Advantages of 50mm f1.4 ASPH

[rvincent]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Allan, thanks for posting that. Even though I'm not a colour man myself, the shot demonstrates many points. Not least, that a better-corrected lens actually provides superior, not inferior, OOF rendition. The "dog" shots in the previous forum (DR vs. ASPH) should have laid that one to rest for ever. (I tried to search in order to remember who posted that comparison - was it William by any chance? - but I suppose the search engine doesn't "do" the old forum anymore, right?)

 

Best,

 

Actually, KP, the "dog" shots were done by Ray Harms. I should know, because I bought the lens from him. I also have a modern 50mm Summicron, which is a wonderful lens. The 50 asph, however, does everything that the 'cron does, only better. Plus, it does 1.4.

 

I agree with all of the above regarding the 50 asph. I have never used a lens that had such spectacular characteristics, and particularly, the bokeh. I would like to see an example of the harshness that LCT speaks of, because I can't produce any on film. My goal now is to improve my own photographic skills to a level that can take advantage of this lens.

 

- Robert

[Advertisement]

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

[johnkuo]

I replaced my current generation 50 Summicron with the 50 ASPH and no regrets. Like Robert said, it does everything a bit better, more pronounced at f/2.0 and wider, but the signature is always there. It has that "look" that's hard to describe but you'll know when you see it.

[harmsr]

Hey KP & Robert,

 

Yes, I'm the guilty party for the "dog" shots.

 

I only sold my black 50 lux asph, because I got a chrome LHSA one with my MP3. I will state very simply that I never plan to be without a 50 Lux ASPH. It is just an amazing lens.

 

Yes, you can see a difference between it and any other 50 lens. IMHO the 50 Lux ASPH does everything a little better than the Cron and also does 1.4.

 

Just my $.02.

 

Best,

 

Ray

[derek_stanton]

I, too, was eventually impressed by the 50 Lux-ASPH. I ponied-up over two grand US for a new one. But, my first roll of film, comparing it to a 50DR, Zeiss 50 Planar, Jupiter-3, and Canon EF 50/1.4 showed the ASPH to be ridiculously soft.

 

After ten+ weeks at Leica, being 'repaired,' i received it last week, and although it's better, it's still softer than the $30 Jupiter-3. Leica has been uncommunicative, non-responsive, and unforgivably negligent in their handling of this matter.

 

Anyway - back to the question.... Two points:

1 ] If you're asking about lens performance, and you're told there's "no difference..." be sure to ask how that person is scanning and/or printing. I've read too many lens 'reviews' from people using five year old $150 consumer-grade scanners, or they only shoot 400+ ISO print film, yadda yadda yadda....

 

2 ] Not all new lenses of superior reputation perform up to standard. Test and compare to avoid 'surprises.'

[christoph_d]

Mike,

 

Both lenses give you excellent pictures. Whether you see any real differences depends a lot on the quality of the equipment used to enlarge, scan or project the resulting images. The following is my subjective impression based on my experience using the lenses side by side.

 

The Summicron is optically excellent, and has the advantage over the 'Lux Asph. that it is much lighter, making it a great lens for travel. It's most noticable disadvantages vs the 'Lux are, of course the 2 instead of the 1.4, an increased sensitivity to flare with strong sunlight shining in from the front, and, possibly, a touch less performance in terms of contrast and (perceived) "sharpness".

 

The Summilux Asph. gives an even improved optical impression over the Summicron, and the extra stop gives added creative possibilities. It is much less sensitive to flare, and has the best performance in terms of contrast and (perceived) "sharpness", that I have encountered so far in any lens that I have used. I cannot see any difference at short differences between the two lenses. The main disadvantage of the Summilux is the size. In M-terms it's a big lens, and thus less likely used for travel.

 

Both lenses render the bokeh in a different way.

I cannot comment on the colour rendition as I mainly photograph in B&W.

 

There's a direct comparison of the two lenses in the LFI 4/2006.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Rgds, C.

[marknorton]

I think you'd have to be pretty picky to reject the Summilux on the grounds of it's size. It's the same length, just 1cm greater diameter and weighs 95 grams more, most of it high quality Leica glass. Another possible disadvantage of course is the cost, about €800 - 1000 more or $1000 - $1200 depending on your sales tax rate.

[Guest leica_mage]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Christoph, thanks for not propagating the sharpness myth, by correctly adding the word 'perceived' between parentheses whilst including the word itself in inverted commas.

 

Robert and Ray, good to "see" you again! Ray, apologies I had forgotten it was you that did the splendid dog shots, and some others in a conservatory setting, with flowers, if I remember correctly. Those were "historic" tests! And I do remember that you sold your black ASPH to Robert because you got the chrome LHSA one, as I remember, Robert, that you cured your Noctilust with that lens.

 

The day that thread started appearing (elsewhere) I, too, cured my Noctilust. Now I've just got to get the lens, but the 35mm ASPH 'lux has priority because I do most of my indoor low-light shots with a 35mm focal length. Still, I'm somewhat worried about VF occlusion with the 35, especially with the hood...

[Guest hammertone]

the 35mm ASPH 'lux has priority because I do most of my indoor low-light shots with a 35mm focal length. Still, I'm somewhat worried about VF occlusion with the 35, especially with the hood...

 

Stop worrying. This is no issue in practice with a 0.72 viewfinder. As you probably know the hood is vented. Works well.

[Guest leica_mage]

Stop worrying. This is no issue in practice with a 0.72 viewfinder. As you probably know the hood is vented. Works well.

Joachim, thanks. I do know the hood is vented, I just haven't bothered to do the obvious thing: drop by the shop and try the damn thing (that's because I'm worried about what I'll come out of the shop with... ).

