1.4 vs. 2.0. It's a difference in both the weight and price. Is it worth paying almost double the price of a 2.0 for a little bit more aperature opening? Is the bigger aperature only for working under dim light? I know there is an important reason people are buying 50mm Summicron 1.4. Please tell me why.

Thank you for the answer,

James Lin

-- James Lin (sigpe57@yahoo.com), April 27, 2001

Answers

The sharpness and contrast of the 50/1.4 lags a bit behind the (latest) 50/2 until about f/4. But both lenses are quite extraordinary. If you seriously need f/1.4, go for it, but get the latest 50/1.4 (E46 with built-in hood) as it focuses to 0.7m vs 1.0m for the earlier editions. I personally own only one f/1.4 M lens, which is the 35 ASPH. It is hand-holdable 1 speed slower than the 50 (for me)and so it lets me shoot in the same light as a 50/1 Noctilux; plus, the greater DOF makes shooting (and focusing) at f/1.4 more practical. In a reflex lens, faster apertures have an additional advantage that's moot with rangefinders: finder brightness. With rangefinders, pay for the extra stop only if you can't live without it for your photographic subjects.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 27, 2001.

Jay:

Thank you for the reply. Can you clarify "the greater DOF makes shooting (and focusing) at f/1.4 more practical" ?

Thanks,

James

-- 063057 (sigpe57@yahoo.com), April 27, 2001.

If you want speed, get a Noctilux. If you want quality, get a Summicron. If you want to impress people, get a Summilux.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), April 27, 2001.

James:

First, for clarification, there is no f1.4 Summicron. Leica lenses with apertures of f1.4 are denoted "Summilux"; f2 lenses "Summicron"; and then a host of other monikers assosiated with lenses of other f values. Also, I recently compared a 50 Summicron to a 50 Noctilux (see the earlier M threads), and mentioned I would liked to have had a Summilux in the mix as well... For those who are interested, I happened across a new-version Summilux a few days back, and performed that comparison. With luck, I'll get the transparencies back later today, and be able to post some comparative results later this evening.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 27, 2001.

<> (in re 35/1.4 vs 50/1.4)

The DOF of a 50mm lens at f/1.4 is shallower than that of a 35mm lens at the same aperture. With greater DOF the 35 is also a bit less sensitive to minor focusing errors. With an SLR, it's different. You can preview the DOF visually, and to some extent the extra magnification on an SLR compensates somewhat for the extra precision required to focus the 50/1.4. In all I find there are more shots that work for me with the 35 Lux wide open than a 50/1.4. Granted, 35mm is not the best lens choice for full-face portraits, but that is a very tiny % of what I shoot.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 27, 2001.

Jay:

Can you really see the DOF(blurry background with fully-opened aperature) on the SLR? Which SLR do you use? I can not even see DOF on my Hasselblad 503CW with 80mm lens!!. I posted this question at the medium format forum two days ago. The response I got back was the viewfinder of the medium format is still to small to see the DOF.

James

-- James L. (sigpe57@yahoo.com), April 27, 2001.

Interesting question James. I can see something of a wide aperture backround blur on my Nikon (with a plain matte screen), but it isn't really what the backround will really look like in the final image. The structure of the screen alters the out of focus areas and smears them about. I always found a depth of field preview to be less useful than it is touted.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 28, 2001.

James asked if I could see the wide-open DOF in an SLR? The longer and faster the lens and the nearer the focus point, the easier it is. And also, the more finely-ground and brighter the screen. My Leica R screens are rather coarse compared to my Nikon AF screens, making it more difficult. But with the 90/2 and 180/2.8 and 280/2.8 I can definitely see if all or part of my subject is in focus (like nose, eyes and ears), which is something I have to depend on memory to do with a rangefinder. BTW, the near-range wide-open DOF with the 80 or 150 and Acute-Matte screen on the Hasselblad is pretty obvious to my eyes also. I do agree that using the DOF preview and stopping a lens down to f/11 or slower takes a bit more concentration, but I do this routinely with macro work in the 1:2 to 1:1 range, though sometimes I need to provide extra light to see by.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 28, 2001.