Re: Leica 50mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux-R vs Leica 50mm ƒ/2.0 Summicron-R
I am going to add to this old thread. The Summilux in the beginning was designed as a specialized lens for handheld night photography and astrophotography. Bokeh was not the intent. The early summilux's were a compromise and the summicron was the lens of choice if you wanted to do general photography.
Ignoring the first Summilux-M produced briefly, the Summilux-M type 2 as well as the first version of the Summilux-R including the E55 revision were designed for excellent coma correction and outstanding performance against ghost images from bright light sources. There were minor differences here and there between the Summilux-M type 2 and Summilux-R Version 1/E55, but overall, the design goal and character were the same. Lecia focused on the best performance it could achieve at f/1.4, but this came at a cost of lower corner performance stopped down. Lenses from other manufacturers had poorer performance at wider apertures especially f/1.4 but would beat the Summilux stopped down especially in the edges. So, if this is not your intended shooting condition, then the Summicron is the better choice.
At the time and even today this is a big deal as many 50/1.4 lenses still suffer from bad coma especially wide open. 8 years after the first Summilux-R Nikon released the 58mm Noct f/1.2 with the same design intent to correct coma at wide apertures. In order to achieve this Nikon had to use a hand ground aspherical element. This was an expensive lens and still remains expensive today. The Noct also had to sacrifice corner performance and at the wider apertures had lower contrast. The Summilux had better contrast at wider apertures than the Nikkor-Noct. Other than the corner performance the Summilux had very strong performance in the center at wider apertures. I don't know which lens is better with coma performance. I have never tested both side to side.
It was that way for many decades until the Summilux-R E60, which looked to improve upon the stopped down performance of the earlier Summilux. Leica added an additional lens element to help correct the curvature and corner astigmatism of the earlier Summilux. The literature says they also improved coma performance further. I have not done nor seen a test to confirm or deny this. However, I have seen some tests done and the E60 seems to do slightly worse when it comes to color fringing compared to the earlier Summilux. The earlier Summilux was not APO, but very well corrected against color fringing for a lens of that era. This is the first version of the Summilux that also performed well for general use and finally it could meet or exceed the Summicron stopped down.
The next evolution came with the Summilux-M Asph where Leica added an aspherical element to correct curvature and astigmatism and improve f/1.4 performance even further. In addition, a floating element was added to improve close up performance. The Summilux's of the past were tuned for infinity performance and close up performance suffered. I haven't found anything on how it does with coma. I assume Leica would keep the original intent of the lens. This lens finally was able to beat the Summicron stopped down and is no longer a specialized lens.
The Summilux-R E60 and Summicron-M Asph are both very expensive lenses but if you want a night lens and also use the same lens for general photography, then they are the best choice, but you are going to pay a large premium. With the earlier Summilux you have to keep in mind it is a specialized lens while the Summicron is a general-purpose lens. Comparing sharpness or bokeh is missing the main purpose of the lens: coma correction, ghosting performance with pointed sources of light, and color fringing for night photography at wide apertures.
Re: Leica 50mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux-R vs Leica 50mm ƒ/2.0 Summicron-R
I am going to add to this old thread. The Summilux in the beginning was designed as a specialized lens for handheld night photography and astrophotography. Bokeh was not the intent. The early summilux's were a compromise and the summicron was the lens of choice if you wanted to do general photography.
Ignoring the first Summilux-M produced briefly, the Summilux-M type 2 as well as the first version of the Summilux-R including the E55 revision were designed for excellent coma correction and outstanding performance against ghost images from bright light sources. There were minor differences here and there between the Summilux-M type 2 and Summilux-R Version 1/E55, but overall, the design goal and character were the same. Lecia focused on the best performance it could achieve at f/1.4, but this came at a cost of lower corner performance stopped down. Lenses from other manufacturers had poorer performance at wider apertures especially f/1.4 but would beat the Summilux stopped down especially in the edges. So, if this is not your intended shooting condition, then the Summicron is the better choice.
At the time and even today this is a big deal as many 50/1.4 lenses still suffer from bad coma especially wide open. 7 years after the first Summilux-R Nikon released the 58mm Noct f/1.2 with the same design intent to correct coma at wide apertures. In order to achieve this Nikon had to use a hand ground aspherical element. This was an expensive lens and still remains expensive today. The Noct also had to sacrifice corner performance and at the wider apertures had lower contrast. The Summilux had better contrast at wider apertures than the Nikkor-Noct. Other than the corner performance the Summilux had very strong performance in the center at wider apertures. I don't know which lens is better with coma performance. I have never tested both side to side.
