(Derek, Joe, hope you two are reading this thread. I did a test as promised) I did a series test with this lens on A7R, The performance is about I would expect based on M9. Only extreme corner having problem until f8-f11ish. It is a little sharp lens with no obvious color corner and smear. my 50lux didn't perform as good, not particular bad, but you would expect more for $4000 lens. Center even at f1.4, it is very sharp and It is very close match to Ron's samples test. if want cross frame sharpness, after f8. Do I bothered? Not at all, it still meet my requirement. 50 rigid did pretty well. especially after f2.8. but overall, I'd say it is a tie with 50lux. Rikkor 58mm is pretty sweet lens, it about as good as 50cron R, and both beat all others 50mm lens I have: 50lux R, and 50mm f1.2 AIS, in cross frame sharpness performance area.
After this test, I have two conclusion:
1. I'd say this is last thing I want do ever again. very boring.
2. Any 50mm lens I have will be good contender to do landscape shot. They all good enough, yeh, even with 36M sensor. I have to stick my nose on screen to see the difference unless extreme corner. and a little sharpening on LR can clean most up pretty well.
BTW, this is infinity test. The lens perform differently once close by: 50mm 1.2 Nikkor is sharper than 58mm Rokkor at or within 1M, but infinity, it is worse than Rokkor. and 50lux R is very good lens at portrait range, but not infinity.
zhangyue wrote:
Some shots with 35cron V1 8elements.
(Derek, Joe, hope you two are reading this thread. I did a test as promised) I did a series test with this lens on A7R, The performance is about I would expect based on M9. Only extreme corner having problem until f8-f11ish. It is a little sharp lens with no obvious color corner and smear. my 50lux didn't perform as good, not particular bad, but you would expect more for $4000 lens. Center even at f1.4, it is very sharp and It is very close match to Ron's samples test. if want cross frame sharpness, after f8. Do I bothered? Not at all, it still meet my requirement. 50 rigid did pretty well. especially after f2.8. but overall, I'd say it is a tie with 50lux. Rikkor 58mm is pretty sweet lens, it about as good as 50cron R, and both beat all others 50mm lens I have: 50lux R, and 50mm f1.2 AIS, in cross frame sharpness performance area.
After this test, I have two conclusion:
1. I'd say this is last thing I want do ever again. very boring.
2. Any 50mm lens I have will be good contender to do landscape shot. They all good enough, yeh, even with 36M sensor. I have to stick my nose on screen to see the difference unless extreme corner. and a little sharpening on LR can clean most up pretty well.
BTW, this is infinity test. The lens perform differently once close by: 50mm 1.2 Nikkor is sharper than 58mm Rokkor at or within 1M, but infinity, it is worse than Rokkor. and 50lux R is very good lens at portrait range, but not infinity. ...Show more →
yay! thanks michael!
that's very good to hear about the cron v1. now i'll be a little torn between that and the lux pre-asph.
zhangyue wrote:
my 50lux didn't perform as good, not particular bad, but you would expect more for $4000 lens. Center even at f1.4, it is very sharp and It is very close match to Ron's samples test. if want cross frame sharpness, after f8.
Those are the same as my findings. After all those who stated that anything 50mm was fine, or even that 50 'Lux Asph was fine, I was begining to feel a little bit crazy, so your statement is welcome. Thanks!
philber wrote:
Those are the same as my findings. After all those who stated that anything 50mm was fine, or even that 50 'Lux Asph was fine, I was begining to feel a little bit crazy, so your statement is welcome. Thanks!
I *think* he may have been referring to the 50 Lux *R* rather than the *M* (if that matters)...
turnstyle wrote:
I *think* he may have been referring to the 50 Lux *R* rather than the *M* (if that matters)...
I meant all the 50mm I have on hand include 50mm lux. I revisit all the test images, Rokkor can be used at f2.8,(only extreme corner suffer a little) and f5.6 is already cross frame good. Cron R can be used at f2.8.
Almost for all the lens I have on hand, f8 is magic aperture to get cross frame sharpness. And at f8, you better print wall size to tell difference for 50mm lens. 58 rokkor is real surprise, but it get 8mm tele advantage.
That is exact reason I will pay price for f1.4 lens or sharpness at WO and Bokeh/rendering than cross frame sharpness. It seems to me most 50mm++ tele lens doing similar job.
Feel free to disagree but there has to be a thresh hold to tell the difference.(here I meant A/B comparison, view stand alone, even less a problem I'd say) 56M or print wall size, might be.
Sorry, I have a strong opinion about this. but it is real irrelevant to real world image anymore. f8 and be there still rule if you want cross frame sharpness otherwise, pick your poison suit your preference. (I mean rendering, bokeh etc....and WO sharpness, those are still most important things I care to differentiate $.)
zhangyue wrote:
I meant all the 50mm I have on hand include 50mm lux. I revisit all the test images, Rokkor can be used at f2.8,(only extreme corner suffer a little) and f5.6 is already cross frame good. Cron R can be used at f2.8.
Almost for all the lens I have on hand, f8 is magic aperture to get cross frame sharpness. And at f8, you better print wall size to tell difference for 50mm lens. 58 rokkor is real surprise, but it get 8mm tele advantage.
That is exact reason I will pay price for f1.4 lens or sharpness at WO and Bokeh/rendering than cross frame sharpness. It seems to me most 50mm++ tele lens doing similar job.
