zhangyue wrote:
Metal one! I prefer it's look and handling. That is part of the reason I choose zeica!
+1
Gary Clennan wrote:
Yep - that Rokkor is a great lens. If you can, you may want to compare the 50lux pre-asph E46 version. It renders much differently than the E43 which I think you own. Lately, I have been leaning more towards lenses with unique character over absolute sharpness.
really? i had always heard that vII and the e46 version were the same optically and it was just mechanical differences to update the look feel and mfd.
from the pictures i've seen they seem to have the same slightly swirly cat's eyes bokeh, focus fall off, and contrast characteristics.
i agree about absolute character over absolute sharpness, otherwise the contax g 45/2 is the only normal lens i'd need. i'd gotten used to my character lenses sharpening up enough for landscape by f/11 though and the lux and jupiter never do.
i've been meaning to do a portrait comparison between them all for a while but have been having trouble getting a subject to hold still long enough. from general use i'd say they are all about equal for cool character but with slightly different looks at portrait distances.
the e43/46 summilux have heavy field curvature that will cause massively unsharp corners on APS-c. on a full frame camera they come back up to acceptable levels. the field curvature is even apparent in the 10 and 20 lp/mm graphs, the latter dropping below 60% at it's lowest point.
I dont think Leica have ever envisioned any of their 50mm lenses and landscape lenses other than the new 50 APO ASPH and the original Elmar. if you want to shoot a scene with everything in focus on an RF, I think the 50 planar is actually your best bet if your goal is consistency over absolute sharpness. to be fair, I dont know what happens if you actually focus it for center sharpness, because it seems like Zeiss measured it in such a way that they maximized the area under the mtf curves rather than hit the absolute highest in the middle. it might be worth checking out.
as far as SLR vs RF lenses on the m240 goes, I think the only reason we havent seen this is because, as Roger Cicala said in his M9 vs M240 with 50 Lux ASPH article, there seems to be an issue with setting the thing up for the imacon tests. Which infuriates me =/ Like some of you, I wanted to see those results (well, at least the ones for 50mm lenses) VERY badly. Honestly I cant understand why Sony cant release a test body with the A99 chip and just strip out the AF, modes, AE, etc.
really? i had always heard that vII and the e46 version were the same optically and it was just mechanical differences to update the look feel and mfd.
from the pictures i've seen they seem to have the same slightly swirly cat's eyes bokeh, focus fall off, and contrast characteristics.
i agree about absolute character over absolute sharpness, otherwise the contax g 45/2 is the only normal lens i'd need. i'd gotten used to my character lenses sharpening up enough for landscape by f/11 though and the lux and jupiter never do.
i've been meaning to do a portrait comparison between them all for a while but have been having trouble getting a subject to hold still long enough. from general use i'd say they are all about equal for cool character but with slightly different looks at portrait distances....Show more →
I think the e46/e43 differences are fairly insignificant but they were still enough to make me choose the e46. These are a few traits of the e46 when compared to e43:
1) Produces slightly more contrast
2) Shorter focus throw
3) Pull out hood
4) Shorter MFD
5) Smoother bokeh in the images I have seen. Subjective of course...
6) Different coating - more flare resistant
7) Weighs a fair bit less
Having said this, I would still be happy to use either version. Don't know if it is true but I have heard from quite a few that the e46 renders a little bit like the Noctilux. It is now one of my most used lenses...
Gary Clennan wrote:
I think the e46/e43 differences are fairly insignificant but they were still enough to make me choose the e46. These are a few traits of the e46 when compared to e43:
1) Produces slightly more contrast
2) Shorter focus throw
3) Pull out hood
4) Shorter MFD
5) Smoother bokeh in the images I have seen. Subjective of course...
6) Different coating - more flare resistant
7) Weighs a fair bit less
Having said this, I would still be happy to use either version. Don't know if it is true but I have heard from quite a few that the e46 renders a little bit like the Noctilux. It is now one of my most used lenses......Show more →
Gary are you sure your e43 wasn't a version 1 (pre 1961), those are the ones that are supposed to be optically different.
I have not owned (or tried) any e43 versions before. This is all based on what I recall from my research on the net a while ago.... Maybe someone else here has tried the Ver.1?
I think I tried the v.1 at the Munich Leica store a while ago... I liked it, but it was also early in my Leica learning curve so would be difficult to really compare notes against the second version. I think I posted a couple photos with it comparing some other 50s a couple hundred pages back.
Gary, love the purple flower shot with the ZM35/2
zhangyue, great airport shots and lighting with your kids looking out the windows.
Joakim, loving your landscapes, especially the B&W versions.
Allen, great abstracts recently!
jojomon11, fantastic shot of the statue
Joe, the colour in that tricycle shot is amazing, as is the flare on page 704
Ron, love the early morning light in the airport, especially the 1st shot in your second set.
swoop, great shot of the moving taxi
Been getting to know the M, very impressed so far. My keeper ratio went way up when I got my Thumbs Up and took the EVF off. It's good for anything that's not moving, but IMO you just can't beat the RF.
