Which 50 to get

[Planar1.4]

So I see lots of talk about 50mm lenses and some good comparisons-

Has anyone compared the 50/1.4 Lux, 50/1 Noc and 50/2 'cron at 2?

I really wanted a 1.4 or better- but if the 'cron is that much better in "look"- and I know that is personal- then I would try to adjust.

My favorite pictures I have taken in my life were on a 50/1.4 Rokkor or the 85/1.4 Planar- all SLRs- and pretty wide open-

[furcafe]

You question is a little confusing. If you need f/1 or f/1.4, it doesn't really matter how much better the 'cron may be @ f/2. I think those who've done bench tests (E. Puts, etc.) would say that @ f/2, the current 'lux ASPH is "best" (MTF results. etc.), followed by the 'cron, & the the Noctilux. IMHO, weighing all the factors like size, weight, & cost, my verdict would be: if you need f/1, go for the Noct', if you only need f/1.4 go for the 'lux, & if you don't need f/1 or f/1.4, go for the 'cron.

[Planar1.4]

I guess to clarify- the look would be the most important-

so was wondering if a comparison of the 3 50mm lenses at F/2 was done, since that would somewhat equal that field. Not real interested in MTF charts, but actual results and happiness with the final image at the limited DOF.

It was mentioned that the Noct' hood can get in the way of the M3 veiwfinder, so that is a consideration as well. I realize cost is in there as well!

[waileong]

He has a review of fast lenses at Luminous Landscape, and linked from his website as well. seanreid.com

I guess to clarify- the look would be the most important-

so was wondering if a comparison of the 3 50mm lenses at F/2 was done, since that would somewhat equal that field. Not real interested in MTF charts, but actual results and happiness with the final image at the limited DOF.

It was mentioned that the Noct' hood can get in the way of the M3 veiwfinder, so that is a consideration as well. I realize cost is in there as well!

[JoeFriday]

if clarity is the big issue, I'd probably seek out a Summicron DR with good glass

[Planar1.4]

Reading Erwin's pages- it seems the new Summilux-M 50 Asph is the best one for my use.

How do I tell which 50 Lux is under the new formula- only the newest ones with the hood?

[markinlondon]

It'll be the most expensive one :)

Seriously, though the ASPH has only been available for a few months so are unlikely to be around used. There are a lot of pre-ASPH Summiluxes appearing on the used market here in the UK.

Mark

[Ben Z]

I haven't used any of my 50 Crons since I got a Lux (mine's an E43 version from the early 80s).

[awilder]

By "look" what do you mean? I've compared all three just in terms of sharpness. At f/2 the current Summicron or the pre-asph. Summilux are equal centrally. Off axis mid to outer frame, the Summicron does better but the pre-asph. Summilux is slightly better in terms of resistance to secondary reflections at f/2. The Asph. Summilux does better than either but not at the extreme corner of the frame. The Noctilux is last but stopped down to f/5.6 and smaller is indistinguishable to the others. The "look" or image characteristic of the Noctilux is definitely different wide open and may be preferable to some because of it's telephoto like isolation in focus making the subject in focus stand out more than with an f/2 lens.

[Flyfisher Tom]

By "look" I assume you mean a len's signature or "pop factor" at f2. I've used all of the lenses and they are all very competent at f2. Both the Cron and Lux have beautiful bokeh qualities.

I prefer the cron and lux at f2 ... only because there is no reason to use the Noct at f2 (especially given its extra weight and size). The difference in size between the cron and lux is negligible in my opinion, so it depends on whether you want 1.4 and are willing to pay an extra 500 for it.

Honestly, it is near impossible to convey these details via web photos or to make this decision on our collective, highly individualized subjective opinions. What may be great pop/bokeh to me on the Cron, may not suit your tastes. If possible, it may be worth your time to rent and shoot some test rolls. No matter what choice you make, however, you are in no danger of getting a bad lens :-)

[Benjamin Marks]

It's not only the narrow DOF for the Noct wide open that gives it its look, its also the abberation/coma filled quality of the OOF areas when the lens is used wide open. Some love it, some hate it, some just want to have any image on film/sensor in really poor lighting conditions.

