Massive 50mm comparison test

[Harpomatic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 hours ago, Adam Bonn said:

What an amazing write up, thank you for the time, the effort and most of all to share the results.

I had the cron and the flaring was one of the reasons I used to convince myself to upgrade to the lux asph

Mine will flare when heavily provoked, but it’s so much better than the (v5) cron I had.

OT but I also have a CV 35/1.7 and 35 rit. I find (if I ignore the vignetting) that the CV performs better than the leica (and not just because it’s a stop faster), but the nicer hood/focusing ring design on the leica quite often means I select that lens instead.

It’s a slight shame you didn’t have the CV 50 APO, I’m a bit curious about that lens... I was also curious about owning the Planar as well, but after reading your great review I think there’s little point as I own the lux (the same’s probably true of the APO too)

Great work and genuinely helpful to at least me, and no doubt many, many others

Thanks a lot for your comment! Glad that this is helpful.

The CV APO had not even been rumoured when I started this article! I would have gladly added it, but that would have meant adding the Cron APO...and I just wouldn’t have the resources.

If I were you I would just use the Lux and forget about he Planar. It doesn’t add a thing over the Lux. I won’t pronounce myself any further regarding the flare, I’m waiting for my copy to come back.

[Harpomatic]

12 hours ago, Robert Blanko said:

I was surprised to see that the sharpness of the Zeiss Sonnar is that bad at f5.6. I rarely use my Zeiss but do not remember that I ever stumbled across this issue. Thus, I just made a quick test and, admittedly, I see a difference as compared to my Summilux at f5.6 when viewing on the monitor of the camera, but the difference does not seem to be that huge.

However, I realized that the hard stop at infinity does not exactly match the true infinity position. Focusing with the assistance of the visoflex revealed a significant improvement. Maybe I can share photos later.

Are you talking about infinity sharpness? I think that focus shift is at play there. That’s the possible reason that with the Visoflex it is sharper!

[Harpomatic]

11 hours ago, Casey Jefferson said:

That's a lot of works, hats off to you!

I'm eyeing on the TTA 50/1.4, solely for portraits, which seem like a great choice. While it has no Leica colors, the price almost make this lens look like a steal.

Thanks!

The TTArtisan really is a steal at the price. And beautiful for protraits! 

I have to say that the Leica colours seem to be so dependent on the sensor that the lens is only giving a slight cast like seen in the vignetting test. The colour balance is also so dependent on the scene that different lenses will excel in different scenes. I have seen spectacular colours from the Leicas, the Noktons, the Zeiss, the TTArtisan...

[Harpomatic]

10 hours ago, colonel said:

Thanks so much for all this work

Very interesting

IMHO I am disappointed a bit that the CV 1.2 seems superior to the 1.5ii, as they are similar prices and I thought that something smaller and lighter but the same level or better would swing me away from the 1.2. But I think in this comparison the 1.2 is the one to buy with a balanced budget!

 

Thank you!

Why would you say that the CV 1.2 seems superior to the 1.5 II? They seem to be fairly equal to me, one giving speed and the other small size and portability. On what grounds is the 1.2 better?

10 hours ago, colonel said:

the Summilux is by far the best overall, if you don't mind the stiff focus

From what I see there is no reason to say that either. Different strengths, no better.

I am not antagonising, just looking for conversation: you have just stated your opinion without explaining why. 

[Harpomatic]

9 hours ago, Danner said:

Impressive body of work!  Well done, all around.  The poor infinity performance of the Summicron doesn't agree with my experience, mine is razor sharp at infinity.  Might be a calibration issue?

I’m positive it is a calibration issue, I explained that several times in the comparison. I’m looking forward to seeing what it can do after its doctor’s visit!

Thanks for the comment!

[Adam Bonn]

2 hours ago, Harpomatic said:

I won’t pronounce myself any further regarding the flare, I’m waiting for my copy to come back.

You can only test what you have and be honest about the result (as you've done)

Even if you (or any tester) got 50 or a 100 samples of each lens, and plotted out all the deviation to arrive at a balanced conclusion (something like in test one: 64% of lens brand/model XYZ proved the best at ABC, but in 30% of instances it performed to the median and in 6% it was sub-par); you'd be able to demonstrate sample deviation, but still the guy in the street will just buy one copy and who knows which end of the scale (even a small scale) that particular example might end up on

(I'm not sure that makes sense, I should've gone to bed a while ago)

Quote

If I were you I would just use the Lux

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!

