Fred Miranda wrote:
Andrew,
That would definitely be instructive ...I'll try to put it together soon. From what I recall and see with my own eyes, their rendering is quite distinct:
CV 50mm f/1.5 Heliar:
Higher resolution and contrast at close distances, especially at minimum focus. This is pretty unique behavior.
Resolution drops at mid and long distances as aberrations increase.
Shows glow wide open: The farther the focused subject, the more pronounced the glow.
Bokeh balls have a uniform outlining and tend to stretch into an oval shape toward the edges, similar to the Leica 50/1.4 pre-ASPH v2 and v3.
Very good flare resistance.
______________
Leica 50mm f/1.5 Summarit:
Lower contrast and resolution at all distances, especially at MFD (1m).
Beats the Heliar in resolution at mid and long distances.
Similar glow wide open, possibly a bit more at all distances.
Bokeh balls take on a conical shape toward the edges. (Similar to Leica 50/1.4 Pre-apsh v1)
Also has outlining, but it only partially wraps the highlights... more irregular and patchy, like what you see in MS Optics Sonnetar designs.
Very susceptible to veiling flare....Show more →
This gives a great perspective, and is really very helpful. Thanks once again, Fred.
Although I’m very tempted by the Summarit (increasingly, I find some of these older lenses very appealing), the Heliar sounds quite fascinating, too. We’re really lucky to have such a wide choice for these marvellous cameras.
Andrew CD wrote:
This gives a great perspective, and is really very helpful. Thanks once again, Fred.
Although I’m very tempted by the Summarit (increasingly, I find some of these older lenses very appealing), the Heliar sounds quite fascinating, too. We’re really lucky to have such a wide choice for these marvellous cameras.
My advice is to wait for my Light Lens Lab 50mm f/1.5 Z21 review. I should post rendering comparisons to these lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
My advice is to wait for my Light Lens Lab 50mm f/1.5 Z21 review. I should post rendering comparisons to these lenses.
Excellent. Thank you, Fred. Looking forward to seeing it.
I see that they plan to announce further details today! And I trust that, when they said two months go that “ A prototype has been completed and has arrived in North America for testing“, they meant you. Smart move on Light Lab’s part, if I may say so.
The V2 and V3 are the smoothest imo.
It should be noted that lens formulas changed after serial #’s 1,844,000, so Ver. 2 and 3 are going to be close aside from maybe coating differences. Nothing beats the chromed brass version 3 @380g.
Yeah i did look at V1, V2, early V2 in V1 body, V3.
Finally decided on chromed brass V3. I really liked how the scalloped focus ring models since i had one 12-13 years ago, but 0.7 MFD is a killer feature of the V3, and chrome V3 looks really nice too!
johnld wrote:
The V2 and V3 are the smoothest imo.
It should be noted that lens formulas changed after serial #’s 1,844,000, so Ver. 2 and 3 are going to be close aside from maybe coating differences. Nothing beats the chromed brass version 3 @380g.
50/1.5 Summarit (left) vs 50mm/0.95 Noctilux
At close range, they seem similar to me. The 0.95 even has a glow.
They're completely different lenses at medium and long range. And that's why I love them so much together. I've already posted a cherry with the Summarit somewhere, so I'll do it again.
They're completely different lenses at medium and long range. And that's why I love them so much together. I've already posted a cherry with the Summarit somewhere, so I'll do it again.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
The new classic re issue which came out last December is a combination of various version while still be pre asph. I love its rendering.
Hopefully nothing to worry about, but passing this on as a cautionary note:
"Version 3 is the one that exhibits an apparently catastrophic and irreversible problem if it is exposed to too much UV light, to too much sunlight. Basically, it can happen that the specialized UV-cured glue or epoxy binder that is used in its construction clouds over, and this UV clouding is often considered irreversible because the bonded elements are so difficult and impossible to separate and clean without damaging the glass. So, while the version 2 here can exhibit some balsam separation and haze, you can have an irreversible problem that immediately renders a 2000 Euro lens basically worthless."
From the YouTube account 'Analog Insights':
‘Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH Review in New York City’ at 23:00 onwards.
G/AI apologized after first dismissing it, and gave this to the question:
"This specific flaw is the primary reason why many collectors and shooters intentionally avoid the v3 "Pre-ASPH" E46 model in favour of the older Version 2 (which uses older, more stable cementing methods) or the completely redesigned 50mm Summilux ASPH."
philip_pj wrote:
Hopefully nothing to worry about, but passing this on as a cautionary note:
"Version 3 is the one that exhibits an apparently catastrophic and irreversible problem if it is exposed to too much UV light, to too much sunlight. Basically, it can happen that the specialized UV-cured glue or epoxy binder that is used in its construction clouds over, and this UV clouding is often considered irreversible because the bonded elements are so difficult and impossible to separate and clean without damaging the glass. So, while the version 2 here can exhibit some balsam separation and haze, you can have an irreversible problem that immediately renders a 2000 Euro lens basically worthless."