Gary Clennan wrote:
I have not owned (or tried) any e43 versions before. This is all based on what I recall from my research on the net a while ago.... Maybe someone else here has tried the Ver.1?
According to my copy of Erwin Puts Leica Compendium, there were only two optical formulas. V1 and V2. 50Lux V2 (1962-2004) has a different optical formula compared to V1 (1957 to 1961). V2 has E43 version (from 1962) and was replaced with V2 E46 pre-ASPH (0.7MFD) in 1995 until it was replaced by 50Lux ASPH. The optical formula for Summilux 50 V2 E43 and E46 are identical. Some also call the E46 version 3. The classic "rendering" of the 50Lux is actually over 50 years old, not bad huh?
Really nice set Ryan. I am loving my M240 as well.... Just a note that those flower pics were with a ZF35. I found this interesting character last Sunday.
Gary - interesting character indeed!
Ryan - excellent set! Love #2 and the last one.
Welcome swoop!
I found the post from back in Dec. 2011... I think it was a 50 Lux v1. Anyway, the guy at the Leica store said it was really more a collectors' lens, perhaps because it was insanely priced, well over 2000 Euro. I didn't shoot much with it..
50 Lux v.I:
50 f/1.5 Summarit:
50 Lux ASPH (cropped a bit for framing consistency):
redisburning wrote:
the e43/46 summilux have heavy field curvature that will cause massively unsharp corners on APS-c. on a full frame camera they come back up to acceptable levels. the field curvature is even apparent in the 10 and 20 lp/mm graphs, the latter dropping below 60% at it's lowest point.
yeah, i've seen this on some of the other older fast leica m's. the 35 lux pre-asph actually starts to improve again at the very extreme aps-c corner.
redisburning wrote:
I dont think Leica have ever envisioned any of their 50mm lenses and landscape lenses other than the new 50 APO ASPH and the original Elmar. if you want to shoot a scene with everything in focus on an RF, I think the 50 planar is actually your best bet if your goal is consistency over absolute sharpness. to be fair, I dont know what happens if you actually focus it for center sharpness, because it seems like Zeiss measured it in such a way that they maximized the area under the mtf curves rather than hit the absolute highest in the middle. it might be worth checking out....Show more →
i actually have this covered already with my contax g 45, which is actually sharper over the aps-c frame then the zm 50/2 (according to zeiss i didn't do a head to head comparison when i tried out the zm). i don't particularly like either of those lenses for anything other than landscape or trying to maximize 3D pop though – too harsh for my taste (not really a zeiss guy). i'd really like to find a nice compact ~50mm that has nice character for portraits but is sharp across the frame by f/11. i have a few of these in slr sizes, it seems more elusive in rangefinder land.
redisburning wrote:
as far as SLR vs RF lenses on the m240 goes, I think the only reason we havent seen this is because, as Roger Cicala said in his M9 vs M240 with 50 Lux ASPH article, there seems to be an issue with setting the thing up for the imacon tests. Which infuriates me =/ Like some of you, I wanted to see those results (well, at least the ones for 50mm lenses) VERY badly. Honestly I cant understand why Sony cant release a test body with the A99 chip and just strip out the AF, modes, AE, etc.
i actually am not much interested in the imatest results, i don't find them terribly informative for what matters to me. i would like to see side by side comparisons of some slr and m lenses on the m240 because i've always been curious how much the look of certain lenses was a result of the m9's AA free sensor and processing.
joe88 wrote:
According to my copy of Erwin Puts Leica Compendium, there were only two optical formulas. V1 and V2. 50Lux V2 (1962-2004) has a different optical formula compared to V1 (1957 to 1961). V2 has E43 version (from 1962) and was replaced with V2 E46 pre-ASPH (0.7MFD) in 1995 until it was replaced by 50Lux ASPH. The optical formula for Summilux 50 V2 E43 and E46 are identical. Some also call the E46 version 3. The classic "rendering" of the 50Lux is actually over 50 years old, not bad huh?
thanks, that is what i thought, but my source was ken rockwell who isn't so dependable for other brands but seems to be a good source for leica.
rscheffler wrote:
I found the post from back in Dec. 2011... I think it was a 50 Lux v1. Anyway, the guy at the Leica store said it was really more a collectors' lens, perhaps because it was insanely priced, well over 2000 Euro. I didn't shoot much with it..
ah, i remember that post now. the lux v1 bokeh looks very different from what i would expect the v2 i'm shooting to do in that situation – it would produce more cat's eye shaping to the oof highlights and have less bright ringing. you v1 sample does look similar to some of the bokeh funk i've seen in pics from the f/1 noctilux to me actually, at least shape wise.
Very nice work from everyone and many thanks for your comments Joe, Ron, Zhangyue, Phil...
I was hoping to show some Sonnar 85 samples this week, but as it turns out, DHL sucks. My lens has been sitting for 5 days at the customs and I suspect an intentional delay by DHL as they charge 10$ per day for storage.
Moral of the story: European companies suck. Americans are the best
ryankarr wrote:
Been getting to know the M, very impressed so far. My keeper ratio went way up when I got my Thumbs Up and took the EVF off. It's good for anything that's not moving, but IMO you just can't beat the RF.
