This has probably been asked several times before, but my small stable of M lenses does not include a 50mm. I like the idea of shallow depth of field and plentiful bokeh (arguing for the Summilux)but I don't want to give up too much sharpness in the f4-f8 range. How does the sharpness of the two lenses compare other than wide open?

-- Ben Crabtree (bcrabtree@mn.rr.com), April 12, 2002

Answers

You won't be giving up a significant amount of sharpness (if any) at those apertures.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 12, 2002.

Iīve been using summicrons 50 ever since a leica user, later version is very good wide open, contrast and definition as well as flat field, summilux at 1.4 and 2 has a high contrast but definition is on the low side, if you want to copy a map(for example) it will be a poor lens wide open, but if you are photographing people and need to have contrast in a low contrast situation, then it is a good lens, but only in the center, if you want a similar performace to the corners then summicron is a better lens with a better definition too, both have a good flare supresion. I f have to pick one, it would be the īlux.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Not too much difference in DOF at f/1.4 or f/2 in a 50. Biggest reason for the Lux is handholding you get 1 shutter speed advantage. From f/4 down you'd really have to have a great imagination to see any difference between Cron and Lux. I'm not a big fan of the Lux because performance at f/1.4 is too weak in the corners and I shoot mainly scenics.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 12, 2002.

Iīm just doing tests on my 50īs, and I found diference in 6x9 prints and a 8X lupe.

my 50/DR and 50/1.4 (from 1970) donīt compare with newer 50/2, I have hardly experience with 50/1.4, I find very low resolution compared to 50/2, but great contrast at 1.4, something I was not used to.

I did this at 1mt. I havenīt finish with they. Already have reasons to consider keeping the 50/2M, and 1.4 too, both unique, 50/2 DR can be substituted by 50/1.4 at wide apertures,

at around f/8 canīt see a diference in resolution among two f/2īs (DR and latest) but in contrast, quite noticeable. I would like to keep both.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Go for the Summilux; at f/4 to f/8 it is as sharp as the Summicron.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), April 12, 2002.

I know this is heretical, but I wonder a lot about these sharpness issues when, for the most part, a tripod is hardly habitually associated with "Leica M technique". People who must achieve optimum sharpness recognize that in this consideration the tripod is not an unecessary "luxury". I imagine the least sharp Leica optic (vintage or not) would in a "real-world context" undoubtedly outperform the best - if used on a tripod.

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), April 12, 2002.

When I read all of the posts asking about hyperfocal distances (i.e., the one certain way to absolutely guarantee that your main subject is not in focus) and comments about the results delivered from one-hour labs if causes me to wonder if how much of the question of sharpness here are merely theoretical for a lot of the users of this forum. (That is, supporting you, Art, from another angle.)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Ha ha, Thanks Michael!!!, After my "two cents" I figured I'd have to really turn up the air conditioning!!

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), April 12, 2002.