From the YouTube account 'Analog Insights':
‘Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH Review in New York City’ at 23:00 onwards.
G/AI apologized after first dismissing it, and gave this to the question:
"This specific flaw is the primary reason why many collectors and shooters intentionally avoid the v3 "Pre-ASPH" E46 model in favour of the older Version 2 (which uses older, more stable cementing methods) or the completely redesigned 50mm Summilux ASPH."
Good Leica technicians…and Leica themselves, can fix the decementing issue with little to no remaining flaws. I think DAG charges about $500 for this service. It sounds like a quite tedious process, having to remove the elements and soak them to loosen apart, before removing the residue and re-gluing. That being said, it is precisely why I avoided the V3 and bought the V2 instead. If it hasn’t happened yet it will
rsolti13 wrote:
Good Leica technicians…and Leica themselves, can fix the decementing issue with little to no remaining flaws. I think DAG charges about $500 for this service. It sounds like a quite tedious process, having to remove the elements and soak them to loosen apart, before removing the residue and re-gluing. That being said, it is precisely why I avoided the V3 and bought the V2 instead. If it hasn’t happened yet it will
I don't think we can make a blanket statement like that. Element decementing specifically affects the 50/1.4 lux v3 pre-apsh (not v2), but it's far from universal...many v3 owners, myself included, have tested their lenses and have no separation issues at all.
It appears to be a batch-specific issue tied to the glue used during production in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Many Millennium Black Paint copies have this issue), though no specific serial number range has ever been confirmed. Because the defect takes 15 to 20 years to actually show up, Leica essentially dodged a recall. That said, if a v3 lens is clean and free of decementing by now, it's safe to say it likely won't develop it.
Is it general concensus that if the v3 doesn’t have decementing by now then it likely will not develop the issue? They are all over 20 years old I think.
each time I use this lens I remember why I love it so much. Wide open the vintage look is unmistakable. All shot with M11M, another piece of gear that I've been inadvertently ignoring lately.
philip_pj wrote:
Hopefully nothing to worry about, but passing this on as a cautionary note:
"Version 3 is the one that exhibits an apparently catastrophic and irreversible problem if it is exposed to too much UV light, to too much sunlight. Basically, it can happen that the specialized UV-cured glue or epoxy binder that is used in its construction clouds over, and this UV clouding is often considered irreversible because the bonded elements are so difficult and impossible to separate and clean without damaging the glass. So, while the version 2 here can exhibit some balsam separation and haze, you can have an irreversible problem that immediately renders a 2000 Euro lens basically worthless."
From the YouTube account 'Analog Insights':
‘Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH Review in New York City’ at 23:00 onwards.
G/AI apologized after first dismissing it, and gave this to the question:
"This specific flaw is the primary reason why many collectors and shooters intentionally avoid the v3 "Pre-ASPH" E46 model in favour of the older Version 2 (which uses older, more stable cementing methods) or the completely redesigned 50mm Summilux ASPH."
I think I also mentioned about the potential v3 issue on FM earlier which I saw from the same video you linked (I like this specific YouTube channel!). There is another lesser known benefit of the V2 over the v3 version: the V2 uses 12 aperture blades, Leica cut down in v3 to 9 blades. I personally prefer lenses which have more blades for better background wide open - I am very happy with my 50/1.4 pre-ASPH v2.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Because the defect takes 15 to 20 years to actually show up, Leica essentially dodged a recall.
The only recall I am aware Leica was forced to do is with the M9 sensor corrosion debacle. But there were other well known incidents where IMO a recall should have been placed - for example the significant patch flare starting in some M4 and later in all M6 series by removing an essential condenser part to save cost. Leica stringed this along until it finally replaced this patch in later M7 series and then in all MP series cameras. There are others like the moving arm inside the M5 for metering which tends to break after years of usage - maybe not as critical but still.
retrofocus wrote:
I think I also mentioned about the potential v3 issue on FM earlier which I saw from the same video you linked (I like this specific YouTube channel!). There is another lesser known benefit of the V2 over the v3 version: the V2 uses 12 aperture blades, Leica cut down in v3 to 9 blades. I personally prefer lenses which have more blades for better background wide open - I am very happy with my 50/1.4 pre-ASPH v2.
The number and shape of aperture blades doesn’t affect bokeh when the aperture is wide open. Only when a lens is stopped down will the bokeh balls appear in the aperture blades’ shape. That’s why the Summilux 50 ASPH’s notorious ninja-star bokeh appears at F2 and F2.8.
NodNova wrote:
The number and shape of aperture blades doesn’t affect bokeh when the aperture is wide open. Only when a lens is stopped down will the bokeh balls appear in the aperture blades’ shape. That’s why the Summilux 50 ASPH’s notorious ninja-star bokeh appears at F2 and F2.8.
Correct - this is what I meant but didn't clearly state in my post. The # of aperture blades makes a difference when closing down obviously.
