Apo-Summicron 50/2 Asph. Test!

[semilog]

Originally Posted by jaapv

However, in Berlin Leica had a series of 100 cm prints of the lens on the M9 and they were mind-blowing. The color transmission, micro-contrast and bokeh were unrivalled.

One simply cannot say that without controlled side-by-side comparisons.

No way are you going to see that on Internet JPGs.

It should absolutely be visible in 100% crops if the difference is there, if -- and this is a big if -- the comparisons are carefully done.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by horosu

Let's keep in mind that Zeiss uses measured MTF values whereas Leica's are computed.

With suitable production tolerances (which I believe Leica to be capable of maintaining) there should be no difference between measured and computed. Bigger questions include the distance at which the MTF applies, the light wavelengths and weightings used, etc. Two MTFs from two manufacturers are unlikely to be directly comparable. As Ken Rockwell* points out, Schneider provides real MTF information, not the preschool-toy information that L & Z give us.

A bigger issue is that in the linked test we are not looking at the performance of lenses alone, as in a true MTF test, but at the performance of an imaging chain -- lens-M9 sensor-RAW converter.

The other elements of the chain might well hide very real differences in the lenses. But what this test does imply is that under fairly typical field conditions, on an M9, there's probably not a meaningful difference between the lenses.

*Who on technical matters is actually pretty good in most cases.

[MCTuomey]

Without any disrespect to Ming Thein, the MTF charts for these two lenses tell a different story. Being a planar 50 user, I'm all for praising it - I like mine a great deal and will continue to do so. Based on the objectivity of the MTFs, however, it is simply not in the same league as the APO Cron 50.

My understanding is that Leica and Zeiss provide measured MTFs (at infinity in white light), not theoretical, and that Leica actually uses Zeiss equipment to perform the measurements.

Not liking the result of the MTF comparison is fine. Allowing one's displeasure with a measured result to lead to narrow invalidation of the measurement (or biased preference for other "tests") is insecurity. My planar 50 is an excellent lens, makes fine images when I'm up to the task, and that won't change as a result of a superior lens being available.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by ian_watts

If you look at the word Bolivar towards the bottom right you'll see that the APO was focussed significantly closer than the Planar. It's difficult to compare the performance of these lenses if the reviewer doesn't even bother to have them focussed in the same plane.

You are assuming that neither lens has any curvature of field. That is probably not a valid assumption. One implication of those ruler-straight MTF curves is that the AA 'cron has a flatter field than the ZM (and the Planar, in turn, probably has a flatter field than the v.4/5 'cron).

With appropriate subjects and slow black and white film I was easily able to see the wavy field curvature of my v. 4 'cron, even at f/5.6, in real photographs, in the doughnut about 1/3 out from the image center.

[ottluuk]

The 8 elements / 5 groups +ASPH arrangement looks pretty radical for a non-macro 50mm lens. It kind of makes you wonder if the Summarits really were the last traditionally-formulated, strictly spherical lens designs we are going to see from Leica.

That would be a shame, even if there is (marginally?) better quality to be achieved with the complex designs. Look at the 90/4 Macro-Elmar, a "plain" 4/4 design that reaches max quality almost wide open. Isn't that cool? I wonder if the 4/3 Elmar-M 50 could have been further improved and produced instead of the current Summarit 50... But I guess the "doing more with less" lens design philosophy is on its way out.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by semilog

One simply cannot say that without controlled side-by-side comparisons.



It should absolutely be visible in 100% crops if the difference is there, if -- and this is a big if -- the comparisons are carefully done.

A touching faith in your monitor's pixels - no - 100% crops are enlarged internet jpgs...

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by ian_watts

'Brett' seems to think he can see a big difference between this lens and all other M lenses on the M9. One of you (or neither) must be right.

I said full potential - of course you will see a difference on " lesser" sensors.

[jaapv]

At any rate Erwin Puts, whose opinion of this lens is exceedingly high uses Zeiss for testing.