Feel free to disagree but there has to be a thresh hold to tell the difference.(here I meant A/B comparison, view stand alone, even less a problem I'd say) 56M or print wall size, might be.
Sorry, I have a strong opinion about this. but it is real irrelevant to real world image anymore. f8 and be there still rule if you want cross frame sharpness otherwise, pick your poison suit your preference. (I mean rendering, bokeh etc....and WO sharpness, those are still most important things I care to differentiate $.) ...Show more →
Oh, I wasn't arguing with anything!
I just believe philber is specifically interested in the 50 Lux M, and I think you were specifically talking about the 50 Lux R.
I'm with you in wanting to see the full capability of the 50 Lux on the new Sony's -- and it seems the jury is still out, though leaning toward saying the 50 Lux won't live up to its full potential on Sony -- but I'm still hoping for a simple solution (such as: a 9.80mm adapter).
turnstyle wrote:
Oh, I wasn't arguing with anything!
I just believe philber is specifically interested in the 50 Lux M, and I think you were specifically talking about the 50 Lux R.
I'm with you in wanting to see the full capability of the 50 Lux on the new Sony's -- and it seems the jury is still out, though leaning toward saying the 50 Lux won't live up to its full potential on Sony -- but I'm still hoping for a simple solution (such as: a 9.80mm adapter).
Mo too, not trying to arguing if I am acting that way. Sorry!
Philip has 50lux M already I think. 50 lux R V1 is really a low light, portrait lens for me.(it is great in portrait range) It can be used as landscape lens, but I don't feel it is special or worth the price. Not to mention 50lux M at $4000, though I feel it definitely perform on M9 better than A7R, but I mention several times in Leica M thread, it is not that special as landscape lens as well. Pay close attention following the FC curve, you can trace it easily. my 21 zm seems better than it. but keep in mind, all the complain comes from pix PP, I did and still do believe it is nonissue for most people.
The problem of 50lux M with A7r could come from sensor property, higher sensor density and adaptor for lens with FLE. any of above could be the cause, but I have no willing to find it out as it is really adequate to my use.
I think the frustration with the 50 Lux M is that -- in some cases -- it performs sharply across the frame at wide apertures.
I'm not suggesting that somebody should buy a 50 Lux M for landscapes -- but if you buy a $4000 lens -- and if that lens performs sharply across the frame at wide apertures for some people, you will want to be one of those people...
For me, it's not so much about it being a top-notch landscape lens -- rather, it's about going out with one lens, and not always knowing what you're going to wind up wanting to shoot.
Just to chime in on the 50 Lux, I have a new one that I could return, but am electing to keep it for use on the A7r after much consideration. It is simply wonderful at large apertures at closer distances--sharp at the center and producing first rate bokeh with well corrected out of focus highlights (better in the latter regard than the FE 55). Landscape is not my main plan for this lens and I will probably put a different 50 in my bag for hiking trips, but it will do more than fine for landscapes stopped down. Vanishingly few fast lenses do across the frame sharpness well at wide apertures--that simply is not what these lenses are optimized to do. I understand the concern about slightly better corner performance on the Leica bodies at larger apertures and that will play out. The recent lens rental comments point to adapters allowing incredible resolution gains from the Sony sensor in the center, but only seeing marginal corner performance increases, if at all. Perhaps the observations about "poor" corner performance on the A7r with the Lux 50 are simply a relative comparison versus the gains in resolution seen in the center. That is, perhaps, on M bodies the corners aren't better than the Sony, but seem so because the Leica M body center is not as good and thus the corners don't seem so different? We look at these things at the pixel level after all. It may be more than this, of course, and perhaps the right adapter would mitigate the issue somewhat, but I really think the "issue" is, at least for the Lux 50, largely unrealistic expectations not being met. Just because a lens is expensive, does not mean it will do all things perfectly. The Lux 50 does almost everything very well. It just does not deliver sharp corners until stopped down. Its MTF says as much.
Luvwine wrote:
It is simply wonderful at large apertures at closer distances--sharp at the center and producing first rate bokeh with well corrected out of focus highlights (better in the latter regard than the FE 55
This is the case with many lenses 35 and wider and 50s wide open. You see a test at a close distance, you look at the edge, you say, well not so bad Then you shoot a long landscape and......yuck on the edges.
not sure exactly how this is explained, beyond the greatly increased tiny details at a distance.
uhoh7 wrote:
This is the case with many lenses 35 and wider and 50s wide open. You see a test at a close distance, you look at the edge, you say, well not so bad Then you shoot a long landscape and......yuck on the edges.
not sure exactly how this is explained, beyond the greatly increased tiny details at a distance.
Actually there are very few 50s that are both sharp at f/1.4 in the centre and have nice bokeh. In fact, I would say there are only two. The M-lux 50 ASPH and the 55 Otus. Most 50s suffer from a lot of spherical aberrations at f/1.4 and aren't that sharp at f/1.4. By f/2 a few more may join the party with decent centre sharpness (e.g., the Zeiss Z* 50 Makro-Planar), but the M-lux ASPH will be sharper to a much wider area (even if not to the edges and corners). Stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 almost all fifties look quite similar, but it is the wide open performance that for portrait type shots that differentiate them in my view. For this type of application I especially value good bokeh, but having good sharpness is nice too.
