50 cron vs 50 lux asph - sharpness only

[jay968]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you Michael and Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[B-A-C]

The real difference between these lenses is the quality of out of field rendering.  Both are great.  You cannot go wrong.

Edited May 9, 2018 by B-A-C

[pgk]

In terms of just sharpness first in the center of the frame, and then at the edges, do the current 50 summicron and current 50 summilux asph perform pretty much the same from F4 to F8?

 

If by sharpness you mean the ability to produce technically excellent photographs with lots of fine detail then I defy anyone to be displeased with either lens. The Summilux is an f/1.4 lens which is great wide open IF that is where you want to use it, and far more than adequate throughout its aperture range. The Summicron is a great all rounder. Both are excellent lenses! Obsessing over nuances of difference is not going to get you anywhere.

[jaapv]

The common misconception: A faster lens is "better". Wrong.

[mmradman]

The common misconception: A faster lens is "better". Wrong.

Fast lens principal strong point is speed.  If resolving power across the frame and flare resistance is also good we surly have winner, this is where Summilux betters Summicron 50mm. 

I never shot with any version of classic Summicron -M 50mm but recall now absent Swedish contributor, the guy from the past era, Lars Berquist who always stated Summicron was prone to flare. 

[Gobert]

The common misconception: A faster lens is "better". Wrong.

In principle I agree with you. But practice is, especially with Japanese lenses, that faster lenses are usually better built. And then a faster lens is indeed better.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not with Leica.

[mmradman]

Not with Leica.

Better is so subjective, better for what, wallet, sloping shoulder?

OK, let me start, except for comparing Summilux 21, 24mm and Noctilux 50mm with slower counterparts what other slower current M lens is providing better resolution across the frame at all F stops?

[pgk]

..... except for comparing Summilux 21, 24mm and Noctilux 50mm .....

 

Which leaves 35 and 50 Summiluxes. And the 75/1.2 which is an esoteric, highly specialised statement lens like the 50 Apo. Even so 3 exclusions and 3  to compare. Ummm, am I missing something?

[mmradman]

Which leaves 35 and 50 Summiluxes. And the 75/1.2 which is an esoteric, highly specialised statement lens like the 50 Apo. Even so 3 exclusions and 3  to compare. Ummm, am I missing somethin

Lets concentrate on current 35 and 50mm Summilux/Sumicron pairs.  At f2 does Summicron offer resolution advantage over Summilux?

[pgk]

Lets concentrate on current 35 and 50mm Summilux/Sumicron pairs.  At f2 does Summicron offer resolution advantage over Summilux?

 

Well I used to have a copy of the current Summicron but sold it because I wanted a Summilux  and I wanted it so that on occasion I could use it wide open - my decision was based on this not on 'resolution figures'. I cannot say that in real world photography that either of these lenses gave me cause for complaint in terms of 'sharpness' (however defined) at any aperture. Leica don't design poor lenses. All are fit for purpose and their differences in 'resolving power' are in terms of numerical entity only - in the real picture taking world none will have problems producing technically excellent photos. The reason for buying a faster lens is not about 'sharpness', resolution, 'resolving power', whatever - its because they are a stop faster. I don't know why this basic concept is so difficult to grasp. For sheer resolution the solution is a process lens but of course that is only at specific, defined distances and apertures, otherwise, for general photography resolution has to be sufficient, not marginally more. We go around this topic repeatedly and there is never resolution (pardon the pun) because there can't be.

 

I'll tell you what. If someone can show me an actual photograph which was taken at a mid-aperture on either of these lenses which demonstrates that it is clearly superior to the other lens (in terms of fine detail resolved) then I'll think again. Until then I will not be convinced.

Edited May 9, 2018 by pgk

[lct]

I does not 

 

Lets concentrate on current 35 and 50mm Summilux/Sumicron pairs.  At f2 does Summicron offer resolution advantage over Summilux?

 

It doesn't. Generally fast Leica lenses are sharper at the widest aperture of slower ones. Just a feeling though.

 

[jdlaing]

Lets concentrate on current 35 and 50mm Summilux/Sumicron pairs.  At f2 does Summicron offer resolution advantage over Summilux?

At what aperture?

[mmradman]

At what aperture?

Please read again, beginning of second sentence.

[mmradman]

Well I used to have a copy of the current Summicron but sold it because I wanted a Summilux and I wanted it so that on occasion I could use it wide open - my decision was based on this not on 'resolution figures'. I cannot say that in real world photography that either of these lenses gave me cause for complaint in terms of 'sharpness' (however defined) at any aperture. Leica don't design poor lenses. All are fit for purpose and their differences in 'resolving power' are in terms of numerical entity only - in the real picture taking world none will have problems producing technically excellent photos. The reason for buying a faster lens is not about 'sharpness', resolution, 'resolving power', whatever - its because they are a stop faster. I don't know why this basic concept is so difficult to grasp. For sheer resolution the solution is a process lens but of course that is only at specific, defined distances and apertures, otherwise, for general photography resolution has to be sufficient, not marginally more. We go around this topic repeatedly and there is never resolution (pardon the pun) because there can't be.

 

I'll tell you what. If someone can show me an actual photograph which was taken at a mid-aperture on either of these lenses which demonstrates that it is clearly superior to the other lens (in terms of fine detail resolved) then I'll think again. Until then I will not be convinced.

Answer fit for a politician. I know all of that and have Summilux to boot, also APO Summicron. Just wanted to hear streightforward opinion which one resolve better. Edited May 9, 2018 by mmradman

[pgk]

Just wanted to hear streightforward opinion which one resolve better.

 

Neither. Is that a short enough answer? If you can't see the difference its irrelevant and in real world photos you can't. Lens test figures are something else (I used to MTF test lenses for a living once).

[mmradman]

Neither. Is that a short enough answer? If you can't see the difference its irrelevant and in real world photos you can't. Lens test figures are something else (I used to MTF test lenses for a living once).

I can accept that in real world difference in negligible.

In real world real people buy one lense over the other on premise that one is offering a little bit more than the other. This may be misguided or influenced by marketing, or internet, but we all want best for our money.

[pgk]

I can accept that in real world difference in negligible.

In real world real people buy one lense over the other on premise that one is offering a little bit more than the other. This may be misguided or influenced by marketing, or internet, but we all want best for our money.

 

Agreed, but on the forum we go around and around the topic of 'which is best' and ALL Leica lenses are very good. Trying to differentiate between them is so difficult it comes down to looking at figures few fully understand.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

It doesn't. Generally fast Leica lenses are sharper at the widest aperture of slower ones. Just a feeling though.

 

True for the 50/2 non apo, not the apo though.

[steamboat]

"Sometimes your best pictures aren't always your sharpest pictures."

--Bill Strode, photojournalist (RIP)