Originally Posted by MCTuomey

Without any disrespect to Ming Thein, the MTF charts for these two lenses tell a different story. Being a planar 50 user, I'm all for praising it - I like mine a great deal and will continue to do so. Based on the objectivity of the MTFs, however, it is simply not in the same league as the APO Cron 50.

My understanding is that Leica and Zeiss provide measured MTFs (at infinity in white light), not theoretical, and that Leica actually uses Zeiss equipment to perform the measurements.

Not liking the result of the MTF comparison is fine. Allowing one's displeasure with a measured result to lead to narrow invalidation of the measurement (or biased preference for other "tests") is insecurity. My planar 50 is an excellent lens, makes fine images when I'm up to the task, and that won't change as a result of a superior lens being available.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by jaapv

the Apo-Summicron will only reveal its full potential on the Monochrom or maybe the future M10. And in very large prints. The MTF curves are clearly much better than the Zeiss, but on current sensors and a computer screen that is not readily visible. For most of us it would be money wasted. However, in Berlin Leica had a series of 100 cm prints of the lens on the M9 and they were mind-blowing. The color transmission, micro-contrast and bokeh were unrivalled. No way are you going to see that on Internet JPGs.

Let me admit that I appreciate you as a photographer and your efforts to enlighten us in the best way you could. You have my respect also for being objective in most of the cases. Assuming your excellent connections to Solms, how about relaying a couple of messages to them from the actual Leica users end?

“… the Zeiss ZM Planar. I tested this lens against the older 50/2 Summicron extensively before making my purchase decision, the ZM 2/50 won both optically and financially. It’s a hair sharper and doesn’t exhibit any focus shift. The coatings allow it to be about 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster than the old Summicron for a given aperture and exposure histogram, too. I also preferred the way it rendered – there was just more ‘pop’ to the micro contrast, and (personally) preferable color.”

These are from the test and Ming Thein’s words; a pro-photographer as well as Leica Ambassador.
This brings a question to mind: If a $780 Planar 50 was superior to a Summicron 50 costing $2.295, then to introduce another Summicron to beat the Planar but to cost $7.195 was something to feel pride for Mr. Karbe? I would be applauding him more if he were able to beat the Planar by modifying the existing design by keeping the price the same.

Second: This is internet era; probably 99.9% of the photographs are shared through by displaying them on desktop or laptop screens. To appreciate the IQ of the Apo-Summicron we do not need to go somewhere see prints of 100cm size.. We can do it on our screens too, even up to double of the 100cm size. Below you will find some samples.

And third: Photography in our day can not (should not!) live on myths.. It’s also not the “snake oil” art of hi-end speaker cables selling for some couple of thousands suggesting “blind tests” to note the difference. Photography relies on open-your-eyes tests. IMHO, Leica should end making too much fuss about being able to squeeze-out the last 5% out of their designs with stratospheric prices but should concentrate on turning better quality products of improved reliability to fit to their name and tradition, more service stations around (like the new Leica boutiques) to stop the transfers to Solms to take weeks, if not some months (have you ever heard a Canon or Nikon shipped to Japan for service?) and if they are to intoduce some new innovative products, then these products should not make the actual Leica users scratch their heads with sour faces...

The below samples are from a camera costing $3.300 and a zoom lens (yes!), nothing fancy for 2012.


http://pcfoto.biz/images/testovi/Nik...8gVRII_jpg.jpg


http://pcfoto.biz/images/testovi/Nik...8gVRII_raw.jpg

[rdeleskie]

"The below samples are from a camera costing $3.300 and a zoom lens (yes!), nothing fancy for 2012. "

Just for fun...Nikon D800E? Didn't check the exif, just basing this on the sharpness and the slight moire pattern in the fabric.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by jaapv

A touching faith in your monitor's pixels - no - 100% crops are enlarged internet jpgs...