I once took some wedding pictures with a Noctilux and RD-1 of a group sitting on steps outdoors at night listening to toasts . . . camera was actully on a tripod, but it was priceless being able to shoot without a flash. At f2, exposures would have been so slow that laughter in the group and people making comments to one another would have really blurred the scene. At f1 it was do-able.

At any rate, my advice to Planar 1.4 would be to try before you buy. Really, these things are so personal. A good place to shop is KEH, which has a really generous return policy on their used goods. You can order a lens, shoot for a week, see what you think and return it if it is not to your liking. Your main risk would seem to be the cost of shipping and insurance, which is little enough compared to a rental fee. If that advice doesn't suit, I'd get all the lenses that intrigue you and shoot, shoot, shoot. Compare and contrast. Be broke. Resolve to sell a lens. Reneg on your promise to yourself. Wind up with too many lenses. Hey, it works for me.

Ben

[furcafe]

The latest 1 has aspherical elements & so is marked w/"ASPH" on the lens bezel.

http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/msystem/objektive/normal/index_e.html

Reading Erwin's pages- it seems the new Summilux-M 50 Asph is the best one for my use.

How do I tell which 50 Lux is under the new formula- only the newest ones with the hood?

[Planar1.4]

yes, that new 'lux-M Asph puts a good used Noctilux back in my decision making.

Does anyone have a link to a good gallery of Noctilux shots. I have read a lot of discussion, but would love to look at some work- preferably hand held stuff....

[awilder]

Try this: http://www.nemeng.com/leica/040b.shtml

[furcafe]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/leitz501noctiluxmc1988/

All handheld.


Does anyone have a link to a good gallery of Noctilux shots. I have read a lot of discussion, but would love to look at some work- preferably hand held stuff....

[Craig M]

I've been seriously considering the Summilux-M f/1.4/50mm ASPH. If it's as good as they say it is, (the only Leica lens with a floating element) it's probably worth the money. A perfect 50mm could be the only lens you ever need.

[CK Dexter Haven]

If "clarity" or sharpness is an issue... my Zeiss-M 50/2 is sharper than either of my 50 Summicrons (M-50 Dual Range and R-50).

[Stephanie Brim]

Can we see photographic proof of that? Quite the claim and I'd like to see it for myself. :)

[awilder]

Dito to what Stephanie said.

[Frank Granovski]

Perhaps the Planar 50mm F2?

[Ben Z]

I've been seriously considering the Summilux-M f/1.4/50mm ASPH. If it's as good as they say it is, (the only Leica lens with a floating element) it's probably worth the money. A perfect 50mm could be the only lens you ever need.


At that price it'd have to be, for me. I'd have to sell the rest of my lenses to get one. I shot with one, alongside my 50 non-ASPH Lux. The only thing I would lug around a 50/1.4 for would be handheld shots on fast film in very low light, and that's how I compared them. I couldn't discern any difference. No doubt, on a tripod with slow slide film the ASPH would pull out ahead. But for that kind of shooting, and that kind of money, I can (and in fact, did) buy a Hasselblad with a couple film backs and 3 lenses, and the results from teh Zeiss glass on a 6x6 tranny IMO give me more bang for the buck than any lens could possibly do with 35mm. Just my opninion, nothing against anyone who has the ASPH lens.

