Oz Yilmaz and the Summicron 50 apo

[Bronco McBeast]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do you agree with Oz Yilmaz take on the 50 cron APO?

 

 

[easy_action]

A lot of waffle to say that the APO-Summicron is hi-res and expensive.  Yes and yes.

I suggest setting playback speed at x1.25 if you attempt to watch it.

[trickness]

Gotta give him credit for trying to do something, but his videos are among the worst Leica content on YouTube, and that’s saying a lot. I’d just as soon take a magic marker, draw a face on my big toe, and ask it about the 50 APO.
 

 

[RexGig0]

Quite a bit of “waffle,” indeed. He spoke in broad general terms, rather than using to-the-point specifics. His idea of “character” seems skewed toward faults of older lenses. I would disagree with that part. Modern Leica M lenses have their own character, based upon the choices of optical correction that are made by the design team.

On the You-Tube, there are better sources of technical information, on Leica lenses. Red Dot Forum Live, the regular Red Dot Forum channel, and mathphotographer come to mind.

The APO Summicron-M 50mm lens is probably not the best-optically-corrected M lens, today. That title probably shifted to the Noctilux-M 75mm, though this 75 is probably larger than most M system photographers would want to use as a walking-about lens. Even if its weight is not an issue, it blocks the viewfinder from so much of the field of view.

My take: The APO Summicron-M 50mm ASPH is optically-well-corrected. It has a flat field, as opposed to “field curvature.” Much of its cost is due to the amount of trouble it is to make it so compact.

Personally, I do not need an M lens to be as compact as the APO Summicron-M 50mm ASPH. Twice, I have explored the idea of buying a pre-owned, APO 50, but, each time, I backed away from purchasing. (I consider myself to be a “Summilux shooter,” making different choices about the optical corrections and “character” that I like.) I have an APO Summicron-M 75mm ASPH. If I decide to spend $8K to $9K on an APO M f/2 lens, I think that I might rather buy the APO Summicron-M 35mm ASPH.

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by RexGig0

[RexGig0]

The Red Dot Forum episodes tend to be quite informative, with up-to-date information:

https://www.youtube.com/@RedDotForum

The mathphotographer channel really gets into technical details:

https://www.youtube.com/c/mathphotographer/videos

Here is a nice non-technical review:

Leica USA’s you-tube channel just released this one, on the APO lenses, in general:

Notably, if one is thinking of moving into the eSL system, the APO Summicron-SL lenses will be better than the APO Summicron-M 50mm ASPH, because they are newer, and, with more room in the barrels, are less subject to the size constraints of M lenses, allowing the design team to quite simply make better-corrected optics. 

Edited October 1, 2023 by RexGig0

[RexGig0]

Here is a really useful comparison review, post by Jimmy Cheng:

Notably, the Summilux-M 50mm ASPH has some amount of apochromatic correction, so it is, as design team leader Dr. Peter Karbe says, an “APO” lens, just without the title in the model name. So, all three of these lenses are “APO.”

 

 

[easy_action]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some of the earlier Yilmaz content is curious stuff.  For me the pick of the bunch is his review of the 75mm Summicron.

[Bronco McBeast]

11 minutes ago, easy_action said:

Some of the earlier Yilmaz content is curious stuff.  For me the pick of the bunch is his review of the 75mm Summicron.

Dang! The guy is stalking people in a walmart in the bicycle section?

[easy_action]

Cartier-Bresson had it all wrong apparently

 

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!

[jaapv]

8 hours ago, Bronco McBeast said:

Do you agree with Oz Yilmaz take on the 50 cron APO?

 

 

Boooring...!!  

[overexposed]

My fav. oz video is, where at the end he has lost his line, just stands there and after a lot of seconds he just walks out of the frame

 

ozzy odd

[Winedemonium]

I have a few Leica M lenses, including the 35APO and the 50APO. I love using them, and I like the different drawing styles of the ones I have edited down to (which include some vintage ones).

I spent the weekend watching 5 documentaries about photographers, thanks to a post by Tatiana Hopper, whose Youtube channel by the same name I'd highly recommend. The documentaries were about Garry Winogrand, Julius Schulman, Don McCullin, Saul Leiter, and Harry Gruyaert. Watching the stories of these five photographers, watching them work with the camera, and looking at their work, I was reminded that it's mostly about getting tuned into the gear you are using, and above all the creativity and skill deployed. (I'm typing this now to remind myself as much as anyone!). Videos about photographers are a great GAS killer! 