I do scientific imaging and image analysis as a major portion of my work. Please, give me a bit (or a byte) more credit than that.

Also: <snark>what's the difference between an "internet jpg" and a plain old "jpg"?</snark>

[Range-rover]

That's a nice review, I looks like both lenses are pretty close and the Zeiss is a
touch warmer and the Leica a touch cooler. I was complaining about Canon charging
$800 to $850 for there new 28mm and 24mm lenses, then I read about this lens
being 7 grand! oh baby i'd go for Zeiss on my Leica and find a nice used Leica lens.

Range

[LCT]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

...If a $780 Planar 50 was superior to a Summicron 50 costing $2.295, then to introduce another Summicron to beat the Planar but to cost $7.195 was something to feel pride for Mr. Karbe?...

"Beating" a CZ lens? Mr Karbe doesn't care i guess, hopefully for him. He just tried to design the best 50 possible. As far as MTF charts are concerned, it looks so far like a great success.

[ian_watts]

Originally Posted by jaapv

A touching faith in your monitor's pixels - no - 100% crops are enlarged internet jpgs...

100% crops are 100% crops – do you never judge anything at 100% on your computer?

Besides which Jaap, didn't you recently claim (in a LUF thread) to see something special abut the rendering of the M Monochrom in "internet JPEGs" (that, in an interesting turn of events, turned out to have been photos shot by an M9-P).

[Teuthida]

http://www.brainyquote.com/words/su/sucker225823.html

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by jaapv

the Apo-Summicron will only reveal its full potential on the Monochrom or maybe the future M10. And in very large prints. The MTF curves are clearly much better than the Zeiss, but on current sensors and a computer screen that is not readily visible. For most of us it would be money wasted. However, in Berlin Leica had a series of 100 cm prints of the lens on the M9 and they were mind-blowing. The color transmission, micro-contrast and bokeh were unrivalled. No way are you going to see that on Internet JPGs.

In other words, "Oh Yea of Little Faith...."

[jaapv]

No faith here. I still have those prints on my retina .I wish I could find a rationale to buy that lens...:roll eyes: And have the photographic ability to use it....

[Richard G]

I agree with most things jaapv says. Really, are the people running Leica just dopes making an unnecessary camera and a do-nothing fraudulent lens that offers no advantage so they treble the price in the hopes of selling some to suckers? No. It is exactly as jaapv says so far as the 50 AA goes. And that Monochrom is a fantastic idea and a successful execution I'll bet. Give them some credit. The knockers here sound like those who say Apple is just a company clever at marketing. Like Apple Leica now keeps kicking goals. Learn to live with it.

[Range-rover]

You think they would test it on a film "M" camera and blow that up, and compare two
or three lenses and see what it really can do! Slides anybody!

Range

[Keith]

MTF charts, micro contrast, resolution, colour transmission ... blah blah blah!

Where's my fifty dollar J-3?

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Richard G

I agree with most things jaapv says. Really, are the people running Leica just dopes making an unnecessary camera and a do-nothing fraudulent lens that offers no advantage so they treble the price in the hopes of selling some to suckers? No. It is exactly as jaapv says so far as the 50 AA goes. And that Monochrom is a fantastic idea and a successful execution I'll bet. Give them some credit. The knockers here sound like those who say Apple is just a company clever at marketing. Like Apple Leica now keeps kicking goals. Learn to live with it.

Strawman, much?

That's not what people here are (mostly) saying.

What they are saying is that Leica may have gone far beyond the point of diminishing returns.

Mandler's v. IV Summicron was already a spectacularly competent lens. The Planar has a slightly different mix of characteristics (including slightly less curvature of field and slightly more linear distortion) and overall is about equally as good at about 1/3 the price. The Summicron AA is a bit better than either in most respects but it costs TEN TIMES as much as the Planar.

If you are racing F1 or MotoGP, it is worth paying 10x as much for a 2% advantage. That is the difference between possible victory and consistent defeat.