[cme4brain]

I am a Voigtlander Bessa R3a owner with five Voigtlander lenses. I am curious about you Leica fanatics. I wonder when you all will stop desperately trying to justify the price gouging of a no-longer German-made camera when it is compared to the likes of Voigtlander or the upcomming Zeiss bodies and lenses? I can easily afford Leica and acknowledge that the camera body is somewhat better made, but if my Bessa breaks (has taken great abuse so far), I can buy SIX of them for the price of one Leica body! And the Voigtlander lenses are so close in resolution/color/contrast to Leica (IMHO) that there is no way the incredible price for Leica equipment is justified? Where are the objective comparison studies between the two lenses (Voigt and Leica)? I will bet my car payment that if Iwere to take a pix with my Bessa body and any of my Voigt lenses, then take the exact same pix with an analogous Leica lens (same exposure, same body or use a Leica body) and professionally process the picture, that professional photographers could NOT tell the difference consistently in real world picture taking. I do acknowledge that perhaps one Leica lens can resolve 125 lines/mm but I say that the Voigts can resolve 110 lines/mm. Can anyone tell that difference on anything other than a test bench? Certainly NOT in real world pictures, and certainly not enough to justify the $2900 price for a Leica lens when a Voigt similar lens is $400. You guys have all those leica lenses- let's see someone put it to a test and objectively compare real world photos taken with Leica, Voigt, and/or Zeiss lenses, and see what happens. I will bet you guys start crying when you realize that Voigtlander is eating Leica's lunch :bang: . I am taking the same quality pix (for all that anyone cares) that you are, and have the satisfaction that I am not being robbed by Leica. As a physician, all my buddies tell me how great their $$$ Mercedes are (I have owned two Benzes, two BMW's, two Volvo's) as they are being FIXED IN THE SHOP and my lexuses and I just keep driving past them. Their sad devotion to the "Benz mystique" keeps the Benz dealers happy and LAUGING at them for plopping down good money for a notably beautiful product, but not worth the price, and the Japanese do it better.

Any OBJECTIVE thoughts? Anyone willing to do a fair comparision?

[JoNL]

Stay calm, cme4brain, no reason to :bang:
Just acknowledge that other people have other preferences - for whatever reason.

[rover]

?????????????????????????

[rover]

Stay calm, cme4brain, no reason to :bang:
Just acknowledge that other people have other preferences - for whatever reason.


I just reread this thread. The original post asks for a comparison of 3 Leica lenses. The conversation has included a couple recommendations of the new Zeiss ZM 50mm lens. A reasonable suggestion of the excellent CV Nokton would also be appropriate.

Yes, stay calm, and have a look around at what everyone else has stated here to see some real objective opinions.

[JoNL]

I just would like to add which 50 I got ... 10 minutes ago: A 1962 DR-Summicron with Eyes, caps, and original box (!), in almost mint condition. I discovered it by chance immediately it went for sale (for a once in a life-time price, I might add) :D

If you meet a guy with a big smile in these days ... it's me!

[vol72]

cme4brain, value is what is perceived by the owner/user. You obviously take great delight in using inferior products that cost less. You position is that the equipment is only slightly inferior and that you have realized a substantial savings in your purchases. Many people appreciate certain things for what they are, as much as for what they effect - and they will pay for the difference in quality. Leica cameras are collected by many and never used because the collector esteems the equipment for what he perceives it to be, without consideration for its photographic use.

You inflate your own ego by denigrating the choices of others. How dare they not embrace your obvious wisdom? Yet, you can be faulted by your own logic. Why not purchase a Toyota instead of a Lexus? Same company, slightly inferior quality (maybe), and you can save $$$? Better yet, buy a used Toyota ( since new vehicles depreciate 20% as soon as you drive them off the lot ) and still drive many miles, saving even more $$$. The point is: what you do with your $ is your business; what I do with my $ is my business. If you believe you are smarter than everbody else, you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't feed me your sh-t and tell me it is caviar.

[awilder]

These are some comparison shots http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D3fJ for cme4brain although most of you have probably seen them already. They may not be "real world" but they do partly demonstrate some of what you get for the extra money with the 50/1.4 aspheric, i.e. central resolution far beyond that of the ZM Planar and equal to the Summicron (both at f'2.8) but at a full stop wider.

[FrankS]

"Yet, you can be faulted by your own logic. Why not purchase a Toyota instead of a Lexus? Same company, slightly inferior quality (maybe), and you can save $$$? Better yet, buy a used Toyota ( since new vehicles depreciate 20% as soon as you drive them off the lot ) and still drive many miles, saving even more $$$. The point is: what you do with your $ is your business; what I do with my $ is my business."

