Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M11-P & 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH v3 at f1.4

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 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

50:1.4v3 and M6, Kodak 250D double exposure 

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 16
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2025 at 3:44 PM, grahamc said:

50:1.4v3 and M6, Kodak 250D double exposure 

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!

What a great photo @grahamc! I've never done double exposures on a film M and I rarely see them 👏

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Crem said:

What a great photo @grahamc! I've never done double exposures on a film M and I rarely see them 👏

Cheers Chad ! I’ve only done 2 rolls (one of them didn’t line up for the second shooting of the roll, but this one did).   I marked the roll to try and load them at identical point but unsure why only one worked. 
 

keen to do more thanks for the feedback !

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

M10, 50mm Summilux v3 @ f/1.4

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

M10, 50mm Summilux v3 @ f/1.4

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M6 | 50lux preASPH v3 | TMax 400

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 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2025 at 6:44 AM, grahamc said:

50:1.4v3 and M6, Kodak 250D double exposure 

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!

Really fantastic Grahamc and reminds me of a Richard Avedon image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2025 at 10:56 PM, brickftl said:

I just got this lens - version 3. Comparing it to my Cron 50/2 rigid I find:

  • the lux center sharpness is about the same as the cron, perhaps even a bit sharper.
  • the lux fall off from center is, to my eyes, more pleasing than the cron.
  • and of course I love that the lux is .7M min focus distance compared to the cron 1M min focus distance.

At this point I'm not seeing a reason to grab the cron over the lux. What do you think?

Here are 3 sample images (to the forum mod, I sized these to display a max 1,092 pixels on the longest side - hope I did this correctly, but not sure why they look smaller when posted than other images):

Great photos. As for the reason to pick up the cron over the lux, maybe size ? I too am on the market for a Summilux to complement my rigid, but I find the ergos of the V3 a little cumbersome. The V1 and V2 Summiluxes seem much more compact in comparison, and I might sacrifice the 70cm mfd of the V3 for the size of the V2. Has anyone compared the V2 and the V3? I'm particurlary interested in the bokeh, more than the sharpness, etc....

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MAFORLIFE said:

Great photos. As for the reason to pick up the cron over the lux, maybe size ? I too am on the market for a Summilux to complement my rigid, but I find the ergos of the V3 a little cumbersome. The V1 and V2 Summiluxes seem much more compact in comparison, and I might sacrifice the 70cm mfd of the V3 for the size of the V2. Has anyone compared the V2 and the V3? I'm particurlary interested in the bokeh, more than the sharpness, etc....

They are supposed to be optically identical, and Leica doesn't usually differentiate between the v2 and v3 (they call everything between the v1 and ASPH “the second version”, despite design changes, and they share the same lens code).

I don't have a direct comparison though, maybe someone else does.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, evikne said:

They are supposed to be optically identical, and Leica doesn't usually differentiate between the v2 and v3 (they call everything between the v1 and ASPH “the second version”, despite design changes, and they share the same lens code).

I don't have a direct comparison though, maybe someone else does.

From my time with both, some years ago, I remember them being different enough to notice. The V3 left me a memory of sharpness wide open, and vivid colors, while the V1 was much more mushy wide open, had a higher resolution (maybe due to less contrast?), and more swirl and craziness in its bokeh. Both were extraordinary "brushes".

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2025 at 12:44 AM, grahamc said:

50:1.4v3 and M6, Kodak 250D double exposure 

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!

This is gorgeous, and even more impressive from the fact that it is shot on "uncontrolled" film... 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, MAFORLIFE said:

From my time with both, some years ago, I remember them being different enough to notice. The V3 left me a memory of sharpness wide open, and vivid colors, while the V1 was much more mushy wide open, had a higher resolution (maybe due to less contrast?), and more swirl and craziness in its bokeh. Both were extraordinary "brushes".

I interpreted your question as if someone had compared the v2 and the v3. But then you probably meant if someone had compared the v1 with the v2/v3? That would be something else. Then I would expect a noticeable difference, as you described.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, MAFORLIFE said:

This is gorgeous, and even more impressive from the fact that it is shot on "uncontrolled" film... 

Thanks very much . Really appreciate that.   

If it's useful for anyone at all I find 250D developed in ECN-2 is giving consistently really nice results (scanned on Noritsu).  I had previously developed in C41 and IMO the results don't compare in terms of consistency and colours. 

 

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

15 hours ago, evikne said:

I interpreted your question as if someone had compared the v2 and the v3. But then you probably meant if someone had compared the v1 with the v2/v3? That would be something else. Then I would expect a noticeable difference, as you described.

Are you saying that V2 is closer to V3 than V1? I am under the impression that the real gap in rendering was between V1/V2 and V3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, grahamc said:

Thanks very much . Really appreciate that.   

If it's useful for anyone at all I find 250D developed in ECN-2 is giving consistently really nice results (scanned on Noritsu).  I had previously developed in C41 and IMO the results don't compare in terms of consistency and colours. 

 

You finally bought your Noritsu 😉 good move. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, MAFORLIFE said:

Are you saying that V2 is closer to V3 than V1? I am under the impression that the real gap in rendering was between V1/V2 and V3.

There's a reason there's a v1 and a v2.  The v1 was taken out of production after a short time because it had potential for improvement. The v2 and v3 shouldn't really have any particular difference in rendering, perhaps with the exception of slightly more modern coatings on the latest copies. 

The v1 and v2 have optical differences. The v2 and v3 only have external design changes.

Edited by evikne
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, evikne said:

There's a reason there's a v1 and a v2.  The v1 was taken out of production after a short time because it had potential for improvement. The v2 and v3 shouldn't really have any particular difference in rendering, perhaps with the exception of slightly more modern coatings on the latest copies. 

The v1 and v2 have optical differences. The v2 and v3 only have external design changes.

Thanks for the clarification. In my mind, the V1 and V2 were a slight improvement only. Like for example the Summilux 35 FLE I and II. Or the 28 Summicron ASPH 1 and 2. Not very noticeable, although there was a reason to improve in leica's eyes. 

The V3 seemed to be a difference beast, with a new design and a new MFD. 

I suppose the way to go is the V2 for me then. If rendering is nearly the same, I prefer to sacrifice MFD for the advantage of smaller size. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MAFORLIFE said:

Thanks for the clarification. In my mind, the V1 and V2 were a slight improvement only. Like for example the Summilux 35 FLE I and II. Or the 28 Summicron ASPH 1 and 2. Not very noticeable, although there was a reason to improve in leica's eyes. 

The V3 seemed to be a difference beast, with a new design and a new MFD. 

I suppose the way to go is the V2 for me then. If rendering is nearly the same, I prefer to sacrifice MFD for the advantage of smaller size. 

The V2 and V3 have the same optical design which is different from the V1. The V3 only differs from the V2 in outer barrel design and mfd. The coatings on the lens also changed slightly over the years it was made.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...