Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 vs. Voigtlander 50mm f/1.2

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, evikne said:

I cannot decide, so I have both. 😄

I am fortunate to have both too. 🙂

Pete.

[Mr.Q]

11 hours ago, jrp said:

Glow ~= spherical aberration.  Some specialty lenses such as the Nikon 58mm f1.4 or the newer Sigma 45mm f2.8 undercorrect for it deliberately, ash the expense of sharpness, in the hope of differentiating themselves from the near perfection that the competition offers fairly routinely.

The Summilux 50mm, my first Leica lens, is hard to beat.  I've not tried the Voigtlander but some of my other, ultra-wide, Voigtlangers have less good colour.  As I understand it, Voigtlander is going for the classic / Mandler era rendering that many that have the £$ for photography enjoy.

The recent offerings from Voigtlander are reference class. The e-mount 50, 65, and 110 APO-Lanthars in particular, rival even the Otus lenses.

[jrp]

Sure.  I would be happier if they also made them in L or M mount.  The current M mount Voigtlander lenses fit a niche, one that I appreciate, but there are only so many lenses that you can carry 🙂 

[vanGeist]

Am 26.10.2019 um 16:13 schrieb 01af:

Yes, that's some kind of glow, too. But this occurs with lenses from many makers, not just Leica.

Yes, my $5 Jupiter-8 also had a lot of »glow« but the difference is sharpeness or the total lack of it. Mandler's signature is high sharpeness with uncorrected spherical aberrations. Not just only one of both.

[01af]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb vanGeist:

Not just only one of both.

Well ... there's more lenses than just Mandler here and $5 junk there.

[B-A-C]

I've only owned the 50 asph and it's the best lens I've ever had.  The sharpness and bokeh are wonderful.  The build quality is great.  It does not hang level from your M however.  Try it out IMO.  Great lens

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, B-A-C said:

 It does not hang level from your M however.

What do you mean?

[jmahto]

11 hours ago, ianman said:

What do you mean?

Front heavy? I am guessing that's what he means.

[jaeger]

On 3/28/2019 at 10:08 AM, DandA said:

I own both the VC 35mm f1.2 and the VC 50mm f1.2 and they perform completely differently,. Without your having used the 50mm f1.2,, how can you make the statement that it's half the lens of the 50mm Lux asph. This is far from accurate. Most who have used the VC 50mm f1.2 are fairly uniform in their assessment. Some put it vary close to the Lux asph, some find its still trails that lens but almost all rate it quite high in reaching a high level of performance. The primary difference is the outer zones at f1.2 and f1.4. I say this with having used and owners the Lux asph and now the VC 50mm f1.2. . My comments are strictly to be informative to the OP, who asked specifically about the Leica 50mm f14 asph vs. The VC 50mm f1.2.

Dave (D&A)

now the VC 50mm f1.2 is down to only 1/3 as good. 

[David Kopytko]

The CV 50/1.2's focal length is just a hair above 49mm. It only seems much wider than let's say a Summicron-m 50 (ver. 4) because the latter has a focal length of about 52mm (mine is 52.2).

[blacksinner]

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmadirFB -> summilux 50mm f1.4 asph

 

https://flic.kr/s/aHskG4UjAX - > Voigtlander 50mm f1.2

 

i think both has their own strenght. i love the voigtlander 50 1.2 its the first non leica lens that i love like leica lens. the render is so much the be love. yes it doesn't have the micro contrast of a lux, but the 1.2 and the render is already towards a leica look. i use the voigt a little more than 1 year and i still have the lux along the voigt. it took me so long to decide which to keep. at the end i decided to keep the lux because it has more pop up image and smaller. and i recently bought the 50 apo for the second time. and i feel voigt 50 1.2 will more suitable to accompany the 50 apo. i miss the voigt 50 1.2, but i will hold that thought until i try the TTartisans 50mm f0.95. can't wait to try that lens

[Stein K S]

What I have suspected for years is now confirmed once and for all; I have been mistaking about what ¨glow¨ is really is. My interpretation now is that my beautiful 35 Cron V4 do not have glow wide open. But what I now describe as ¨bleed¨... or am I still mistaking?

... but whatever it is; I like it ;-

[okiman]

On 3/29/2019 at 10:18 AM, Del-Uks said:

No much "glow" with my Summilux 50mm v3 either... but some lovely/buttery rendering my Summilux 50mm (APO) Asph can't produce...

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!

Dominique by Del-Uks, on Flickr

Anouk by Del-Uks, on Flickr

Dominique by Del-Uks, on Flickr

Aleks by Del-Uks, on Flickr

 

Well.... these images are exactly what you say they aren't ... full of "glow" ... unfortunately,  that also means  lacking "bite"...

It is an ok lens and an ok look .. but nothing more. And nothing any (considerably cheaper 30 years-old Nikon or Canon couldn't achieve.

Lux ASPH is both smoother in non-focused areas and cleaner, sharper (more bite) in focused areas...  hence giving lots more dimensionality to the pictures. 