Well said. This would be pretty hard to argue against, IMO.

[back alley]

I am a Voigtlander Bessa R3a owner with five Voigtlander lenses. I am curious about you Leica fanatics. I wonder when you all will stop desperately trying to justify the price gouging of a no-longer German-made camera when it is compared to the likes of Voigtlander or the upcomming Zeiss bodies and lenses? I can easily afford Leica and acknowledge that the camera body is somewhat better made, but if my Bessa breaks (has taken great abuse so far), I can buy SIX of them for the price of one Leica body! And the Voigtlander lenses are so close in resolution/color/contrast to Leica (IMHO) that there is no way the incredible price for Leica equipment is justified? Where are the objective comparison studies between the two lenses (Voigt and Leica)? I will bet my car payment that if Iwere to take a pix with my Bessa body and any of my Voigt lenses, then take the exact same pix with an analogous Leica lens (same exposure, same body or use a Leica body) and professionally process the picture, that professional photographers could NOT tell the difference consistently in real world picture taking. I do acknowledge that perhaps one Leica lens can resolve 125 lines/mm but I say that the Voigts can resolve 110 lines/mm. Can anyone tell that difference on anything other than a test bench? Certainly NOT in real world pictures, and certainly not enough to justify the $2900 price for a Leica lens when a Voigt similar lens is $400. You guys have all those leica lenses- let's see someone put it to a test and objectively compare real world photos taken with Leica, Voigt, and/or Zeiss lenses, and see what happens. I will bet you guys start crying when you realize that Voigtlander is eating Leica's lunch :bang: . I am taking the same quality pix (for all that anyone cares) that you are, and have the satisfaction that I am not being robbed by Leica. As a physician, all my buddies tell me how great their $$$ Mercedes are (I have owned two Benzes, two BMW's, two Volvo's) as they are being FIXED IN THE SHOP and my lexuses and I just keep driving past them. Their sad devotion to the "Benz mystique" keeps the Benz dealers happy and LAUGING at them for plopping down good money for a notably beautiful product, but not worth the price, and the Japanese do it better.

Any OBJECTIVE thoughts? Anyone willing to do a fair comparision?


dear doc,

i assume a modicum of intelligence seeing as you're a doc - even though half of the graduating class graduated in the bottom half...;)

i'll say this once -

this is a friggin' photo forum not a debating society!
we come here to talk gear, to have a good time and show off a photo or 2.
i didn't wake this morning with the intention of entertaining you by proving anything to you!
if you hear music dance with yourself but don't get pissed off if i decline your not so gracious invite.

your arrogance is annoying.

[rover]

cme4brain, value is what is perceived by the owner/user. You obviously take great delight in using inferior products that cost less. You position is that the equipment is only slightly inferior and that you have realized a substantial savings in your purchases.


vol, you have to relax too. CV stuff inferior? I don't think so, it is just different. Man we all have to get this through our heads, IT IS JUST DIFFERENT.

[rover]

So Planar, what lens are you going to get?

[jaap]

I think the most obvious difference between voigtlander versus zeiss leica is mechanical build quality. The voightlander are mechanical a bit less. I think optical Zeiss has the best cards. But the difference between these lenses when stopped down 2 a 3 stops are minimal. The way to achieve the optical performance different from the manufacturs Voigtlander and Leica use a lot of asp. elements were Zeiss uses clasical top design with the newest formulas and techonlogy. As tool for the photgrapher I think Leica is a bit to expensive. It's a sign that leica gear is always les used by professionals.

[ray_g]

Joe,

As you had said previously, the site it growing at a tremendous pace, and the membership is growing more and more, shall we say, "diverse." If I were you, I'd ask for a raise. ;)

[peter_n]

Could someone please explain to me what is it about camera gear/photography that makes apparently well-educated and articulate people so childish?

Does this kind of behavior also occur on other special-interest forums as well?

