I am now contemplating the Summilux-R 50/1.4 E60 - ultimate thing maybe, surely expensive, seems good.
I have checked for samples, here in old archived threads, at pBase and by normal searches. From what I have seen I can't say much except of that the lens is not bad. It really is hard to learn a lot about lenses from web pictures.
Any opinion, experience or encouraging or bashing is welcome! Before shelling out USD 2.500 or more to get one I would of course like to be convinced about the rationalities in this... Also, if anyone know where you can get it for less money than the USD 2.800 B+H asks for it I would like to know about it. I do own two nice Leica lenses but I'm not a leica gearhead and can't say I'm familiar with the ways these lenses travels around the globe.
I believe the current 50 Lux R is the best all-around SLR 50mm lens around. Obviously it can't do f/1.0 or 1.2, but it's the sharpest out there and draws well. There is slightly more distortion than the 50 Cron, but way less than Canon 50/1.4. You should be able to get a nice used one for less than $2,000. If you're after a brand new one, give one of the Hong Kong companies on eBay a try.
A little OT, but kind of related: How well do you focus the 80 Lux wide open? I (and others) have had problems focusing using the microprism or split screen with the Lux lenses. It seems that when the image appears perfectly focused on the microprism, the resulting picture is front-focused. However, on the same screen, if the focus is attained on the ground glass portion, then the focus is right on. I have gone to an all ground glass screen on the R9/DMR and back to the original screen on the 1DsII.
Thank you Peter, I understand you like the 50 Lux E60. What you say here pretty much match the impression I have got from the few and small samples I have found. I'm not worried about distorsion but more interested in microcontrast and bokeh. It doesn't need to be the "sharpest" but I do of cousre expect it do do well stopped down. Together with the bokeh I'm more concerned about flare, ghosting and a pleasing combination of contrast/resolution.
The 80 Lux played games with me for the first weeks. I had problems with the focusing and it took some practise to get it right. The problem wasn't the viewfinder screen (I use the Ee-S screen with the 5D. It's supposed to do well with manual focusing, is a bit darker due to a more coarse etching and is a plain ground glass with no focusing aid), but more some need of practise to nail the focus and learn to focus stopped down (f/2 and f/2.8) as there is a slight focus shift taking place.
@all: more comments on the 50 Lux E60 are welcome.
PSquared63 wrote:
I believe the current 50 Lux R is the best all-around SLR 50mm lens around. Obviously it can't do f/1.0 or 1.2, but it's the sharpest out there and draws well. There is slightly more distortion than the 50 Cron, but way less than Canon 50/1.4. You should be able to get a nice used one for less than $2,000. If you're after a brand new one, give one of the Hong Kong companies on eBay a try.
A little OT, but kind of related: How well do you focus the 80 Lux wide open? I (and others) have had problems focusing using the microprism or split screen with the Lux lenses. It seems that when the image appears perfectly focused on the microprism, the resulting picture is front-focused. However, on the same screen, if the focus is attained on the ground glass portion, then the focus is right on. I have gone to an all ground glass screen on the R9/DMR and back to the original screen on the 1DsII....Show more →
Peter, that has been my experience with the 80 lux as well.
A good used Zeiss 50 f1.7 would allow you to give $1900 to charity.
> ...focusing using the microprism or split screen... when the image appears perfectly focused on the microprism, the resulting picture is front-focused... if the focus is attained on the ground glass portion, then the focus is right on.
That has been my experience with the britescreen on 5D. I now use Ee-S.
I wonder if the microprism was OK for the film, because there was no 100% crop pixel-peeping, but not good enough for digital. If so, somebody needs to design a better mousetrap for the digital age.
Hi eduwin,
I have read a couple of reports here saying the 50 Lux E60 is okay with the 5D if you remove some plastic (or rubber) shield from the lens' rear end. I hope this is true also for my 5D. If it doesn't work a Dremel or similar is cheap compared to that lens...
If I decide to get the Summilux I'll check for this and possibly find mysel fhaving to make another decision. Thank you for reminding me,
@all: more comments on the 50 Lux E60 are welcome.
