It's not soft per se, it just looks that way in comparison with the 50 Lux, a lens that costs more than three times as much. I reviewed the 50/2 Planar shots that I took in Lofoten and it's basically on the same general performance level as the Sonnar stopped down.
douglasf13 wrote:
Hmmm...Sean Reid showed in his review that the 50/2 Planar had slightly more resolution than the Summiliux at f8. Either way, the Summilux is sweet.
Reid's review was done on an M8, so he could not see the edges on a full frame. More importantly he said he used a beat up copy of a Summilux that performed significantly worse than one he had tried previously.
He said he suspects the Summilux to have been physically damaged. Looking at his images I'm inclined to agree. He's getting soft corners on an M8 at f/2 so something's was definitely wrong with his lens. So I wouldn't put too much stock in those images - no more than the reviewer.
In my experience the 50 Planar is very good indeed, and center sharpness may perhaps indeed match the Lux. There is some field curvature though.
This is a 50/2 Planar shot at f/5.6 or f/8, not sure (the M9 only records an approximate aperture as there is no electronic link between the camera and lens):
As you can see the resolution isn't uniform across the field. As far as I've been able to see from the 50 Lux ASPH, it has a completely even sharpness across the frame at anything beyond f/4.
In spite of thinking that the 50 Lux ASPH is perhaps the best lens ever made, and having a very low opinion of the Canon 50/1.4, I am still surprised at how much of a difference there is over so much of the test. I am happy that paying 10x as much gets you a very noticeable performance advantage. It reaffirms my belief that saving up for the best is actually worth it (for me; one could easily argue that 10x is too much for the difference).
Wayne, I did the 50 MP. The Rokkor is a different FL so I could not be bothered with it. I'll post the results.
Edit: Never mind, I'm a complete ass. I did it early this morning, apparently half asleep and only looked at the pictures now. I didn't shoot the 50 MP, but the 85 Planar
I wan't to say Thank you! for the 50mm comparison. I'm actually surprised at the difference. I've never owned an M Summilux and certainly not the ASPH version. My experience from other leica (M and R) lenses didn't prepare me for this difference. I used to think the EF50/1.4 is pretty sharp when stopped down. You know, "at f/8 they are all the same" sort of thinking.
Now I'm getting interested in an M lux 50 - I just need to find a good S/H copy and a good camera to go with it. I wonder how it performs as a short tele on a NEX?
Jonas B wrote:
I wan't to say Thank you! for the 50mm comparison. I'm actually surprised at the difference. I've never owned an M Summilux and certainly not the ASPH version. My experience from other leica (M and R) lenses didn't prepare me for this difference. I used to think the EF50/1.4 is pretty sharp when stopped down. You know, "at f/8 they are all the same" sort of thinking.
Now I'm getting interested in an M lux 50 - I just need to find a good S/H copy and a good camera to go with it. I wonder how it performs as a short tele on a NEX?
A used 50 Lux ASPH is darn near like finding a needle in a haystack (even a new one is tough to find still) and also is going to be over $3k minimum so I couldn't see putting one on a NEX.
Nothing wrong with the NEX of course but I'd go with a VC Nokton for anything other than a fullframe M9. The 50 1.5 easily rivals a pre-asph Lux and for about 1/4th or less of the cost
What's going on here? The Canon 50mm clearly has the branches in focus (which are very sharp) while the Leica has the building in focus (likewise, very sharp).
Jeff is right, the M9 is the right camera for the 50 Lux ASPH.
As you are in Sweden like me your options are:
1) To pay ~30,000 kr (~$4700) from a regular Leica dealer and wait six months to get it
2) have the luck to find an used one and probably pay more than for the new one (I've seen used be sold for as much as 40,000 kr (~$6300)
3) Get a used or new one off ebay (~25,000 kr + 30% VAT and customs = 37,000 kr)
4) Have the great luck to find a new or used one in Germany or another EU country and pay about the same you would 1). I got mine from Italy for €3,500 (~31kkr =~$4900 ) without any VAT or customs toll being added.
The NEX is great, but it would really be a waste of money to use the 50 Lux on a cropper. You need full frame to make full use of the lens and currently that's the Leica M9.
JamesBeach wrote:
What's going on here? The Canon 50mm clearly has the branches in focus (which are very sharp) while the Leica has the building in focus (likewise, very sharp).
millsart wrote:
A used 50 Lux ASPH is darn near like finding a needle in a haystack (even a new one is tough to find still) and also is going to be over $3k minimum so I couldn't see putting one on a NEX.
Nothing wrong with the NEX of course but I'd go with a VC Nokton for anything other than a fullframe M9. The 50 1.5 easily rivals a pre-asph Lux and for about 1/4th or less of the cost
I understand these lenses aren't up for sale every day. But it can't be impossible. Maybe it is better just buying a new one though, I don't know the current prices. Maybe they are around EUR 2.500-2.800 in any shape and colour.
Yup... as soon there is a FF LIVE camera able of taking the M mount lenses I would use that one for the Summilux. I used to own the CV50/1.5, I tried two different copies and it's an excellent lens. But searching the ultimate is not a task involving anything making a good second or third place.
I don't know how it turns out. Maybe there never will be a FF LIVE camera, or not one handling lenses for a short register distance. Maybe I'll be happy enough with a CV35/1.2 on a NEX 7 and forget about the Lux... or something else. Luka's thread here definitely made me interested in one though.
denoir wrote:
Jeff is right, the M9 is the right camera for the 50 Lux ASPH.
As you are in Sweden like me your options are:
(...)
The NEX is great, but it would really be a waste of money to use the 50 Lux on a cropper. You need full frame to make full use of the lens and currently that's the Leica M9.
What is it with a crop sensor camera making it not worthy the best there is? Doesn't it need any help it can get?
I checked the availability since my reply to Millsart and you are right... that's good... it will stop me from making anything stupid with a credit card. But it may be possible to find a new one in Germany for around EUR 2.800 (today that is SEK 25.000 "only").
Nah, I'll wait and see what coming FF cameras will look like. But forgetting your comparison will not be easy.
Are you certain? Those branches are the sharpest thing in any of those 100% crops taken from the Canon, even compared to dead center. Also, the curvature you speak of would have to be very severe to go out of registration by that much--those branches are on the nearside of the river.
Well Jonas, although I suspect your question wasn't all that serious, I'll answer it anyway. There are two answers to that. First of all is that you'll miss all the sweet stuff going on in the corners. It's like a pizza without the outer crust. (I know some people prefer it that way).
The second thing is that you are paying premium for a fast lens. I'll just copy paste a bit about that from a recent discussion of using the 50 Lux on an M8 (1.33x crop):
----
Suppose you shoot something at 2 meter distance with the 50 Summilux ASPH, wide open. On the M9 you get a DOF of approximately 8.4 cm. If you do the same framing on an M8, you have to stand 1.33x2 meters away = 2.66 meter from the subject. That gives a DOF of 15 cm. On the M9 that's the equivalent of stopping down to f/2.5. This is the difference in DOF:
JamesBeach wrote:
Are you certain? Those branches are the sharpest thing in any of those 100% crops taken from the Canon, even compared to dead center. Also, the curvature you speak of would have to be very severe to go out of registration by that much--those branches are on the nearside of the river.
Yes, 100% certain. That's not at all unusual. Field curvature at the edges tends to be extreme. The Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar for instance is even worse as it goes in the other direction (you focus at something a meter away and get infinity in focus at the corners).
In the case of the Canon the center is in perfect focus and shows very high resolution and the edges instead of being at infinity are at a distance of 10-15 meters.
