Apo-Summicron 50/2 Asph. Test!

[BobYIL]

Ming Thein has added the review of the Apo-Summicron 50/2 Aspherical, as expected:


http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/25...50-2-apo-asph/

[mfogiel]

I think, that after this review, the Planars will be in short supply...

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by mfogiel

I think, that after this review, the Planars will be in short supply...

(Frankly I refrained to state the same, to not mislead others..)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mingthe...n/photostream/

[telenous]

Just skimmed the review and had a cursory look at the photos. It seems Leica has packed the performance of a Macro in an M-mount lens. The photos at medium distance remind me of what I've seen from the Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm, in this case though with an extra stop and even more oomph (could be the PP too). The reviewer also mentions comparatively the Macro Planar 50, prolly with good reason.

.

[BobYIL]

Macro-Elmarit-R 60 is indeed a masterpiece to render the same sharpness across the format. And it is warmer in color compared to any Leica lens I own, close to Zeiss color.

[Keith]

Hmmm ... why would I be reading a test of a lens I'll obviously never buy!

And how many people who buy this mega expensive offering will actually buy it for it's resolving power? ... they'll buy it because they can and will be smug in knowing that they have the best 50mm lens Leica have ever made in their kit.

What this lens has to do with actual photography is very little IMO and more about people's need to have the 'perceived' best available at any cost.

Did that seem cynical?

[sebastel]

Originally Posted by Keith

Did that seem cynical?

not at all.

[noimmunity]

Amazingly, the ZM Planar is better wide open and has better light transmission. And by f/8 they equal out. Soooo...

I only let my copy go as a condition for getting the 75 cron. Now that's gone, looks like I'll have to find another.

[Keith]

I want to see someone wack one of these things onto an NEX-7 or similar ... a Bessa maybe?

[dude163]

I wonder how awesome this will be on the M10

[Gabriel M.A.]

If you hate Leica, this lens has already failed to meet sales expectations and your Nikon is better. ... just speeding up the inevitable. Oh, and it's expensive (gotta point it out because that's always news).


Now...to stay on topic...I wonder why the shots with the Planar in this review are slightly more exposed than with the APO Summicron? I find it very curious and I wonder if it's more than just "user error"? Do both lenses have the same amount of elements and/or diaphragm blades?

[Lauffray]

Even if this was indeed the best 50 out there, I would still not buy it

[gavinlg]

ZM planar looks as good to me.

[f16sunshine]

This lens is Leicas "supercar". It's maybe frivolous and over engineered. A showcase for Leicas enginering capabilities.
They seemed to have priced it in that guise. A few will buy it and it's going to cost those few to make up the r&d and low production quantity.

The fact the zm performs as well on this sensor may simply show the frivolity of the aa50mm. There just might not be a need for a lens to perform better than the zm Planar at this point (it's a damn fine glass).

Similarly there is no need for a Ferrari in Seattle area traffic mess. You could never reap the cars abilities. I don't think anyone who buys the Leica aa50 is buying it because there is no option when it comes to getting the job done with a top performance. It's cool Leica went for this project even if this lens is not really a benchmark beyond all others (which it may still prove to be). It's fun to see them engineer all the tricks they have into one lens.

my 2c

[whitecat]

Fantastic photography and excellent review.

[furcafe]

T-stops v. F-stops? Note this paragraph in the review:

"Remember my earlier article on T stops and f stops [http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/03/26...s-and-f-stops/]? The 50 AA meters the same as the older 50 Summicron, which is to say the Zeiss is 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster still. What this means in reality is that you can use the same aperture, get the same exposure histogram, but use a shutter speed that’s 50% to 75% faster on the Zeiss. It matters because you’re effectively getting more light into the camera, which can be critical especially in marginal situations."

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

Now...to stay on topic...I wonder why the shots with the Planar in this review are slightly more exposed than with the APO Summicron? I find it very curious and I wonder if it's more than just "user error"? Do both lenses have the same amount of elements and/or diaphragm blades?

[bfffer]

nice review...
to my unprofessional eye i think the difference is minimal.
if i have the cash to burn i would get a 50 noct

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by furcafe

T-stops v. F-stops? Note this paragraph in the review:

"Remember my earlier article on T stops and f stops [http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/03/26...s-and-f-stops/]? The 50 AA meters the same as the older 50 Summicron, which is to say the Zeiss is 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster still. What this means in reality is that you can use the same aperture, get the same exposure histogram, but use a shutter speed that’s 50% to 75% faster on the Zeiss. It matters because you’re effectively getting more light into the camera, which can be critical especially in marginal situations."

I noted it too, a weird phenomenon just due to the higher transmission efficiency of the coating!? It simply turns the f2.0/50 Planar into something like f1.8 or f1.6/50 lens.. (Hard to conceive...)

Maybe those having access to both 2.0/50 Planar and 1.5/50 Sonnar can comment on the subject..

[DominikDUK]

T-Stops are nearly always slower than f-stops. A lens with f-stop 2 can have a T-Stop of 2.1, 2.2, etc.. So just because it says f-stop 2 doesn't mean that it as fast as another lens with f-stop 2 if the second lens has T-stop 2.1 and the first 2.3 the second lens is faster. The difference can be much higher though.

[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.

[x-ray]

If the person testing used the TTL metering as I suspect he did it makes no difference whether it's T or F stops. The camera indicates the actual amount of light coming through the lens not the theoretical amount based on F or T stops. On the other hand if he used a hand held meter yes it makes a difference.

The AA 50 is a great lens no doubt but it's all about bragging right with Leica and the few that will buy it.

[x-ray]

Not everyone likes the look of Leicas ASPH glass. Last year I sold my Asph 50 summilux and 35 asph summicron and decided my Planar and Biogon Zeiss were much more to my liking. Actually for my taste I feel these are the two finest lenses for 35 that I've ever owned. It's all a matter of taste though. I like a smoother rendition, more classic, but low flare and sharp without looking over sharp like the new Leica glass. I also have a 90 AA that I may sell in time. It too has the edge that I don't care for. I've found in the past few years I tend to use my 75 Summilux and 90 Elmarit much more. I realize it's because I like the smoother tonality and more natural look of the older designs.

It's just a personal preference.

[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. That said, the 50 Planar does look very good indeed (irrespective of the fact it costs 1/8 that of the APO).

[ian_watts]

Originally Posted by jaapv

the Apo-Summicron will only reveal its full potential on the Monochrom or maybe the future M10.

'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.

[horosu]

Originally Posted by jaapv

The MTF curves are clearly much better than the Zeiss

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