If you are taking pictures -- especially handheld, as the Leica M is designed to to do*, especially with a focusing mechanism as crude as a rangefinder, and of three dimensional objects rather than brick walls or test charts -- a 2% improvement will almost always be invisible. Even if the difference is visible, it is unlikely to matter. There may be special cases that one could formulate where this new lens might offer a useful improvement, but those special cases will be few and far between.

Leica is focusing intense design expertise and effort on improvements to a show-piece that will not improve peoples' photographs, or even markedly expand their photographic tool kit. Such an effort might be described as corporate self-gratification. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Right?

*If the M was designed to be used on a tripod it would (1) have live view so that one could actually focus accurately (and not just at the center of the image); and (2) it would have a mechanically stable tripod socket, which it emphatically does not.

[Joe AC]

Originally Posted by semilog

Strawman, much?


If you are taking pictures -- especially handheld, as the Leica M is designed to to do*, especially with a focusing mechanism as crude as a rangefinder, and of three dimensional objects rather than brick walls or test charts -- a 2% improvement will almost always be invisible. Even if the difference is visible, it is unlikely to matter. There may be special cases that one could formulate where this new lens might offer a useful improvement, but those special cases will be few and far between.[/i]

Very well said.

Joe

[Joe AC]

Also, I have a 50mm v IV summicron and love it, I just can't see this lens giving any better "real world" results. At least not enough to justify the price.

Joe

[jaapv]

Well, in a way you are right. This is indeed a showpiece. Peter Karbe had this ambition to build a lens that came as close to optical perfection as was technically possible regardless of cost, and finally got the go-ahead to do so. The reason he got the go-ahead was the advent of the M Monochrom that is “better” than any other lens in the Leica lineup can resolve.So even if the 50 Apo will show its quality on any other sensor (the prints I mentioned were on the M9) or even film and the MM is spectacular with any other lens, the two together are the killer combo.
Leica did not build these products with the ambition to sell large numbers, but still I think they will sell well over their target.
As for accuracy of focussing, the RF is not as crude as you make out. Set up properly and used expertly it will outperform any other system, including live view. Those systems are only useful when adjustment errors or user error creeps in. (or indeed focus on the edge of the screen.In daily use the advantage is doubtful. What is worse, focus-recompose or wave the camera about at arms-length? Or use the limited qualities of an EVF which needs to resort to aids like focus-peaking?)

Originally Posted by semilog

Strawman, much?

That's not what people here are (mostly) saying.

What they are saying is that Leica may have gone far beyond the point of diminishing returns.

Mandler's v. IV Summicron was already a spectacularly competent lens. The Planar has a slightly different mix of characteristics (including slightly less curvature of field and slightly more linear distortion) and overall is about equally as good at about 1/3 the price. The Summicron AA is a bit better than either in most respects but it costs TEN TIMES as much as the Planar.

If you are racing F1 or MotoGP, it is worth paying 10x as much for a 2% advantage. That is the difference between possible victory and consistent defeat.

If you are taking pictures -- especially handheld, as the Leica M is designed to to do*, especially with a focusing mechanism as crude as a rangefinder, and of three dimensional objects rather than brick walls or test charts -- a 2% improvement will almost always be invisible. Even if the difference is visible, it is unlikely to matter. There may be special cases that one could formulate where this new lens might offer a useful improvement, but those special cases will be few and far between.

Leica is focusing intense design expertise and effort on improvements to a show-piece that will not improve peoples' photographs, or even markedly expand their photographic tool kit. Such an effort might be described as corporate self-gratification. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Right?

*If the M was designed to be used on a tripod it would (1) have live view so that one could actually focus accurately (and not just at the center of the image); and (2) it would have a mechanically stable tripod socket, which it emphatically does not.

[Keith]

How can a mechanical RF mechanism be more accurate than live view ... please explain jaapv because I'm not convinced here!