Word. (aka cheers = sage advice)

 

The biggest mofo of the Lux is the cost, and I swallowed that already... (it was lumpy, bitter and tasted like alimony payments 😅) in your test even marked down for the flare it still performed well overall... and let's be honest... not all tests are equal, for example flflare sucks but can be mitigated by the photographer with far more ease than things like focus shift, which the lux excels at not having... 

 

[Harpomatic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, Adam Bonn said:

(I'm not sure that makes sense, I should've gone to bed a while ago)

It does make sense and I totally agree. I did think about sample variation as well, but what can induce such a dramatic flare in one sample and not the other? I’m not talking about the odd “wet artefact”, I’m sure that is an issue with the sample. The flare is spectacular anyway.

 

15 hours ago, Adam Bonn said:

in your test even marked down for the flare it still performed well overall... and let's be honest... not all tests are equal, for example flflare sucks but can be mitigated by the photographer with far more ease than things like focus shift, which the lux excels at not having... 

I would have hoped for it to be the best or up there at the top with its price. Had it not been up there I would have been shocked. But for me, for example, flare is a bigger issue than focus shift if we are talking about really good performers. 

At the end of the day, of all those lenses I would be happy with any of them except the Sonnars and the Nokton 1.1 as my only lens. This is true for the optics. The ergonomics are another story...

[colonel]

19 hours ago, Harpomatic said:

Thank you!

Why would you say that the CV 1.2 seems superior to the 1.5 II? They seem to be fairly equal to me, one giving speed and the other small size and portability. On what grounds is the 1.2 better?

Based on your pictures, at 1.4/1.5, at infinity and in the sides. Maybe my eyes are wonky

You yourself say that the 1.5 say that the 1.5 is not the sharpest wide open, but the 1.2 already is fairly sharp at 1.4

 

 

[Adam Bonn]

2 hours ago, Harpomatic said:

I would have hoped for it to be the best or up there at the top with its price. Had it not been up there I would have been shocked. But for me, for example, flare is a bigger issue than focus shift if we are talking about really good performers. 

 

Well the lux finished 1 point of joint best, despite sharing the worst score for flare... so it kinda is "up there" and if (if) it turns out your copy has an issue that causes the flare then it'll jump up the order to win (in fact it merely has to match the 'cron flare score to win overall)

Higher end quality has always been about diminishing returns. Like in motorsport I think? If the car is 10 secs off the pace then 9 secs of that is quite easy and comparatively cheap to find... but (at the highest levels) that last second costs millions

Also I think it's easy to get caught up in prices... things cost what they cost and one is either able to make peace with the price or one isn't.

The take away for me (OMMV) was more glass half full - damn you really can get an exceptional, modern 50mm M mount lens without straying too far into quadruple £igures, sure you might miss out on some stuff like size, a focus tab or the joy of having 46mm filter sizes on all your glass, but that really only matters to each of us in a way only we can decide.

As you said in the write up

Quote

Most of these lenses will give you great results: if you actually do photography instead of fondling gear and pixel-peeping you don’t care about the small differences.

 

Spot on. 

 

 

[Harpomatic]

1 hour ago, colonel said:

Based on your pictures, at 1.4/1.5, at infinity and in the sides. Maybe my eyes are wonky

You yourself say that the 1.5 say that the 1.5 is not the sharpest wide open, but the 1.2 already is fairly sharp at 1.4

 

 

That is true for the centre only though. In the corners the 1.5 II is way better from wide open.

So the 1.2 is a bit better in te centre, both have a slight mid-frame dip, the 1.5 is better in the corner. Neither is better than the other!

In reality that test has an enlargement that can be 400% on a good computer screen! That sharpness difference is seen only on big prints. Really big ones. 

[Harpomatic]

23 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

that really only matters to each of us in a way only we can decide.

I think that is the crux of the matter. I chose the Nokton 1.5 II not because of price but because FOR ME it’s a better choice. And there is no winner for me, just the best choice for one’s requirements. 

