad Retina screen 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted October 9, 2017 Share #49 Posted October 9, 2017 This looks more like a 50 apo-logy than an advertisement for it, on my iPad Retina screen I guess there is no accounting for taste. Sorry I forgot the primary rule, never post photos in this forum. Don’t worry I’ll never do it again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 9, 2017 Share #50 Posted October 9, 2017 I guess you’ve never tried it... Please post away but there is absolutely no way that a web based JPEG can illustrate how good a lens is unfortunately. I've never tried it because the Summilux Aspheric is an extraordinarily good lens. I cannot conceive that the 50 APO would change any images shot on the Summilux in any significant way - even, that is, if sensors were able to utilise the extra information it offers. It is what it is - a superlative lens - but in real world photography its not going to make any difference that's relevant. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 9, 2017 Share #51 Posted October 9, 2017 (edited) [...] Sorry I forgot the primary rule, never post photos in this forum. Don’t worry I’ll never do it again. Why so? It's just that your picture looks soft, on my laptop at least. You may wish post a link to a large file if you intend to prove anything with it. I did the same here when i compared the 50/2 apo to the 50/1.4 asph a couple of years ago. https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/241092-5014-asph-vs-502-apo/ Edited October 9, 2017 by lct 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted October 9, 2017 Share #52 Posted October 9, 2017 Please post away but there is absolutely no way that a web based JPEG can illustrate how good a lens is unfortunately. I've never tried it because the Summilux Aspheric is an extraordinarily good lens. I cannot conceive that the 50 APO would change any images shot on the Summilux in any significant way - even, that is, if sensors were able to utilise the extra information it offers. It is what it is - a superlative lens - but in real world photography its not going to make any difference that's relevant. Obviously, if you can’t conceive of something, it can’t be true. Not that the 50 lux isn’t a wonderful lens. I’ve had both and made my choice. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 9, 2017 Share #53 Posted October 9, 2017 I guess there is no accounting for taste. Sorry I forgot the primary rule, never post photos in this forum. Don’t worry I’ll never do it again. You might try and actually post an image to this forum instead of merely linking to a photo residing on a third party server. Your photo appears to be not quite 30kB in size when this forum allows 500kB. Statements like "Obviously, if you can’t conceive of something, it can’t be true." don't make you appear a person with which one would like to have conversations. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 9, 2017 Share #54 Posted October 9, 2017 Obviously, if you can’t conceive of something, it can’t be true. Not that the 50 lux isn’t a wonderful lens. I’ve had both and made my choice. Just think about this for a moment. A photograph is about subject, composition and lighting - the technicalities are all in supporting roles. A good photograph is one in which the technicalities are unseen because they support the image well enough to be irrelevant to the viewer. One of those technicalities is the lens used and clearly it has to be good enough for the image taken. A very good lens will provide support for the image in many ways, some of which we can argue over. But a superlative lens will make no significant difference because sufficient support is already there. Of much more importance is the way we take photographs and we are discussing M lenses because we shoot with M rangefinder cameras. Theses are my preferred tools for a whole host of reasons, lenses included. All current Leica M lenses are exceptionally good and arguing that one will provide better results than another is not tenable in terms of the final image. I use the Summilux not because it is better than the other 50mm lenses from Leica but because I do, at times, shoot it wide open in low light. I have not chosen a Noctilux because to me its a specialist, low light lens and I don't shoot wide open all the time. The APO though is a different beast entirely. Its a superlative otic no doubt, but its not going to dramatically improve images. Its a statement lens by Leica which sets a benchmark to say how good their optics can be, and if you want and can afford one so be it - not a problem. But using it won't improve already good images taken on their other 50mms. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 9, 2017 Share #55 Posted October 9, 2017 [...] The APO though is a different beast entirely. Its a superlative otic no doubt, but its not going to dramatically improve images. Its a statement lens by Leica which sets a benchmark to say how good their optics can be, and if you want and can afford one so be it - not a problem. But using it won't improve already good images taken on their other 50mms. Sure the 50/2 apo is a statement lens but it does improve pics at f/2.0 and f/2.8 compared to the 50/1.4 asph to the point where i don't use the latter anymore at those apertures when i have both lenses at hand. Not to say that the 50/1.4 ash is a mediocre lens of course, quite the contrary. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 9, 2017 Share #56 Posted October 9, 2017 Not to say that the 50/1.4 ash is a mediocre lens of course, quite the contrary. Worth 3 x the cost for better performance at 2 & 2.8 (I'm quite happy with the aspheric at these apertures)? That's hi-fi territory in terms of improved performance and cost ratio. Its not real world difference is it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 9, 2017 Share #57 Posted October 9, 2017 Please post away but there is absolutely no way that a web based JPEG can illustrate how good a lens is unfortunately. I've never tried it because the Summilux Aspheric is an extraordinarily good lens. I cannot conceive that the 50 APO would change any images shot on the Summilux in any significant way - even, that is, if sensors were able to utilise the extra information it offers. It is what it is - a superlative lens - but in real world photography its not going to make any difference that's relevant. In general I would agree. However, I have seen 1m high prints from this lens that were marvellous in detail and contrast. How good a Summilux print would have been in comparison I would not know, probably close, but not quite up to 100%. On the internet - there is no way to show off the qualities of lenses of this level. Unfortunately I must agree, this image is not capable of showing off any lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 9, 2017 Share #58 Posted October 9, 2017 In general I would agree. However, I have seen 1m high prints from this lens that were marvellous in detail and contrast. And probably limited by the sensor . I can say exactly the same off many other lenses. All current Leica M lenses are extremely good. Building an APO 50mm lens at a high price is not about its usability, its about the ability to do so . I would expect it to deliver excellent results, but then again I would expect any current Leica lens to deliver excellent results (and they do). Any differences are nuances and the price differential is anything but. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soden Posted October 9, 2017 Share #59 Posted October 9, 2017 Well, there are two ways to judge an image, very large and very small. This flower is the size of a pea. Taken with the macro adapter with no cropping. But since it’s been judged as not possible to make such determination via the web. I’ll take my 50 apo and go shooting and forget this group. As this has degenerated as he says, she says as validation of ones own opinions Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 9, 2017 Share #60 Posted October 9, 2017 And probably limited by the sensor . I can say exactly the same off many other lenses. All current Leica M lenses are extremely good. Building an APO 50mm lens at a high price is not about its usability, its about the ability to do so . I would expect it to deliver excellent results, but then again I would expect any current Leica lens to deliver excellent results (and they do). Any differences are nuances and the price differential is anything but. It "stands to reason" but it is not true that either sensor or lens limits performance. A bad lens will render better on a better sensor, a low-grade sensor will give better images using a good lens. It is always a combination of the two, not a weakest-link situation. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.