[Joe Brugger]

This, with a few obvious exceptions, is a really well-behaved forum. Log into a forum on any sort of audio gear, BMWs or politics if you want some real elemental animalism.
What was the question?
Oh. 50s.
Any post-1965 Summicron or Elmar, M-Hexanon or Sonnar is more lens than most people, papers and films can take advantage of. :o

[back alley]

Could someone please explain to me what is it about camera gear/photography that makes apparently well-educated and articulate people so childish?

Does this kind of behavior also occur on other special-interest forums as well?




oh yeah!
check out some of the audio/video sites.

i got so fed up with the last audio site i was on that i just left it...and came here.

it's one of the reasons i try to maintain the peace here.

[peter_n]

And you do a great job Joe! How's the old ticker? It doesn't need this kind of silliness...

Thanks for educating me about other forums. Think I'll stick to photography... ;)

[back alley]

ticker seems ok, more testing this coming week.

that last audio site turned too many posts in political statements, too much venom directed at people.
i went there for audio speak and to learn nd maybe laugh a bit.

same here - i come here for photo speak, cause my friends can take so much befor bursting and really most of them do not understand the language.

i wish folks could keep that one thing in mind - - we are a photo/gear forum and the rest (subject wise) can go elsewhere.
and there is no place for downright hostility here, none!
except for me possibly...;)

[Stephanie Brim]

Group Hug! Joe In The Middle!

[ray_g]

Group Hug! Joe In The Middle!

Again, an image involving rollerskates comes to mind ... :bang:

[Erl]

Hmmm! The original question lurks somewhere in my memory. Ahh! Which 50mm. My experience is only with the Summicron and the Noctiux. I still own and use both extensively. Most of my 'better' images are from the Noct, not because of the lens, but because the subject that demanded using the noct was a good image prospect. I would never use the Noct if the Summicron would cover it. Simply because the Summicron is MUCH faster the handle in a practical situation. It also less conspicuous, which matters sometimes. The Summicron is the best allround lens, whereas the Noct is a specialized lens that I would never use as my only 50 unless everything I shot was in dim light demanding fast film and speeds that no other lens can replicate. Or I want huge OOF backgrounds in all my middle distance pics in bright daylight. Its colour rendition, especially in artificial light is pleasantly warmer than other Leica lenses, which help identify its 'look'.

From hereon, YOU need to make the DECISION, the relevant info is largely before you.

Good luck, and don't hesitate, do it!

Cheers,
Erl

[Frank Granovski]

Not to slam new Leica lenses but sometimes it's possible to buy an old one near dirt cheap compared with a new one and slighter cheaper than a Voigt and less cheaper than a Zeiss, though I think Zeiss is pretty nice and priced right and that 40mm F1.4 Voigt is something worth pondering about too. I'd go for the Zeiss Planar 50mm if I needed a 50 today; actually, I'm going to go for one but not today. :cool:

[rover]

Frank, the other good thing about vintage glass is that the build quality is sooo much better than that of any modern lens. RF lenses simply are not made the way they used to be. I have a Nikkor 50/2, Canon 50/1.5 and Rigid Leica Summicron which simply are in another league from any lens made today by any manufacturer. Optically, today's lenses are exceptional, but physically, they all seem lacking.

[Frank Granovski]

Rover, I know. That old glass was really something. Some of that old Nikkor and Pentax glass...., well, if I had only bought some of it and hung on to it. Live and learn, and then you die. :(

[cme4brain]

Can we see photographic proof of that? Quite the claim and I'd like to see it for myself. :)
See my prior post. I would LOVE for you leica fanatics to do an OBJECTIVE test of your leica lenses vs. Zeiss vs. Voigtlander. I would bet my car payment that you cannot justify the near $3K price of your leica lenses to Zeiss or even the Voigts. I would bet in a fair fight (blinded real life pictures (not resolution charts) taken with all brands of lenses- L, Z, V) that most of you guys could not EVEN TELL which lens took which picture, and if you could, the difference would not be worth the price.

