In your experience with both lenses, which provides the more luscious bokeh? The 50 1.4 ASPH or the 50.2 ASPH? Thanks. And just out of curiosity, would the answer apply to the 35 as well? Thanks.

-- Augusten Burroughs (TalkingDog@aol.com), December 31, 2000

Answers

Actually, neither of the 50's are ASPH - they both predate the use of aspherics by a few (or in the case of the 1.4, many) years.

As far as bokeh goes, I think the 1.4 takes the title, but that comes at a price. The Summicron is sharper at wide apertures, and has somewhat higher contrast. I know many who are ardent proponents of the Summilux, but I know most consider the 'cron to be the definitive Leica lens, and I've never heard anyone complain about its bokeh.

I had a chrome Summilux on an M4 back in the mid 70's, and I have a recentish Summicron now. All in all I like the look of the Summicron better - it's snappier. I always felt the Summilux looked a bit mushy, especially at 2.0 and 1.4.

About the 35's, they are both ASPH lenses (which is where the confusion about the 50's probably came from) They are both amazing lenses - sharp, sharp, sharp, and the colour rendition is as good as you could ever ask for. The bokeh differs, though. I own both, and it was the first thing I noticed in shots with the 1.4. The 'cron has an overall smoothness and coherence to the image (in and out of focus) that I think edges it ahead of the 'lux. The Summicron also has smoother bokeh - the bokeh of the 1.4 is more angular. OTOH, the 'lux is just as sharp, and holds that quality right down to 1.4

If I had to keep one, I'd probably keep the Summilux, because nice as the Summicron is, that extra stop is just so useful.

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), December 31, 2000.

Just for your information, there is no ASPH models for the 50mm 1.4 and 2.0. The 50/1.4 is supposed to have the better Bokeh, (the Leica 'Glow). I have both the 1.4 and 2.0 and would have to say the 1.4 has the better Bokeh.

-- Steve LeHuray (icommag@toad.net), December 31, 2000.

This topic has been debated quite a bit lately on the LUG (Leica users group). The thing that is clear after reading the arguments for several days is... there is no real answer. The theory about Bokeh is based on someone's opinion. Some of the images posted as an example of "bad" bokeh are the ones I would love to have produced... maybe I am blind or stupid. Or maybe that is why there is chocolate and vanilla.

My personal choice for great background blur is the last non-ASPH 35mm Summicron. It has just the right amount of soft yet recognizable background information, and a very gradual slide from sharp to unsharp... at least to my eye.

Go to the tread below and scroll down to "BOKEH CONTROVERSY"... there are hours of fun reading, after which you still won't know which lens has the best Bokeh.

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v18/topics1.html

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 31, 2000.

Augusten,

I'd have to go with the 50 mm Summicron. I agree that the extra stop in the Summilux is nice but for the sake of lens weight (try to stay in line with the spirit of what owning a Leica M is about) I'd buy the Summicron. I agree that the 35 Summicron (non-ASPH) is probably the King of Bokeh (but that's just my opinion). I reserve the large apertures for the longer lenses (my 75 Summilux) as it makes more of a difference although depth of field is literally non-existent (but so can be said for the 50 mm Summilux too) at maximum aperture. Lastly, $$$$$$. Just can't get away from that aspect.

Good luck.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), December 31, 2000.

Will there ever be a 50 1.4 ASPH or a 50.2 ASPH? Is there a need to make these lenses aspheric

-- Jack Belen (jbelen@aol.com), January 01, 2001.

IMHO they don't need to put aspherical elements in the 50 mm lenses. Leica had ASPH elements in the first generation Noctilux but the later generation dispensed with the element and got better performance. IMHO light falloff and spherical abberations are easily corrected for in this focal length and the addition of ASPH elements is a waste of $$$$$$. Wide angle is where you need it to control spherical abberations and also in telephoto to help control chromatic abberations. Like the tack-sharp 90 mm APO/ASPH is a good example (but I have the equally sharp and faster 75 Summilux that doesn't use ASPH elements).

P.S. Just my experience (limited somewhat) but the 35 Summicron ASPH BOKEH is not as pleasing as the old 35 Summicron's.

Regards,

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 01, 2001.

I agree with John, in that with the modern optical glasses, the normal focal length does not challenge the designers enough to require aspherical surfaces, even at f/1. I've been wanting a fast 50 lately. I have a collapsible Summicron, a 1969-79 Summicron, and the one just after that. That's enough Summicrons. During a visit to NYC last week, I looked at a recent but not current Lux at Stan Tamarkin's. They wanted $1095.00 and I didn't buy. It gave me sticker shock. I just couldn't do it. If I fing one at a nice price, I will get it, but NEVER instead of my Summicrons, only in addition to.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 03, 2001.

To further add to the ASPH arguement,

I think with exception to the 90 and the 21 I wouldn't want ASPH elements in my lenses. They DO make a difference in the correction of spherical aberrations and vignetting in a wide-angle lens and in a telephoto they are important for correcting chromatic aberrations BUT maybe its just me.... the addition of ASPH elements complicates the BOKEH of many lenses. Like the 35 Summicron and the 35 ASPH Summicron. Light falloff is marginally better on the ASPH but the BOKEH suffers.

Anyone else feel the same??????

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 05, 2001.

Bob, Which of your three Summicron 50's do you tend to use most? I also have the 70's rigid black, and love it. Sharp enough (I hand hold mostly, so the lens is not the limiting factor) with that lovely bokeh.

-- Mark Wrathall (Wrathall@aon.at), January 06, 2001.

Mark: I like the 70's black version also. The collapsible model sees use for color, when I want to soften the contrast. I find it differs with the later lenses in contrast, more so than for sharpness. Sharpness differences seem to be wiped out by camera movement, even at 1/250 or 1/500. Also, I like focusing and shooting best with the 70's lens. I don't like the focus tab on the model just after it, even though I like focus tabs just fine on my wide angle lenses. It doesn't feel right on the 80's version. I think it's a little too long, and curved the wrong way compared to my other Leica lenses. The focus tabs on my 28mm and 35mm I find very natural to use.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 06, 2001.

You observant folks have voiced many thoughts which have sometimes occured to me, but I never thought of formalizing them. It's hard for me to imagine any newer lens producing pictures as beautiful as my 35mm bugeye Summicron and 50mm DR Summicron did on Kodachrome II film, back in the 70s. Sharper and contrastier ain't necessarily any better, except for lenses like the old 35mm Summilux, which is definitely soft wide open.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), January 06, 2001.