At that price the Lux should be quite a bit ahead: we are not chasing the last second here, the shortcomings are still pretty glaring for each lens. But again, even the APO-Summicron-M has flare issues: it’s a choice of compromises, to excel in one area you sacrifice others. The more you spend to get there, the least you sacrifice, but you still do. In Leica terms, the Lux sits in the mid-range price-wise. It costs a lot less than many other Luxes in other focal lengths. They didn’t pull all the stops for it. But it still costs four times the Nokton 1.2 and the 1.5 II. To me it’s not the Lux that is falling short, it’s the Noktons that are stunning for the price. Look at it the other way around! 

[Robert Blanko]

vor 21 Stunden schrieb Harpomatic:

Are you talking about infinity sharpness? I think that focus shift is at play there. That’s the possible reason that with the Visoflex it is sharper!

Yes. The mechanical misalignment is more significant than I thought. The following is a comparison for the Zeiss Sonnar at f5.6 with M10-R, 200% crop, copied from screenshot in Lightroom. Left: hard stop at infinity. Right: focused with visoflex. The achievable sharpness is actually very close to that of my Summilux. Maybe I will add a comparison later.

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!

[colonel]

50 minutes ago, Harpomatic said:

In Leica terms, the Lux sits in the mid-range price-wise. It costs a lot less than many other Luxes in other focal lengths. They didn’t pull all the stops for it. But it still costs four times the Nokton 1.2 and the 1.5 II. To me it’s not the Lux that is falling short, it’s the Noktons that are stunning for the price. Look at it the other way around! 

The 50mm f1.4 is Leica’s best 50mm f1.4 lens. With a floating element group and all the other updates. I don’t agree with you that it is built down at all

Voigtlander has though raised its game since the Leica was designed 

[newtoleica]

Interesting set of comparisons. What's nice is that there are alternatives for all tastes and price points. 

My sweet spot with the 50 is the APO Cron rather than the summilux as it has more 'pop' in the rendering and doesn't have the nervousness of bokeh that the Summilux doesn't at f2.8 and middle distances. Since that tends to be the way I use a 50, it was a bit of a killer for me. I feels similarly about the 35 Summilux FLE and and use a non-FLE version instead.

[Robert Blanko]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb Robert Blanko:

Yes. The mechanical misalignment is more significant than I thought. The following is a comparison for the Zeiss Sonnar at f5.6 with M10-R, 200% crop, copied from screenshot in Lightroom. Left: hard stop at infinity. Right: focused with visoflex. The achievable sharpness is actually very close to that of my Summilux. Maybe I will add a comparison later.

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 the corresponding comparison of the Sonnar (right) with the Summilux (left) at f5.6. IMHO, the Summilux has a slight edge over the Sonnar, but the difference is minor.

[Guest]

Looking at the images and not the comments i almost always preferred the 2 leica lenses over all the others.

I do own a summicrom V5 which i like very much so maybe my bias affected that although i do own zeiss and voigtlander lenses in my 5 lens m kit.

[helged]

On 2/27/2021 at 11:13 PM, newtoleica said:

Interesting set of comparisons. What's nice is that there are alternatives for all tastes and price points. 

My sweet spot with the 50 is the APO Cron rather than the summilux as it has more 'pop' in the rendering and doesn't have the nervousness of bokeh that the Summilux doesn't at f2.8 and middle distances. Since that tends to be the way I use a 50, it was a bit of a killer for me. I feels similarly about the 35 Summilux FLE and and use a non-FLE version instead.

Fully agree, I never liked the tendency of nervous, double-line oof rendering from the 35-Lux-FLE (will be interesting to see the rendering of the rumored 35-Cron-M...). 

[Harpomatic]

I have a question for those that had a look at the part 2 of the article: do those images for the field curvature give any information at all! Did you find them useful? Any suggestions on how to do that better? Thanks!

[astrostl]

17 hours ago, Harpomatic said:

I have a question for those that had a look at the part 2 of the article: do those images for the field curvature give any information at all! Did you find them useful? Any suggestions on how to do that better? Thanks!

Very much yes. I like the grass shot approach but having crops is even more effective. Only thing I'd note are potential distance differences (close vs far).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Harpomatic]

19 minutes ago, astrostl said:

Very much yes. I like the grass shot approach but having crops is even more effective. Only thing I'd note are potential distance differences (close vs far).

Thanks for the response!

I agree that seeing different distances would be useful, but I find it difficult to get an even surface to avoid unwanted variables. I will look into it.

Thanks for the link as well, I'm going to read it now!