View Full Version : Summicron or Summilux?
I was given a chance to get a Summilux 50/1.4 by turning in my Summicron 50/2 and adding the difference (which is a very reasonable one). However, despite the fact that the Summilux is faster, I've heard the Summicron's sharpness is almost legendary.
However, if there's something I love that is night photography, and the Summilux would allow me to do it better than my Summicron. Also, a possibility to go to Barcelona in March is making me kinda restless about getting equipment fit for the trip. However, I'm a bit on the verge of doubt: if I get the Summilux do I sacrifice sharpness and gain speed, or do I get to keep the sharpness and add speed?
What would you guys do?:confused:
I would stay with the summicron. Although its not as fast, the edge to edge sharpness is much better than that of the summinlux. I have had 3 leica lenses, 50 summilux, 75 summilux and 35 summicron. I now only have one. Its the 35 2.0 its IMHO its hard to beat this lens.
The difference in lens speed is only about 1/2 f-stop. In other words, it isn't much. The Summicron is sharper, lighter, smaller, less expensive, and almost as fast. But it's your decision.
I'll tell you what: if it sounds like burning wood, and smells like burning wood, the forest is on fire.
The photo.net forums (on which I ran a search about these two lenses) say, in a very fuzzy, undecided way, that Summicron has in sharpness a lot more than the Summilux has in speed. So I'll keep my Summicron, or, maybe, keep it until I can "update" it (getting a newer model). I guess there's something in the Summicron design and I should be much more interested in getting a Summicron 35/2 as my wide angle instead of a Summilux 35/1.4.
Thanks for the advice!!
<****e difference in lens speed is only about 1/2 f-stop. In other words, it isn't much. The Summicron is sharper, lighter, smaller, less expensive, and almost as fast. But it's your decision.>>
The difference in lens speed is actually a full stop, but otherwise I agree with this post. Due to depth of field issues, f1.4 has limited applications, but I like it on an SLR for which the slightly brighter and shallower DOF aids manual focus. These are obviously of no concern for RF use. Under low light conditions, an f2 lens and a steady hand should suffice (and lay off the coffee :-)
Originally posted by znapschatz
... The difference in lens speed is actually a full stop, but otherwise I agree with this post ...
You are right Znapschatz ... I hang my head in shame!
If the additional stop in speed is the difference between getting or not getting the shot that you want, this may be a good place to invest in a CV Nokton 50/1.5. Not to replace your Summicron, but serve the specific purpose of your night photography. Chrome ones on ebay in like new condition are selling in the $225 range.
Actually, Rover, the thought crossed my mind. In fact, in Central Camera in Chicago they have them for a lower price than Gandy.
But then... I've been able to do night shots with my Canonet and my Contax, why not with the M6? As you know, the Canonet's widest aperture is f1.7, whereas the Contax's and Leica's is f2. Sure, 1 stop helps, but then so does having a fairly steady hand and leaning on walls, posts or anything firmer than one's feet.
Actually, if I go for another lens, it should be the 35mm Ultron. Let's see if the sale of my Minolta gear allows me to do that. In any case, thanks for the warnings about sharpness; I'd rather keep all-around sharpness than get a once-in-a-blue-moon useful speed.
However... the SF20 (the Leica TTL flash) can be found used at very reasonable prices...
Hey! Wait a sec :mad:! Real Leica men don't need flash!!...
Depth of field was mentioned, and may be worth some more consideration. A larger aperture can be used deliberately for interesting effect, but in dim-light photography it may be chosen simply because it lets in more light. In that case, the limited DOF can be a liability, a detriment to the picture.
Of course one can resist the temptation and still choose f/2 instead, true. The liability then is the larger size, weight, and cost of the lens, and possibly less sharpness at smaller apertures.
I'd also agree with the comment about large apertures with SLR's as a focus aid not necessarily for the actual exposure. Fortunate that RF gear has bright viewfinder and easy dim-light focusing even with slow lenses!
The Summilux is underrated, but is optically inferior to the 'cron. The cheaper and better solution is to use faster film. Lens itch is an expensive disease.
"... Lens itch is an expensive disease."
Cute way of putting it. Back in the heyday of rangefinders people really wanted the look of big, fast prime lenses on their cameras ... the faster the better ... such as a Canon f/0.95 normal lens if you could afford it. Then SLRs, zooms, and fast films took over, and f-stops receded in importance for many consumers. But I still love available light photography and those fast lenses!
just my 2 cents, I would go with the cron, it's a great lens, I do use a 35 lux and love it for the low light , but I don't use my 50 as much so the cron made more sence to me, and it is a wonderful lens.:)
I did!! :D I have a nice 'cron 50/2. The truth is that I should have gone for a 35mm instead, as I like wide-angles, but there will be time to add that one later.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.