[wizard]

I think you'd have to be pretty picky to reject the Summilux on the grounds of it's size. It's the same length, just 1cm greater diameter and weighs 95 grams more,

 

 

Mark, while I too would not reject the 50 asph on the basis of length, it IS almost 1cm longer than the Summicron 50mm lens (43,5mm versus 52,5mm), and that is noticeable.

 

Best,

 

Andy

[marknorton]

Sorry, yes, I got the diameter and length mixed up; the Summilux is 9mm longer, and, shock, horrow, 0.5mm thicker at its widest point. Hardly an issue, surely?

[wizard]

Sorry, yes, I got the diameter and length mixed up; the Summilux is 9mm longer, and, shock, horrow, 0.5mm thicker at its widest point. Hardly an issue, surely?

 

Well, depends on the situation I assume. Sometimes size does matter...

 

Best,

 

Andy

[Guest malland]

>>>But the first photograph was taken with a 50mm Summicron! Of legendary following among bo-ke afficionados, along with the 35mm 'cron (IV)!!!<<<

 

I suggest that you use your eyes and look at the pictures above rather than going by the reputation of the lens!

 

Reminds me of the joke about the man who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man, and she says, "Darling, I wasn't doing anything: what are you going to believe -- what I say or merely your eyes?"

 

--Mitch/Sydney

[Guest leica_mage]

>>>But the first photograph was taken with a 50mm Summicron! Of legendary following among bo-ke afficionados, along with the 35mm 'cron (IV)!!!<<<

 

I suggest that you use your eyes and look at the pictures above rather than going by the reputation of the lens!

 

Reminds me of the joke about the man who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man, and she says, "Darling, I wasn't doing anything: what are you going to believe -- what I say or merely your eyes?"

 

--Mitch/Sydney

I don't give a hoot about reputations of lenses (in fact in the case of the 35mm 'cron (IV) the reputation is in my opinion quite simply exaggerated), I was simply stating that the first picture was not shot with the 50mm ASPH 'lux which you don't like. That was all. Punkt.

[SteveYork]

At those apertures, probably not. Stay with the Summicron. Only go for the Summilux if the extra stop will be useful. Much of my photography is indoors, so once I went to the Summicrons, there was no looking back.

 

The size issue is a red herring; you'll get use to anything, and it's npot that big. If size is an issue, then just take a camera and one lens. You'll probably get better pictures that way.

[lct]

... I would like to see an example of the harshness that LCT speaks of, because I can't produce any on film...

Hi Robert,

I spoke of 'relative' harshness as we are at a very high quality level here but we are far from the horrors one can get with some non Leica lenses needless to say.

Now the truth (at least my truth) is the 50/1.4asph OOF rendition is somewhat harsher that that of my pre-asph Summilux, Summicron and Elmar, ar least on the R-D1, mainly at f/2 and slower apertures.

Reason why i use the 'lux asph at f/1.4 in most cases, or at slower apertures when i need sharpness in the first place (1st pic below).

Sorry i have no examples of 'harsh' bokeh to show you right now as i prefer using the Elmar when i've got some significant OOF to shoot at (second pic below) but you can see interesting samples here, courtesy of our colleague Bill Hollinger:

http://homepage.mac.com/billh96007/50ASPH/PhotoAlbum163.html

 

 

[rvincent]

LCT - Thanks for the examples. I remember seeing Bill's excellent test many months ago and had forgotten about it. I think the 'harshness' (i.e., blown highlights at the edges in strong backlit conditions) is partially a function of the limited dynamic range of a RD-1 sensor and partially a function of the lens. Sean Reid discusses this in his excellent review at The Luminous Landscape. With b&w film, this is less of an issue. In your case, the wonderful little Elmar comes to the rescue.

 

To answer Mike's original question - I would stick to the Summicron if the operating range is going to be f5.6-f8.0. For a low-light shooter, however, the 50 asph is definitely worth it.

 

Nice to see some old friends here again.

 

- Robert

[lct]

...I think the 'harshness' (i.e., blown highlights at the edges in strong backlit conditions) is partially a function of the limited dynamic range of a RD-1 sensor and partially a function of the lens...

What you're referring to is dynamic range problems (blown highlights) caused by high contrast lenses if i'm not wrong.

The current Elmar is not different to the 'lux asph from this standpoint. Both are very contrasty and cause the same kind of issue which BTW is not difficult to solve in the Epson raw converter except when you want to get some highlight effects on purpose like in 1st pic above which was perhaps confusing here sorry.

The 'harshness' i refer to is visible in some OOF parts of the pictures: typically highlights get sharp edges instead of soft ones and it is IMO a drawback of many aspheric (not only Leica) lenses as opposed to some earlier designs like those of the 50/1.4 pre-asph, 50/2 # 11819, 35/2 # 11310 or the cute 40/2 of the Leica CL.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest leica_mage]

[...] The 'harshness' i refer to is visible in some OOF parts of the pictures: typically highlights get sharp edges instead of soft ones and it is IMO a drawback of many aspheric (not only Leica) lenses as opposed to some earlier designs like those of the 50/1.4 pre-asph, 50/2 # 11819, 35/2 # 11310 or the cute 40/2 of the Leica CL

Fully agreed, except in the case of 11310, which is an inexplicably overrated lens in my opinion. 11870 is far superior in all respects, even if completely unuseable at full aperture.

[moikle]

Thank you all for your input. I think I will go for the 1.4 ASPH from what I have seen in just the two photos above it separates the subject from the background in a most attractive way. By the way I do have other lenses for my M7 including 21mm f2.8 ASPH, 28mm f2.0 ASPH and a 90mm f2.0 APO. I really wanted to know if the 50mm 1.4 ASPH was superior to the 50mm f2.0 I think I have the result I was hoping for. Again thank you all for your input.

 

Mike