Andrew CD
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.4 #5 · Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux (pre asph) - v1, v2 & v3 | |
lifeandmylens wrote:
Thanks. Great feedback and observations! I don’t think it’s wrong to be surprised by these things. The asph is 50 years newer!
I agree with you. I no longer am as crazy about the buttery smooth rendering of the asph like I used to be. Lately, I’ve been preferring more character, less perfection and sometimes unpredictable and wild rendering. So I like the pre asph luxes more 
Thank you! The sentence I’ve highlighted here is precisely what I am thinking — the v3 pre-Asph being “more variable” (the rather subjective way I put it in my previous post) is not unattractive. More attractive than I used to think, in fact. This thread, and your excellent comparisons, are really helping crystallise what I am thinking about these lenses.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I like both, too. I like that the v1 has retro f/2-style bokeh but gives you f/1.4 light gathering. Its bokeh reminds me a lot of the LLL 50 Elcan replica. I think the v3 could be a straight-up alternative to the ASPH if you want something less atmospheric and dominant to the image at f/1.4 and close distances. I really think there's a place for all three, especially if you wanted to go with the close-focus ASPH and dedicate that to live view on an SL camera.
Exactly! @RustyRus is quite correct, in my view, in saying that the v1 has even more character. But as a (single lens) alternative to the Asph, for me, the v3 seems to me to be just the ticket.
This thread has, I am sorry to say, caused me to spend a little more time googling ….
Here is a relevant thread on the Leica user forum. This link is to a post (#19) which has the MTF graphs for the v3 and the Asph. Quite a striking difference!
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/272324-that-much-difference-between-50-lux-asph-vs-v3/#comment-3274267
Interestingly, the v3 may even be marginally superior at the centre, but the graph is then pretty wild. Perhaps that explains the decidedly variable bokeh and OOF rendering!
A slightly earlier post in this thread (#8) gives an interesting, albeit rather negative, perspective on the pre-Asphs. This is, though, in the context of a thread comparing against the Asph. Objectively, I would not dispute what Adan is saying, but I don’t feel that it is inconsistent with the views [about the v3] that we have in this thread.
I also rather like what Puts has to say in the ‘Performance issues’ section of this page:
http://photo.imx.nl//leica/lenses/lenses/page57.html
The Rembrandt / Vermeer analogy is wonderful, and captures the distinction perfectly.
Finally, there is some excellent discussion in this thread, too (some of you will doubtless remember it). I particularly like @Steve Spencer 's MTF 90/80/60 metric, here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1791102/1#16185422
It is perhaps fair to say that the Asph is both outstanding and no longer quite state of the art. Fred articulates that quite nicely here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1707236/0&year=2021#15635977
If that is true of the Asph, it is true in spades of the v3 (and earlier versions)! But there is a big ‘but’ ….
The reason I am so tempted by the v3 and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the Asph is not that I want a technically perfect, state-of-the art lens for landscapes. I have the CV f/2.0 APO for that (and I also have the non-APO Summicron, which is no slouch; its lower contrast is arguably good for B&W). The essential point is that both the v3 and the Asph would be a complement to the CV APO.
Either (Asph and pre-Asph) would be great but, for me, there is no reason not to prefer the more eccentric character of the v3. It certainly seems fair to say that there is a place for the spherical nature of the pre-Asphs, without a degree of correction that can sometimes appear clinical. And the potential for different (sometimes unpredictable!) bokeh and OOF rendering can be quite an attractive proposition.
Andrew
|