[TheBestSLIsALeicaflex]

The Summilux ASPH must be better, it costs more.   

I bought the Summilux when it first came out, thinking it would be my end all, be all lens.  I ended up using the then current Summicron much more, just because it was physically smaller.  Now I have neither, but I only shoot B&W film.  For B&W film, the older lenses work just as well.  Digital is probably different.  

Edited February 24, 2020 by TheBestSLIsALeicaflex

[Del-Uks]

12 hours ago, okiman said:

Well.... these images are exactly what you say they aren't ... full of "glow" ... unfortunately,  that also means  lacking "bite"...

It is an ok lens and an ok look .. but nothing more. And nothing any (considerably cheaper 30 years-old Nikon or Canon couldn't achieve.

Lux ASPH is both smoother in non-focused areas and cleaner, sharper (more bite) in focused areas...  hence giving lots more dimensionality to the pictures. 

I can see how validation is important in a relationship, but if I don’t agree with what the other person is saying, it is just fine after all. 

Whatever tool you use, if you’re happy with them... amen !

 

[okiman]

8 hours ago, Del-Uks said:

I can see how validation is important in a relationship, but if I don’t agree with what the other person is saying, it is just fine after all. 

Whatever tool you use, if you’re happy with them... amen !

 

I think you misunderstood me. it's a discussion on particular lenses, so opinions are important. Secondly you make me sound like a fanboy of Lux ASPH which again is talking about the person giving an opinion not the lens itself. I was giving an explanation of Lux Pre-ASPH glow and how this set of images demonstrates the effect perfectly and how ASPH version is different in that regard. If we're going personal... I use Zeiss and Voigtlander glass mostly, because I think it is way better than any old Leica (but the current crop) and of course way cheaper.

[farnz]

Not pointing these remarks at anybody but it saddens me to see so many web discussions about lenses eventually descend to 'this lens is "better" than that' or 'my lenses is "sharper" than yours' etc.  I see it completely differently and as though lenses are simply different brushes in an artist's draw; they all have different characters and can be used to provide different brushstrokes that will benefit different pictures.  

No lens is "better" (whatever that means) than any other but they all offer slightly different renditions of the same scene and can be used to convey the sentiment/emotion/view that the photographer feels is appropriate for a particular picture.

Pete.

PS, I also don't wish to start a discussion about this fictional thing called "sharpness", which is really contrast, resolution, and/or acutance.

[pgk]

8 minutes ago, farnz said:

No lens is "better" (whatever that means) than any other but they all offer slightly different renditions of the same scene and can be used to convey the sentiment/emotion/view that the photographer feels is appropriate for a particular picture.

And if I may add. Manufacturers don't tend to make 'poor' lenses these days - they wouldn't sell because there are so many 'good' lenses available. The two things which make comparisons valid are cost (assuming that not all of us can afford the 'best' or numerous expensive lenses of one focal length. And for a lens to suit a specific photographer's requirements. The first can be dealt with by looking at reviews and seeing if there are actually any lenses to avoid (very few I would suggest unless we are talking old/cheap) and the second requires the photographer to understand and pose questions about specific performance parameters. Which can be tricky because such things as bokeh are often subjectively considered and can devolve into awkward discussions.

My own take is that its actually best to work with what you have got if there is little that actually disappoints you. That said, I have, over many years, acquired too much gear and am in the process of considering a cull. I'm basing it on which lenses I use most and which have yielded my favourite or most effective images. Multiple lenses of the same focal length are a luxury and I find that I tend to use one far more than the other - sometimes despite its perceived flaws - so the excess get little use. I have a suspicion that my likes are based on the ergonomics of the lenses as much as anything and perhaps that is no bad thing.

[NRKstudio]

I’ve participated in many of these discussions.  What I’ve come to realize is that more than 99% of the population could not tell the diff between pictures made by the CV50/1.2 or the Lux 50asph, thus it only matters to the shooter.  So use what you like, not what others like.  Is one better? it is if you say so.  Does one of the two lenses objectively do better to meet a set of lens testing standards that now plagues every sponsored blogger out there? Most likely....if you say so.  
 

Ive had both the 50 Lux and 50CV, sold them for a 50 APO, the Queen of the M Mount.  Great lens, very happy, but now I wish I had the Lux and CV so I could sell them again.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mediumformula]

I have the Summilux Asph 50mm.  Not much I can add to what others have said about this lens.  It's a great lens.  Using it for film and digital.

I owned the Voigtlander 50mm 1.2 Nokton for Sony E Mount for a few weeks before I returned it under the 30 day window and purchased the 50mm APO Lantar for my A7rIV.  The 1.2 wasn't a bad lens at all.  It's a great lens. And I used it to take some really good photos - esp portraits before I returned it.  But for what I do, the APO is better and a bit smaller and lighter.  My main issue with the 1.2 was chromatic aberration exp on some of the nature shots I was taking - and I have a tendency to shoot into the light.  That being said I notice some CA with the APO under certain conditions wide open.