...cron vs. ...lux. Only a stop advantage?

[kamilsukun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When compared, does a 50mm Summilux offer any more advantage more than a stop to Summicron 50mm. Is there any significant difference in quality of the image at let's say 5.6 and/or other apertures?

 

Regards,

 

Kamil Sukun

[clayh]

It is one stop faster, as you mentioned. The big advantage of the lux over the cron, in my opinion, is that the lux is much less flare-prone than the cron. If you shoot a lot of contre-jour photos, you will appreciate this advantage. The new asph lux is every bit as sharp as the cron, and you get less flare. The old pre-asph lux may not be quite as sharp as a cron, but it also enjoys the resistance to flare, along with what I consider the best bokeh in a normal focal length lens for the leica.

[ho_co]

Kamil--

Clay speaks from experience; I can only speak in generalities, and perhaps repeat what you already know: In general with Leica, you'll be safe just buying what you need. In other words, don't buy the f/1.4 if the f/2 will do. The Summilux is the first f/1.4 that is as good as an f/2, and that is amazing. According to Emil Puts's review, from f/2 on, the f/1.4 outperforms the Summicron; and he says the Summicron is the best 50/2 on the market.

 

Check out his review if you have the time at http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/SummiluxASPH/s14-50.html. The first part of the article covers a lot of the optical history and design theory of these designs. If you want to 'cut to the chase,' start about half-way down at the heading "On test."

 

--HC

[christoph_d]

Kamil,

 

In my experience the asph. summilux is at least as good as the summicron in terms of resolution (As I mainly use Tri-X the film is the limiting factor for me). In my view the summilux is better in terms of contrast, and furthermore it is definately better in terms of surpressing ghost images in nighttime shots. This at all apertures. The 50 summilux Asph. has a clarity and transparency of the image that is truly amazing - and an excellent sharpness right into the corners, even wide open!

The old summilux (no asph) is another story. I also find it very good, but it has wide open a softer feel, is not as contrasty or ghost - resistant. I still like its characteristics to achieve certain moods in the image. Stopped down it becomes better, but, in my view, not as well defined as the summicron.

 

 

For your information: In the Leica Fotografie International Magazine (LFI), issue 4/2006, is an article comparing the current 50 lenses.

 

Kind regards, C.

[kamilsukun]

Clay, Howard, Christoph,

 

Many thanks for very useful information. Puts' review was also a pleasure to read.

 

Regards,

Kamil Sukun

[albertwang]

I think that optically the lux is better than the cron. Of course the extra stop isn't too bad and if you like low light shooting it's the way to go.

[nemeng]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... The big advantage of the lux over the cron, in my opinion, is that the lux is much less flare-prone than the cron. ... The old pre-asph lux may not be quite as sharp as a cron, but it also enjoys the resistance to flare, along with what I consider the best bokeh in a normal focal length lens for the leica.

 

Completely agree.

 

I used to have a 1993 50mm Summicron-M (#11819 the tab-version). Nice bokeh, razor sharp but... far too contrasty for use outdoors in our harsh Australian light. It would also flare quite easily when pointed near the sun.

 

OTOH the 1989 E43 50mm Summilux-M I replaced it with doesn't do this. Just as sharp at f4-f11, but gentler contrast and much better flare resistance. The bokeh is also smoother IMO.

 

I haven't used the new 50mm Lux ASPH, so I can't comment.

 

Ultimately of course this is very much a subjective thing. FWIW, YMMV etc. !

[roberth]

apart from the obvious 1 stop difference they also have a different fingerprint. You can shoot both at f2 and you will see different characteristics.

[kamilsukun]

Albert, Andrew, Robert,

 

Thank you for sharing your valuable observations.

 

Regards,

 

Kamil Sukun

[waileong]

5.6 and above-- probably not significant. You might see it on a tripod shot, but probably hard to see on handheld shots.

 

Wide open, the 50/1.4 ASPH is reputed to be the best 50 mm lens in the world. At $2,500, it had better be.

 

When compared, does a 50mm Summilux offer any more advantage more than a stop to Summicron 50mm. Is there any significant difference in quality of the image at let's say 5.6 and/or other apertures?

 

Regards,

 

Kamil Sukun

[grober]

I have owned two generations of the 50mm 'Cron. I can't speak for any 50mm 'Lux although I hear the current one is the best of the line.

 

BUT if you care to raise the discussion to the 75mm focal length, I can offer this (having owned and shot with both): the one-stop advantage of the 75mm 'Lux fades over time simply due to its tremendous weight and size. Focusing wide open is also a problem if you don't exercise due care AND are absolutely sure your Leica or Bessa rangefinder is perfectly aligned.

 

The manifest joys of the 75mm Summicron continually confirm my decision to sell the "Lux and buy this particular 'Cron. Less weight and much better balance with very predictable performance when used wide open, both in terms of optical performance and focus accuracy. (I have no experience with the 75mm Color-Heliar although its attractive price alone makes it a terriffic candidate for a compact travel tele-lens in any M8 kit.)

 

Try the 75mm APO-Summicron ASPH. You won't be disappointed!

 

-g

[Jack_Flesher]

An observation regarding Crons and "flare".

 

I have owned and shot with several versions of both the 50 Cron and two versions of the pre-Asph Lux. With the Cron, you need to be specific as to which version you are referring to. You often find slight amounts of internal dust or haze in older (pre-Canadian) Crons that greatly increase their propensity to flare. Yet that same haze can render a subtle glow in softer light, a trait many look for (and IMO why you hear so many folks rave about the "look" from their XYZ version Cron.) At any rate, a thorough CLA on a Cron that flares excessively will eliminate it, assuming the lens has not been permanently hazed by fungus.

 

(And before I get flamed, the haze I am talking about is so fine it is often not noticeable by simply looking through the lens -- you need to shine a strong light from the rear and examine the internal surfaces at an angle. When present it will appear as a slight dullness in the reflections.)

 

As far as differences, generally speaking none after f4; the Cron will be slightly sharper at f2 and 2.8; the Lux handles flare extremely well wide open, but mine actually flared more than a (clean) Cron at f2 when shot into strong light. I believe this was due to the aperture blades adding a fairly large reflecting surface to the inside of the Lux (50% of the optical area compared to the Cron). Bokeh differences are subjective -- but IMO the Cron renders smoother specular highlights, the Lux smoother edges.

 

So in conclusion, there's a good argument for owning one of each

 

Cheers,

 

Jack

[christoph_d]

Gentlemen,

 

To add some specifics to my observations:

The Summicron and Summilux Asph. I refer to above are the latest, current versions. The Summilux I refer to is the latest version before Leica changed to the Asph. on that model.

I used all lenses with a UV filter. I recently heard, that specifically in the case of the Summicron this might increase the haze-proneness of the lens.

 

Kind regards, C.

[Jack_Flesher]

I should add that all of my lens testing is done *without* filters of any sort.

 

True "Ghost" images (usually visible in evening shots and usually at wider apertures) are almost always due to using a filter. A filter -- especially if it is not spotlessly clean -- can also lead to unwanted flare in a backlit or hard side-lit situation.