Hmm. Maybe I was mistaken? I thought this was the club for expensive and unnecessary lenses populated with people known for happily expressing their opinions?
Sofar I have got this:
"A good used Zeiss 50 f1.7 would allow you to give $1900 to charity." (brainiac)
"I believe the current 50 Lux R is the best all-around SLR 50mm lens around." (PSquared63)
"Is your 5D mirror has been shaved? ... cleaning the dusts... is the real problem" (eduwin)
Should that be all? Maybe I should just stick to my 50/1.2L and focus bracketing...
>> A good used Zeiss 50 f1.7 would allow you to give $1900 to charity.
Jonas - you only mentioned the 5D in your original post, not that you wanted to use a lens with Leica R bodies as well. Although I am sure there are visible differences between Zeiss and Leica 50's, $1900 is a big price difference, if you're shooting a 5D.
I don't think any f1.4 lens is going to obviate focus-bracketing on a 5D. F1.4 is always hard to place correctly. The Ee-S screen helps though.
I have shaved my 5D mirror with a grinder/drill. I used a short section of drinking straw taped to a vacuum cleaner to clean up the inside afterwards. It is a pretty hairy process, but doable if you're prepared to risk it. Generally it's a better idea than modifying the lens as lenses have longer useful lives.
brainiac wrote:
Jonas - you only mentioned the 5D in your original post, not that you wanted to use a lens with Leica R bodies as well. Although I am sure there are visible differences between Zeiss and Leica 50's, $1900 is a big price difference, if you're shooting a 5D.
I don't think any f1.4 lens is going to obviate focus-bracketing on a 5D. F1.4 is always hard to place correctly. The Ee-S screen helps though.
I have shaved my 5D mirror with a grinder/drill. I used a short section of drinking straw taped to a vacuum cleaner to clean up the inside afterwards. It is a pretty hairy process, but doable if you're prepared to risk it. Generally it's a better idea than modifying the lens as lenses have longer useful lives....Show more →
Richard, I have never discussed Leica R bodies. That was Peter Pak chiming in. Yes, the 50 Lux E60 is expensive. That's why I search for opinions here. I never thought I would get too exclusive for the gang here...
The 50/1.2L suffers from some focus shift between f/2 and f/4 approx. It doesn't matter how exact you focus. The focus plane will move away a bit wen stopping down. I have found that I can start with the focus the AF gives me. Then I can take two more pictures turning the focus ring ever so slightly inbetween.
I'll consider shaving my mirror (but I doubt it will be necessary for the 50 Lux). A drinking straw? Yes, why not, soft plastic is good. Thanks.
I used to have the E60 R50 1.4, awesome lens and awesome price, in terms of color, details, sharpness and especially contrast the lens is unbelievable. But in terms of bokeh the lens is extremely coarse, not suitable for portraiture, in that department the Canon 50 1.2L beats it and cost much lens. The color of the R50 1.4 is also a bit extreme, not as natural as the Zeiss 50 1.4 IMHO.
Schemeloong wrote:
I used to have the E60 R50 1.4, awesome lens and awesome price, in terms of color, details, sharpness and especially contrast the lens is unbelievable. But in terms of bokeh the lens is extremely coarse, not suitable for portraiture, in that department the Canon 50 1.2L beats it and cost much lens. The color of the R50 1.4 is also a bit extreme, not as natural as the Zeiss 50 1.4 IMHO.
Hmmmm... Scary reading. I would rather have both color, details, sharpness contrast _and_ bokeh that i could believe in. Bad bokeh is the reason for me not to try the Zeiss 50/1.4...
Thank you for commenting Schemeloong. I'll see if I can find out for myself one day.
@all: more comments on the 50 Lux E60 are, again, welcome!
I think pete is right about the 50 lux E60.... it's even better than the previous version which in itself is one of the greatest lens.
So, all things good, but bokeh is rather subjective.
