Busting the myth - Summilux 50 ASPH and Summilux 50 ASPH Black Chrome edition really are IDENTICAL optically

[Al Brown]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Had to do a few quick & dirty street tests with both lenses side by side- the "regular" Summilux 50 ASPH (my version is 11892) and the "Black Chrome" special-edition-becoming-regular-edition Summilux 50 ASPH (11688). Rumor out there in several forums has it, the latter (Black Chrome rehoused) lens is somehow sharper, although even Leica themselves claim both have exactly the same glass. All comparisons were done WIDE OPEN, where the true resolving character of the lens is nested to show differences. All tests done on M10-P Reporter.

TL;DR: The lenses are EXACTLY the same, identical sharpness, identical chromatic aberration, identical flares etc. Anyone claiming otherwise must have had a bad copy of his original lux 50 ASPH when comparing the two against each other.

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!

[Al Brown]

Here we see chromatic aberration and flares - they both are identical. Sharpness is the same on both, the black chrome (filename reveals the lens identification number described in post #1) is focused a quarter of an inch closer.

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!

[evikne]

I think I see less purple fringing in the bottom image. But that could be a coincidence, of course.

[Al Brown]

50 minutes ago, evikne said:

I think I see less purple fringing in the bottom image. But that could be a coincidence, of course.

Must be a coincidence. The droplets are less and water formation on top is hitting the sun differently. Check also the identical flare.

Edited April 21, 2024 by Al Brown

[Al Brown]

Sharpness: Left is the regular lux, right the black chrome (100% crop). No practically measurable difference in perceived sharpness.

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!

Edited April 21, 2024 by Al Brown

[Al Brown]

Sharpness full frame. Filenames = lens codes.

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!

[Al Brown]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sharpness MFD (70mm). Filenames = lens codes.

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!

[Al Brown]

100% close up sharpness. Filename = lens codes. The brass lux 11892 was closer, hence less DoF (do not confuse this with sharpness).

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!

Edited April 21, 2024 by Al Brown

[pgk]

53 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Had to do a few quick & dirty street tests with both lenses side by side- the "regular" Summilux 50 ASPH (my version is 11892) and the "Black Chrome" special-edition-becoming-regular-edition Summilux 50 ASPH (11688). Rumor out there in several forums has it, the latter (Black Chrome rehoused) lens is somehow sharper .....

It gives people something to talk about rather than take photos I suppose😆.

[farnz]

Al,

I don't disagree at all with the above for acutance, resolution, contrast, micro-contrast, CA, fringing etc.  For me, the difference between the two has always been the vignetting, which is understandable considering the BC's 43 mm filter thread compared to the 'standard' Summilux asph's 46 mm filter thread.

I've always felt that the BC has a subtle, graduated vignette that is quite similar to the 50/1 Noctulux's (to me) gorgeous vignette.

Pete.

[Al Brown]

26 minutes ago, farnz said:

Al,

I don't disagree at all with the above for acutance, resolution, contrast, micro-contrast, CA, fringing etc.  For me, the difference between the two has always been the vignetting, which is understandable considering the BC's 43 mm filter thread compared to the 'standard' Summilux asph's 46 mm filter thread.

I've always felt that the BC has a subtle, graduated vignette that is quite similar to the 50/1 Noctulux's (to me) gorgeous vignette.

Pete.

Possibly you might be correct, although I only found virtually negligible vignette increase on the black chrome files as you can see from the images. I find vignetting to be the most innocent lens "flaw", so easily and loslessly fixable on digital files that it is of no statistical importance to me.
Have you experienced a dramatic increase in vignetting in any of your comparisons? I am keen to see it if yes. I personally do not believe the 46mm vs 43mm diameter vignetting increase argument holds water.

Edited April 21, 2024 by Al Brown

[farnz]

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

Possibly you might be correct, although I only found virtually negligible vignette increase on the black chrome files as you can see from the images. I find vignetting to be the most innocent lens "flaw", so easily and loslessly fixable on digital files that it is of no statistical importance to me.
Have you experienced a dramatic increase in vignetting in any of your comparisons? I am keen to see it if yes. I personally do not believe the 46mm vs 43mm diameter vignetting increase argument holds water.

Not dramatic, no, and I'm only talking about their use wide-open. 

My 'standard' Summilux asph showed almost no vignetting even wide-open and the BC shows very gentle vignetting very similar to the 50/1 Noctilux, which I find quite pleasant, so it's not a complaint or a grip, just a difference that I've noticed.

Pete.

[Al Brown]

@farnz I did a quick sky shot of both lenses wide open (although EXIF stubbornly keeps saying f/4) just for this sake and I cannot find that difference. They look almost identical to my eye, consistent with all other results from this comparison test. Maybe your copy has some other issues or the process of comparison on your side is possibly erratic?

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!

Edited April 21, 2024 by Al Brown

[Strmbrg]

I am very impressed by the patience to make comparative analyses like these. 🙂
Hm, even if there was slightly more obvious differences, it would probably not matter to me.

[Al Brown]

Just now, Strmbrg said:

I am very impressed by the patience to make comparative analyses like these. 🙂
Hm, even if there was slightly more obvious differences, it would probably not matter to me.

I do like to compare lenses, but not all day every day, only when I am in the mood. This test was a year and a half overdue. I still have tons of planned things, like the 28/5.6 Summaron vs. its Chinese counterpart from TTartisan and other juicy tidbits. Stay tuned.

PS. It absolutely does not matter in real life, but it is definitely good to know.

[farnz]

I'm not trying to contradict you, Al, it's simply something that I notice. 

Both of my lenses were bought brand new and the 'standard' Summilux asph was re-collimated at Solms not long after I bought it because it was slightly de-centred so whether that improved the vignetting over other off the shelf stock I couldn't say.  I sold it on when I bought the BC so I don't have it to compare.

Pete.

[pgk]

2 hours ago, farnz said:

I don't disagree at all with the above for acutance, resolution, contrast, micro-contrast, CA, fringing etc.  For me, the difference between the two has always been the vignetting, which is understandable considering the BC's 43 mm filter thread compared to the 'standard' Summilux asph's 46 mm filter thread.

But physical vignetting doesn't have anything to do with the optical design. A 46-43 step down ring might well have the same effect.

Edited April 21, 2024 by pgk

[evikne]

I've had both lenses, but not at the same time. For me, the difference was mostly in design and handling. Both had their pros and cons. I'm actually not sure which one I would go for if I had to choose again.

[Al Brown]

I can't offer more than a real life test with images pasted here to show the results... my experience shows both lenses to be virtually identical in sharpness, flaring, vignetting and CA regardless of front ring diameter difference, just as Leica states. If anybody's results vary or differ from these shown, their copies of the lenses must be somewhat off.

Edited April 21, 2024 by Al Brown

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Lelmer]

1 hour ago, evikne said:

I've had both lenses, but not at the same time. For me, the difference was mostly in design and handling. Both had their pros and cons. I'm actually not sure which one I would go for if I had to choose again.

I got the lightest 🙂