Are the 50mm 'lux and 'cron M equal in optical performance? Is the 'lux pricetag justified merely by the extra stop?

Ps. I'm past the stage of "Do I really want/need this very expensive rangefinder system?" I mean I'm really over it. And I do :)

Thomas Lofqvist

-- Thomas Lofqvist (thomas.lofqvist@brevlada.com), April 03, 2002

Answers

kan detta vara en svensk landsman månne? (sorry, guys, Swedish question)

To give my 2 cents, I find the summicron lenses (currently only have the 35/2A, but I've tried the 50 as well) to some of the finest lenses around. Tack sharp, great color, virtually distortion free. Sure, that extra stop may come in handy, so ar I've done fine without it.

On your PS-point. Sure you want it, relative to medium format it is even darn right cheap! BTW, there are some great M6 TTTL deals on eBay now, they've seem to have dropped about $200-250 in price since the arrival of the M7 and the US rebates.

cheers,

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), April 03, 2002.

In terms of tech specs, the Summicron is marginally better (except, of course, at apertures wider than f2). The extra cost isn't justified by the extra stop but by the shots that you can get with that extra stop that you wouldn't get otherwise.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 03, 2002.

The problem is the high cost of a new Summilux compared with the Summicron, about $900 extra at full retail price or about $650 on the grey market. You have to really NEED the extra stop at those prices! Of course, you may be able to find much better used 'lux bargains if you're careful what you buy and from whom you buy it. I believe the resolutuion performance of the 50 'cron is better, overall, than the 'lux at apertures from f/2 to f/5.6, after which they are about the same.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 03, 2002.

Mike... indeed, optical performance - or, as you say "tech specs" - are what interests me in the comparison.

Not really whether they throw in pictures with the 'lux purchase... ;)

-- Thomas Lofqvist (thomas.lofqvist@brevlada.com), April 04, 2002.

I'd like to ask Mike Dixon a question if he's still watching. Mike, would you have considered the 75/1.4 a good business decision given what the rest of your equipment looks like? I'm thinking here that you have the 90/2, a DR 50/2, maybe even a Noct.?

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), April 04, 2002.

Even at the very fair price that Jack Flesher was asking ($1200), I could not have justified the 75 'lux as something I needed for business (considering I already had a 90 Summicron). Of course, now that I have one, I'd hate to be without it. If I had to choose between the 75 and 90, I'd be bidding farewell to the 90.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 04, 2002.

could not have justified the 75 'lux as something I needed for business

So you made, bad choice.You would not make the choice again.Simple yes or no...cut the waffle.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 04, 2002.

No, I made an excellent choice in accepting the generosity of some of the kind members of this forum (another chapter or two is coming up within a week!). However, it would have been a bad business decision to pay $1200 for the lens at the time. If you cannot comprehend the question or the answer, perhaps you shouldn't comment. (Yeah, right!)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 05, 2002.

Thanks Mike. Looking forward to your next chapter.

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), April 05, 2002.