For me, I favor dreamy bokeh like that of the Noct Nikkor. And if use correctly and artistically, the rather distinctive and, sometimes, distractive bokeh of old cinematic lens can produce very impressive results. Just MHO.
Jonas,
That's interesting about the canon 50 f/1.2 focus shift - never read about that. Have you had yours checked out by canon? How do you like the look of that lens? I'm guessing not too much?
I don't have the 50 lux but own the most recent 50 summicron which works nicely on the canon 5d without mods. If you need the extra stops then you need them, but the 50 cron is a beautfiul lens with incredible sharpness and saturated color plus good contrast starting at f/2.
I bought mine for $450. I think you'll find that the leice glass transitions faster from in focus to out of focus and will give you a shallower apparent depth of field than the canon. I haven't shot with the 50 1.2 so can't say for sure - maybe others will chime in.
I think pete is right about the 50 lux E60.... it's even better than the previous version which in itself is one of the greatest lens.
So, all things good, but bokeh is rather subjective.
For me, I favor dreamy bokeh like that of the Noct Nikkor. And if use correctly and artistically, the rather distinctive and, sometimes, distractive bokeh of old cinematic lens can produce very impressive results. Just MHO.
Yes, I like dreamy bokeh as well. Sometimes the dreamy bokeh is made up by flare, as in the picture above. Tha SMCP A50/1.2 has good resolution (imo) also wide open but low contrast paired with flare/ghosting. The we have dreamy bokeh of the Noctilux type also. The Noct Nikkor is far too expensive for me. It would be fun trying it but to my understanding sample differences are common. Together with the high price I just prefer not to think about that lens...
The flare/ghosting at large openings can be nice but I would prefer not having it. There are too many pictures that are affected in a negative way by this. It's the same as with the EF50/1.4 which many likes (I don't) but consider to be real useable from f/2 or so.
I understand I have to try the 50 Lux E50 for myself.
Btw, I was out yesterday and took some flary pictures with the Zuiko 21/2.0 for you. I'll post them in your thread later. regards,
EricH wrote:
Jonas,
That's interesting about the canon 50 f/1.2 focus shift - never read about that. Have you had yours checked out by canon? How do you like the look of that lens? I'm guessing not too much?
I don't have the 50 lux but own the most recent 50 summicron which works nicely on the canon 5d without mods. If you need the extra stops then you need them, but the 50 cron is a beautfiul lens with incredible sharpness and saturated color plus good contrast starting at f/2.
I bought mine for $450. I think you'll find that the leice glass transitions faster from in focus to out of focus and will give you a shallower apparent depth of field than the canon. I haven't shot with the 50 1.2 so can't say for sure - maybe others will chime in. ...Show more →
Somebody asked if the 50L is a fiasco, there was some replies, I wrote:
"Compared to the EF50/1.4 the 50L is the better lens, to my taste, when comparing the rendering of the OOF parts of pictures. This is valid for highlights as well as for other things normally screaming for attention. The 50L draws these softer and with less double lining. Other differences is the higher contrast at large aperture openings and much less flare/ghosting.
^^Quoting myself there... And the picture quality is far from a fisco.
On the other hand it is a fiasco as you have big problems knowing if your picture will be correctly focused or not. There is a focus shift when stopping down the lens. I can live with that for a longer lens used in a slow pace (like some portrait situations) where you intend to use the largest openings only.
With a 50mm it is another thing. Imo you should be able to use it in the streets, for reportage, for fast work and so on. Well, you can, but only if you stick to f/1.2...
If you have the time and want the best a 50 can make for you it's a great lens. But it still may be a fisco."
I have the Summicron 50, latest version, and it's a nice lens. Before I asked about the 50 Lux I listed, briefly and shallow, my findings about some 50mm lenses: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/515410/1
third, and last, post on that page.
regards,
Also, if anyone know where you can get it for less money than the USD 2.800 B+H asks for it I would like to know about it. I do own two nice Leica lenses but I'm not a leica gearhead and can't say I'm familiar with the ways these lenses travels around the globe. 