zhangyue
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.6 #16 · 350 vs 3500 50mm lens test | |
Agree with most of what you say objectively and the only difference for me is: it is a still a class of its own
I figured this out much later into my ownership. I dont like it as much as Luka did and this is one of few Leica glass I paid full retail but regret initially.
I think this lens offered all the requirements for me as fast glass: small, sharp (enough I guess) WO in most of frame, beautiful and reliable bokeh over most conditions, extreme sharp after f8 cross frame. Even give nice tasteful sun star than modern aggressive ones.
This is the pinnacle in lens design in my book. Not otus, not art, not gm, not RF. IMHO
rscheffler wrote:
The Canon will be sharper wide open and more consistent across the frame. The Lux ASPH is a very good lens, but it has some imperfections that can affect sharpness and bokeh quality. I've used and loved one for ~7 years now, on Leica digital and in a nutshell: it's not ultra sharp wide open, rather with a bit of SA mixed in that IMO is a nice look. More so at closer distances. Background blur can be very Gaussian, but it doesn't quite hold across the entire frame depending on camera to subject to background distance ratios. There is a mid-zone dip in sharpness and related funky field curvature that becomes more pronounced in the f/2.8-f/4 range until depth of field starts to tame it. That field curvature also appears to swing strongly towards the background at the very edges of the frame. If it swung towards the camera, background blur in this region would look nicer when there isn't a lot of subject/background separation. Also, the Lux's aperture takes on a noticeable 'ninja star' shape past f/2. Apparently this is to tame focus shift, but results in potentially unattractive OOF specular highlights.
I've briefly shot with the Canon RF 50/1.2L, though not yet in situations where I could take the images home with me. Its rendering feels like a modern lens - generally clean and neutral. There is some character wide open but in respect to sharpness it's a much more consistent performer through the aperture range. The Lux is somewhat dual-character. As mentioned, the touch of SA wide open takes some edge off sharpness. Stopping down just to f/2 and the central area really increases a lot in sharpness and contrast. I generally use it either wide open or at f/2 depending on how much on-subject sharpness I want while retaining its very pleasing background rendering. I avoid f/2.8-4.5 unless the subject is centrally located and bokeh rendering is not a consideration (or the background lacks strong OOF speculars) and will use it again at f/5.6 and higher when I need depth of field and optimum across-frame sharpness.
IMO, the 50 Cron APO ASPH is probably a closer competitor to the Canon, though obviously a fair amount slower. It has much more consistent across-frame performance through all apertures and is already blazing sharp from wide open, though with pleasing rendering (some still prefer the Lux ASPH).
The original post by Luka was certainly an inspiration for my acquisition of the Lux ASPH that year (I'm also a Canon user and definitely felt the system lacked a great 50, which wasn't addressed until the recent TS-E 50/2.8 and now this RF 50/1.2), but a lot has changed in 50mm lens options the relatively few years since then, such as the 50 Cron AA, Sony 55/1.8, 50/1.4, Canon RF 50/1.2, Nikon Z 50/1.8S, Voigtlander 50/1.2 Asph, 50 Lux-SL, 50 Cron-SL (coming soon), Panasonic 50/1.4, Sigma Arts... to the point where the 50 Lux ASPH-M is no longer in a class of its own....Show more →
|