It was that way for many decades until the Summilux-R E60, which looked to improve upon the stopped down performance of the earlier Summilux. Leica added an additional lens element to help correct the curvature and corner astigmatism of the earlier Summilux. The literature says they also improved coma performance further. I have not done nor seen a test to confirm or deny this. However, I have seen some tests done and the E60 seems to do slightly worse when it comes to color fringing compared to the earlier Summilux. The earlier Summilux was not APO, but very well corrected against color fringing for a lens of that era. This is the first version of the Summilux that also performed well for general use and finally it could meet or exceed the Summicron stopped down.
The next evolution came with the Summilux-M Asph where Leica added an aspherical element to correct curvature and astigmatism and improve f/1.4 performance even further. In addition, a floating element was added to improve close up performance. The Summilux's of the past were tuned for infinity performance and close up performance suffered. I haven't found anything on how it does with coma. I assume Leica would keep the original intent of the lens. This lens finally was able to beat the Summicron stopped down and is no longer a specialized lens.
The Summilux-R E60 and Summicron-M Asph are both very expensive lenses but if you want a night lens and also use the same lens for general photography, then they are the best choice, but you are going to pay a large premium. With the earlier Summilux you have to keep in mind it is a specialized lens while the Summicron is a general-purpose lens. Comparing sharpness or bokeh is missing the main purpose of the lens: coma correction, ghosting performance with pointed sources of light, and color fringing for night photography at wide apertures.
Re: Leica 50mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux-R vs Leica 50mm ƒ/2.0 Summicron-R
I am going to add to this old thread. The Summilux in the beginning was designed as a specialized lens for handheld night photography and astrophotography. Bokeh was not the intent. The early summilux's were a compromise and the summicron was the lens of choice if you wanted to do general photography.
Ignoring the first Summilux-M produced briefly, the Summilux-M type 2 as well as the first version of the Summilux-R including the E55 revision were designed for excellent coma correction and outstanding performance against ghost images from bright light sources. There were minor differences here and there between the Summilux-M type 2 and Summilux-R Version 1/E55, but overall, the design goal and character were the same. Lecia focused on the best performance it could achieve at f/1.4, but this came at a cost of lower corner performance stopped down. Lenses from other manufacturers had poorer performance at wider apertures especially f/1.4 but would beat the Summilux stopped down especially in the edges. So, if this is not your intended shooting condition, then the Summicron is the better choice.
At the time and even today this is a big deal as many 50/1.4 lenses still suffer from bad coma especially wide open. 7 years later Nikon released the 58mm Noct f/1.2 with the same design intent to correct coma at wide apertures. In order to achieve this Nikon had to use a hand ground aspherical element. This was an expensive lens and still remains expensive today. The Noct also had to sacrifice corner performance and at the wider apertures had lower contrast. The Summilux had better contrast at wider apertures than the Nikkor-Noct. Other than the corner performance the Summilux had very strong performance in the center at wider apertures. I don't know which lens is better with coma performance. I have never tested both side to side.
It was that way for many decades until the Summilux-R E60, which looked to improve upon the stopped down performance of the earlier Summilux. Leica added an additional lens element to help correct the curvature and corner astigmatism of the earlier Summilux. The literature says they also improved coma performance further. I have not done nor seen a test to confirm or deny this. However, I have seen some tests done and the E60 seems to do slightly worse when it comes to color fringing compared to the earlier Summilux. The earlier Summilux was not APO, but very well corrected against color fringing for a lens of that era. This is the first version of the Summilux that also performed well for general use and finally it could meet or exceed the Summicron stopped down.
The next evolution came with the Summilux-M Asph where Leica added an aspherical element to correct curvature and astigmatism and improve f/1.4 performance even further. In addition, a floating element was added to improve close up performance. The Summilux's of the past were tuned for infinity performance and close up performance suffered. I haven't found anything on how it does with coma. I assume Leica would keep the original intent of the lens. This lens finally was able to beat the Summicron stopped down and is no longer a specialized lens.
The Summilux-R E60 and Summicron-M Asph are both very expensive lenses but if you want a night lens and also use the same lens for general photography, then they are the best choice, but you are going to pay a large premium. With the earlier Summilux you have to keep in mind it is a specialized lens while the Summicron is a general-purpose lens. Comparing sharpness or bokeh is missing the main purpose of the lens: coma correction, ghosting performance with pointed sources of light, and color fringing for night photography at wide apertures.
I hope this helps someone in the future.
Nov 07, 2022 at 12:38 PM
Previous versions of cbass's message #16088052 « Leica 50mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux-R vs Leica 50mm ƒ/2.0 Summicron-R »
