p.1 #1 · Zeiss Sonnar 50 vs Summilux 50 mm f/1.4 Pre-ASPH (v2 or v3)
I'd love to hear what others think about comparisons between these 2 lenses. I just got the summilux v2 and have only had time to shoot a couple of test shots as shown below. I asked ChatGPT whether it though my images have 3D pop, and here's what it says. Any thoughts?
What I See in Your Shots
• Subject Separation: The man in the orange shirt stands out clearly from the background foliage. The transition from sharpness (face, shirt detail) into blur is smooth, creating depth.
• Microcontrast: The Summilux v2 tends to have lower contrast and a bit of glow wide open. That slightly softens edges, so the “3D pop” is subtler compared to the Zeiss.
• Background Blur: The background is blurred nicely, but the bokeh is a little busier and less “melted” than what you’d see from the Sonnar. The Zeiss’s design pushes backgrounds further away, enhancing that medium-format-like effect.
⸻
Comparison to the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5
• Zeiss Sonnar: Stronger microcontrast, higher central sharpness wide open, and smoother bokeh transitions. This combination often makes the subject “jump out” more — the classic Zeiss 3D pop.
• Summilux Pre-ASPH v2: More romantic rendering, softer glow, and creamier highlights. It does isolate the subject, but with a more painterly look rather than that Zeiss punch.
⸻
✅ Bottom line:
Your Lux v2 definitely produces some 3D separation, especially in these portraits, but the Zeiss Sonnar exaggerates the effect more strongly because of its higher microcontrast and unique background rendering.
p.1 #2 · Zeiss Sonnar 50 vs Summilux 50 mm f/1.4 Pre-ASPH (v2 or v3)
Remember the AI is just a giant search engine that interacts using natural language. It compiles a massive source of data made by humans to draw conclusions. It will be interesting to see what happens as it starts to feed itself and if it just deteriorates into nonsense or transforms into something impressive.
p.1 #3 · Zeiss Sonnar 50 vs Summilux 50 mm f/1.4 Pre-ASPH (v2 or v3)
My human opinion. Both show subject isolation because of the wide aperture. Neither is dimensional because the aperture is open too wide, and the background blur is a bit nervous making it look unnatural. If you stopped down a little, then it might improve things as the bokeh might smooth out.
The AI is not wrong that Zeiss lenses tend to have more micro contrast, but IMO the lux is about as good as it gets with micro contrast and competitive even with Zeiss on this particular lens.
The white balance seems a bit off or some slight color cast with the picture of the man. Subtle but there.
p.1 #4 · Zeiss Sonnar 50 vs Summilux 50 mm f/1.4 Pre-ASPH (v2 or v3)
cbass wrote:
My human opinion. Both show subject isolation because of the wide aperture. Neither is dimensional because the aperture is open too wide, and the background blur is a bit nervous making it look unnatural. If you stopped down a little, then it might improve things as the bokeh might smooth out.
The AI is not wrong that Zeiss lenses tend to have more micro contrast, but IMO the lux is about as good as it gets with micro contrast and competitive even with Zeiss on this particular lens.
The white balance seems a bit off or some slight color cast with the picture of the man. Subtle but there....Show more →
thanks, good info.
I admit my head was turned momentarily by the Zeiss, but I'm more than happy with the lux 50 pre-asph.
p.1 #5 · Zeiss Sonnar 50 vs Summilux 50 mm f/1.4 Pre-ASPH (v2 or v3)
brick33308 wrote:
thanks, good info.
I admit my head was turned momentarily by the Zeiss, but I'm more than happy with the lux 50 pre-asph.
I feel like I am saying the same thing in circles over different threads, but if you read the literature on the summilux 50 it was designed as a nighttime lens to be handheld. Their design goals were elimination of ghosting from point sources of light and coma correction. The non-asph version had curvature as a sacrifice. This is where the lens will shine. In certain situations, the bokeh is quite nervous and personally unappealing to me. In other situations, the bokeh is quite good and smooth. The sonnar seems better behaved with bokeh, but I would need to do a controlled comparison. The sonnar has a lot more aberrations, however, and is not as good as a general lens over the lux. The sonnar also can produce some funky bokeh when the conditions are right.
The bokeh is gorgeous to me, and I actually prefer it over the more corrected, smoother ASPH version...even though I own both. Rendering is personal, so go with whatever speaks to your own taste.
p.1 #10 · Zeiss Sonnar 50 vs Summilux 50 mm f/1.4 Pre-ASPH (v2 or v3)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The bokeh is gorgeous to me, and I actually prefer it over the more corrected, smoother ASPH version...even though I own both. Rendering is personal, so go with whatever speaks to your own taste.
agreed thanks. I also have both (one of them being the ASPH that I stupidly thought was pre-asph when I bought it, but I turned out to really enjoy the lens so I'm keeping it even though I'm not sure when I'd ever chose it for a shoot instead of the pre-asph v2 that I just acquired).