[Frank Granovski]

I wonder why my MP has 'Made in Germany' engraved on it?I wondered about that too. :cool:

[cme4brain]

And I am told of the ego of physicians! Compared to you Leica owners, I do not own the corner on that. Lots of comments about "perceived value" of Leica but not one of you offered a REAL world test done by you all- NOT a photo mag that does not want to risk advertising on proving that a lesser cost lens (Z or V) is nearly if not equal to Leica! Not one of you said "sure, let's prove this guy wrong- lets get out our lenses and see if he is right!" I did not read all the responses, but would like to be proven wrong. Show me a lines/mm test and then tell me if it is worth the price of the Leica lenses. I am not saying Leica makes poor stuff; it is the gold standard. I am just amazed at paying those prices if it is quality photos that you want. My intent was to ask a question if you guys would be willing to check on the value of your lenses. If you thought I bought inferior equipment (I can afford Leicas), then prove me wrong. If you want to spend your money on Leica, then spend it. I just want to know if there is an objective difference.

[ray_g]

cme4brain,

Not that anyone here needs to justify their equipment choices, but rather to anwer your request for some objective comparisons, I would like to point you back to early in the thread where someone had already referred you to Sein Reid's tests. Here is the link, if that would make it easier for you: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml

If you are looking for lines/mm tests, Erwin Puts has them in his website: http://www.imx.nl/

I am sure it would not be difficult to find other objective tests on the photo magazine websites. Pop photo tested the 75/2 ASPH Summicron recently. Frances Schultz has a review of the same lens on the current issue of B&W Photography. Both include the resolution charts you seem to be interested in. Pop photo also tested the 50/1.4 being discussed on this thread in the issue where the MP was reviewed. I am sure these articles are in the archives of their websites. Of course, MTF graphs for all the leica lenses can be downloaded from the Leica websites. Jorge has them downloadable in RFF's sister site, www.dslrexchange.com.

However, I believe the poster's original question was more subjective, looking for a particular "look" from the 3 lenses he mentioned.

I hope these help answer your questions. If in the end, you do not agree, that is fine, too. Nobody here thinks that CV equipment is inferior. In fact, many of us also have, or have had, bessas and CV lenses. FSU's too. In fact, good photos can be made with any lens, and I would bet you too would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between photos taken from a CV lens alongside one from a good sample of a $20 Jupiter 8.

If you decide to contribute in a less argumentative, constructive way, I am sure you will enjoy this site. But if it is hostility that you want, please do not troll here. You will find the LUG or the leica forum on www.photo.net more to your liking.

[awilder]

Cme4brain, did you not see my response with the included link to your earlier request for test comparisons to the 50/1.4 apsh. Summilux? It may not be comprehensive stop for stop but it does give you a small taste of how it fares against the ZM Planar and other lenses in terms of lines per mm resolution. If you don't know how to interpret one of these, let me know and I'll translate it for you.

[Planar1.4]

Thank you all for your posts and examples.

I have found what I was looking for, I believe- except with the possible exception of more Zeiss 50/2 examples- mostly due to the time on the market I believe.
The noctilux has the light gathering and short DOF I am looking for, but the center focus and "radial swirl" effect it seems to do on the wide open shots is not for me- though I can see its appeal to some.

The Summilux has the look I tend to like, and the sharpness in the DOF is right on.

The limited look at the Zeiss actually has me thinking against it- though I would really like to want that one, as it is of the family I love- but the images I have seen- while sharp in the DOF, outside the DOF the out of focus image does not seem to have the pleasing softness I get with the Zeiss Cinema Ultra-Primes or with the Planars made for the SLRs in Germany. There seems to be more ghosting and doubling in the backround, and less of a soft blurring. Time may show it as just user choices, but I am not sure.

I did not consider the CV 40 1.4, but if there are some galleries with that lens choice online, I would love to browse them. I tend to like longer lenses- and the 75 Lux is another great seeming choice- but a good 40 has its uses for sure!