A whimsical discussion on this new lens. I don't use a leica body but the kerfuffle surrounding this lens is legendary. Anyone tried it on a leica or otherwise? I "won" one on ebay a while back for only $5000 and quickly realized it was a scam. Reporting it to ebay did nothing (funnily enough). But more to the point, I was interested in the performance of this lens. Is it that good? New designer. 2012 technology. $8000 pricetag. Asph + apo + tiny size. That's some special engineering right there. But $8000 will also get you a Sony A7R + Zeiss 2/135 APO + 2/50 Makro Planar + Zeiss 1.4/35. Or 800 Dominoes pizzas.
No lust for one myself, but it's a fantastic lens by all accounts. No other Leica lens at that level. Which is saying something. 8K is not what it used to be.
I sent my A7r back with no regrets, so that equation means little for me.
But I would rather have 50lux + 75Lux than 50/2 APO
There are a multitude of similar equations of course and I'm after the Lux 80mm! what body are you using?
Perhaps it's one of those things worth renting. To me, all of this suggests the question "what is a good lens?" Is it technical perfection? A particular rendering quality? Why would a 50mm lens merit an $8000 pricetag? I have much to learn.
nebula wrote:
To me, all of this suggests the question "what is a good lens?" Is it technical perfection? A particular rendering quality? Why would a 50mm lens merit an $8000 pricetag? I have much to learn.
My 50/1.4 USM is small, light, focuses quickly (enough), and is sharp at the apertures I most use it at, making a good pair with my 6D. To me, that's a 'good lens'. And I could come up with a page-long list of it's faults .
The 50AA is a different creature; my impression is that while it's a highly corrected lens, it comes off (in my research) as similar to Zeiss' 50/2 for DSLR mounts, i.e. sharp but with a bit busy rendering, whereas the Lux's have smoother but less corrected rendering. And somewhere in this scale is the 50 Art with it's uninspired rendering and the Otus 55's creamy rendering that's also a bit devoid of character.
It seems that getting a well-corrected lens with character and smooth rendering, or a pleasing balance of the two, is a 'holy grail' of sorts that has not yet been reached.
Something in me suspects that the ultra high performance lenses like the APO lenses, and the Otuses are basically just good for billboards. The slightly lesser lenses might be better for the "artist". Older summiluxes and things.
You'll notice that many members have a number of lenses in particular focal lengths, largely because 'ideal' depends on the subject .
nebula wrote:
Something in me suspects that the ultra high performance lenses like the APO lenses, and the Otuses are basically just good for billboards. The slightly lesser lenses might be better for the "artist". Older summiluxes and things.
As an extension of the above, the Otuses (Otii?) are good for more than billboards. Being f/1.4 apochromatic lenses makes them ideal for shooting wide-open in adverse conditions that would otherwise introduce distracting (and distructive) aberrations, allowing them to preserve contrast especially in the transition zones and in the background. And they really do have that 'medium format look', which I cannot describe in words .
I tried one out in the strangest of places. On the Midway of the Minnesota State Fair, I ended up chatting with a A7 user. We swapped lenses for a few minutes with him using my Contax G 45mm.
It seemed to have something really special for nearer shots, but at further focus distances I was less impressed. My Contax G 45mm, an excellent lens, was the yardstick - in more general terms it was excellent. It looked and felt great, obviously a lot nicer to focus than my G45. :-P It wouldn't be worth that kind of cash to me, but I'm a lowly sys admin, not a hedge fund manager or dentist, so don't read too far into that.
When I got home, I looked the lens up and saw what it cost new... Yikes! I'm lucky some kid didn't come running by when I was mounting it, smashing it against the sticky pavement or knocking it into the trash. Fun place to run into a fellow alt lens user.
Thanks for those observations. In particular, John, I found what you said with regard to shooting at f/1.4 in adverse conditions, illuminating. I stated an extreme viewpoint specifically to find out why I might be wrong about the Oti et. al.
And of course focal length is of paramount importance. I was merely getting at "what are the underlying qualities of relevance" in general, not for a particular focal length. Though I do understand that those qualities do change according to the magnification.
Probably after I experiment with the Zeiss 2/135 APO, I will rent the Oti and the 50AA and use the crap out of them to find out the answers I'm looking for. A worthwhile $3-400 experiment I think.
I will throw this out- what I'd like to see is an update to Sigma's 50/1.4 EX (not the Art) that has their latest coatings and AF. I'd be happy if I knew I could get one that'd nail it's targets, that lens has great rendering for the price!
I do need to check out Sigma lenses. I just got infatuated with the simplicity of manual focusing on the A7. But I enjoyed the Merrill cameras. Good company.
The 50 AA price is in line with general Leica pricing. If it were a ZM, it would have been sold at around 2500$. It is an excellent lens by all means, and considering the size and weight, much more usable than the Otus. However, my ZM 50 planar gives me 80-90% of the AA performance at 1/8 of the price. Good enough for me.
Yeah but what is "performance"? Is it a linear thing that merely increases with price and precision? Or is it something subtler? I understand what you're saying if what you mean is that the ZM and the 50AA are qualitatively similar except perhaps the 50AA has less CA and better corner sharpness. But is the measure of a lens capturable by generic testing by sites like DxO et. al? There must be more to it.