I spent the day photographing on a long walk in Paris. I used an M10-R and the 50APO. I like both. But I'm reminded that imagination, practice, and learning will make the bigger difference. I have the gear I have because I like the compactness, and the quality - build, finish, and beauty. In the last of the documentaries I watched, Harry Gruyaert. Photographer (2018), we see him in all his focus and intensity, with a very capable Canon 5D Mk IV around his neck, and what appears to be a 24~70mm or similar lens attached. We see him working a scene, and then a finished image. Wow! 

All the gear I own is more than sufficient, and all of it capable of images far greater than any I'm likely to make.

My waffly preamble out of the way, in answer to the OP's question the 50APO is in my experience, only surpassed by the 35APO. Both have what I'd describe as a thick*, saturated detailed look, very smooth and accurate. (*some Japanese photographers describe this was 'wet' - the image looks 'wet'. I think its a good analogy). The more I look at photographs from great photographers, the more I am stopping down my lenses as a priority, and aiming to isolate my subjects through composition, contrast, movement, colour, or other devices, rather than shallow depth of field. There is no question though that at f/2, the 50APO offers a flat field, excellent contrast and sharpness on axis, and a really pleasing rolloff to out of focus, where the shapes of elements in the OOF areas are generally retained. For me, all of this adds up to personality, to a drawing style, rather than the lack of one. I like it. 

[Bronco McBeast]

5 minutes ago, Winedemonium said:

I have a few Leica M lenses, including the 35APO and the 50APO. I love using them, and I like the different drawing styles of the ones I have edited down to (which include some vintage ones).

I spent the weekend watching 5 documentaries about photographers, thanks to a post by Tatiana Hopper, whose Youtube channel by the same name I'd highly recommend. The documentaries were about Garry Winogrand, Julius Schulman, Don McCullin, Saul Leiter, and Harry Gruyaert. Watching the stories of these five photographers, watching them work with the camera, and looking at their work, I was reminded that it's mostly about getting tuned into the gear you are using, and above all the creativity and skill deployed. (I'm typing this now to remind myself as much as anyone!). Videos about photographers are a great GAS killer! 

I spent the day photographing on a long walk in Paris. I used an M10-R and the 50APO. I like both. But I'm reminded that imagination, practice, and learning will make the bigger difference. I have the gear I have because I like the compactness, and the quality - build, finish, and beauty. In the last of the documentaries I watched, Harry Gruyaert. Photographer (2018), we see him in all his focus and intensity, with a very capable Canon 5D Mk IV around his neck, and what appears to be a 24~70mm or similar lens attached. We see him working a scene, and then a finished image. Wow! 

All the gear I own is more than sufficient, and all of it capable of images far greater than any I'm likely to make.

My waffly preamble out of the way, in answer to the OP's question the 50APO is in my experience, only surpassed by the 35APO. Both have what I'd describe as a thick*, saturated detailed look, very smooth and accurate. (*some Japanese photographers describe this was 'wet' - the image looks 'wet'. I think its a good analogy). The more I look at photographs from great photographers, the more I am stopping down my lenses as a priority, and aiming to isolate my subjects through composition, contrast, movement, colour, or other devices, rather than shallow depth of field. There is no question though that at f/2, the 50APO offers a flat field, excellent contrast and sharpness on axis, and a really pleasing rolloff to out of focus, where the shapes of elements in the OOF areas are generally retained. For me, all of this adds up to personality, to a drawing style, rather than the lack of one. I like it. 

Shallow depth of field is a crutch. And all it really does is that it distinguishes amateurs from the good photogs.

[Winedemonium]

36 minutes ago, Bronco McBeast said:

Shallow depth of field is a crutch. And all it really does is that it distinguishes amateurs from the good photogs.

I would mostly agree that it's a crutch, or at least that it is overused when other means of bringing the subject of a photograph to prominence would be more effective. The old fashioned use for it of course was the trade off between film speed (fixed, and in the old days often low), and the sort of critical minimum shutter speed needed in a scene. An extra stop or two would make a difference. Still true for the many film shooters here - including me - though available film speeds have improved since high speed lenses were first in vogue. 

Nonetheless, in choosing a 50mm lens for the M system, the 50APO's quality at f/2 is really quite remarkable. It can be used with confidence. 

[Warton]

As soon as his face showed up in the video, I turned it off.

My mental health is more important than the quality of the lens of mine.

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by Warton

[Kwesi]

On 10/2/2023 at 1:42 PM, Bronco McBeast said:

Shallow depth of field is a crutch. And all it really does is that it distinguishes amateurs from the good photogs.

I think it's also become somewhat of a status symbol in photography these days. I can't tell you the number of pointless photos that are made merely to show off a lens's ability to create blur while keeping some inconsequential part of the image sharp

[DrM]

On 10/1/2023 at 10:09 PM, Al Brown said:

It also works at x1.5

Best at 0x and continue life.