But looking at some portraits in the Otus thread, my mind is sort of blown. The detail is there but the harshness is not. Like my Sigma Merrills were supposed to be as sharp as anything, but they didn't capture like that. Every unsightly pimple was there. How does the Otus know how to delete pimples (joke)?
edwardkaraa wrote:
The 50 AA price is in line with general Leica pricing. If it were a ZM, it would have been sold at around 2500$. It is an excellent lens by all means, and considering the size and weight, much more usable than the Otus. However, my ZM 50 planar gives me 80-90% of the AA performance at 1/8 of the price. Good enough for me.
Edward, you provided very good answer to many photographers who have much to learn and to respect as well as all others on all photo forums who need constant reminders of the old truth that cameras produce pixels/grain, where photogs create artistic outcome regardless of gear.
nebula wrote:
But looking at some portraits in the Otus thread, my mind is sort of blown. The detail is there but the harshness is not. Like my Sigma Merrills were supposed to be as sharp as anything, but they didn't capture like that. Every unsightly pimple was there. How does the Otus know how to delete pimples (joke)?
If you're talking about wiseguy10's shots of his daughter, he softened the skin in PP and there was some discussion about that. Having said that, I do feel that the Otus 55 doesn't look harshly sharp even in shots that haven't been processed like that.
The design ideology behind it was to create a lens that didn't add or subtract anything to the capture. And it succeeded at doing that... Weirdly enough it also somehow in the absences of character, has a character.. It's not clinical or any of the things you'd call modern Leica lenses.. It's perfect, but yet has so much character in its perfectness. It's weird.
One problem, ghosting and veiling flare. Took me three tries to correct that issue, and it lost a bit of it's earlier "pop" color and contrast, although not perfectly corrected, overall it's a more predictable lens because of the constant tweaking at Leica Germany.
When I'm using it, I feel happy. I like the results, and I think the lens best reflects what I like in photographs.
Some days I feel a little adventurous and I pick up my 50 Summilux-ASPH or my Noctilux (or other 50mm lenses I own).. I always go back to the 50APO though, as I find everything else I use now is just gimmicky or wild.. Funny thing is, when I'm shooting weddings I use a 35FLE and 75APO, but the odd time I shoot with a 50, I'd grab the LUX, it's a lot more in line with what people like seeing at weddings. The 50APO is really just my personal happy lens.
With other lenses, I either notice things I don't like about them, or I just can't get the files to look the way I want them to look. The 50APO doesn't disappoint in that sense... However, my wife much prefers I take photos of her with the 5D3+50ART... Soo maybe I'm just crazy and I see what I want to see. I really don't think it's that though, since I have other expensive lenses I don't like as much.
Edward is right, the 50ZM is a lens I'd whole heartedly recommend. It's not anywhere near the same lens as the 50APO, but I don't mean that in a bad way.. I just mean, it's its own lens, with it's own unique character. Just like the 50MPZE (which is still my favourite Zeiss lens). Sure it's the same size, and sure it's almost as sharp, but that's where the similarities end.
People can compare lenses all day long, and nobody's going to be right or wrong once you step away from MTF graphs and start shooting. It's all going to be what you like, and what you're trying to achieve. If a lens can help you convey your mood, then that's the lens for you, no matter the brand or MTF stats.
Thank you Jako! Adam is absolutely right in his description and I fully agree.
Better is always subjective. All modern lenses are close in performance, but the rendering is different. The AA is certainly the most perfect lens among any M mount lens. But the price of perfection is very high. If I had the money I would get the AA. The lux is great if you like big OOF blur discs, and smooth skin rendering. The ZM 50 is IMO a very well behaved lens with no major flaws. It draws very nicely, but certainly is not perfect. It does the job for me though. Ymmv.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Thank you Jako! Adam is absolutely right in his description and I fully agree.
Better is always subjective. All modern lenses are close in performance, but the rendering is different. The AA is certainly the most perfect lens among any M mount lens. But the price of perfection is very high. If I had the money I would get the AA. The lux is great if you like big OOF blur discs, and smooth skin rendering. The ZM 50 is IMO a very well behaved lens with no major flaws. It draws very nicely, but certainly is not perfect. It does the job for me though. Ymmv....Show more →
I agree. Just because I can't afford one does not preclude admiring the lens and the will to produce it.
johnctharp wrote:
I will throw this out- what I'd like to see is an update to Sigma's 50/1.4 EX (not the Art) that has their latest coatings and AF. I'd be happy if I knew I could get one that'd nail it's targets, that lens has great rendering for the price!
My Sigma 50 1.4 EX is probably the best overall 50mm lens I've used, esp for portraits - it really excels with busy backgrounds.
I don't use mine as much nowadays as I don't own a Canon FF body anymore, also its rather large and the MF ring isn't the smoothest, but I was taking a few shots with it today on the A7 and it reminded my of just how good of a lens it is.....f/2....
and I'm after the Lux 80mm! what body are you using?