I haven't never tried it, nor handled it, how does it perform? I very seldom see anyone use it (or the results from it) or talk about it? It can be had used in good condition for around $900...

what am I missing? Is this a less than stellar lens? Underappreciated?

Cheers,

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), June 04, 2002

Answers

Are you talking about the M or R series? In the archives, there are several photos posted that were made with the M model. Mike Dixon has some great availible light shots made with the M Summilux in there, but of course searching for them could be time consumeing.

-- Al Smith (smith@msn.com), June 04, 2002.

i'm not going to get into any kind of war over this (i will not post agin to this thread -- i promise!!), but i really have never understood leica's strategy with regard to the summilux. the 50mm f1.4 is the standard normal lens. there are modern, tack sharp examples from every mfr. the current leica summilux is basically a 40 year old+ design, and really shows its age. leica has upgraded more obscure lenses in the line (many to APO spec) many times since it last touched the basic design of the 50 lux. (look what leica has done for the 35 lux by comparison). i just don't see why this potentially crucial lens has gotten so little attention. ditto the 50mm cron to some extent. why does leica do so little for customers at this key focal length? now i know you can argue that the 'cron is just about perfect, but there are many normals that better it on res tests (the g2 45mm planar is a good example). but i'm geting sidetracked; lets keep the focus on the lux. maybe the theory is that some people like the old leica aesthetic: low macro contrast with highish resolution. fine. but for those people there are thousands and thousands of minty used luxes (and summarits) from the 60s 70s 80s and 90s. how about a freshened up apo 50mm lux? this would be a great addition to the line and would fill an obvious quality gap in anotherwise very modern array of optics. what is leica thinking???

-- roger michel (micel@tcn.org), June 04, 2002.

Mike Johnston, in his June 2nd "Sunday Morning" column [www.luminous- landscape.com], claims that the 50 Lux's lack of popularity is due to its being, as he puts it, a substandard lens.

-- John (mymacv@aol.com), June 04, 2002.

Here is a shot I took with the Summilux.

I have owned a couple of 'Crons and a copuple of Nocts, and IMO the most versatile is still the 'Lux. The 'Cron may be a tad sharper, but trust me, it isn't much if you can see it at all. The Noct is a stop faster, but how often are you going to exploit F1.0 for all the extra bulk and weight of it? {Don't get me wrong, I think the Noct has its place for those that are regularly willing to exploit it's unique character at f1.0, but in my experience only a few who own it actually do so. Members of this forum excepted, of course ;-) } So for me, I found the 'Lux the perfect compromise; very fast, useable wide open, sharper than the Noct at f1.4, and almost as sharp as the 'Cron from f2 up, and truly about the same size and weight as the 'Cron.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 04, 2002.

Old as it is, the v.2 (current)50 Lux-M can still outperform just about any other 50/1.4 past or present, the 2 exceptions I can think of being the current (E60) 50 Lux-R and the Contax 50/1.4, and in those cases whether they surpass or simply equal the M-Lux is open to heated debate. It is only because the 50 Cron-M (in particular the last 2 versions, and some would say the Rigid/DR as well)is such an outstanding lens that the Lux seems by comparison to come up wanting. It is softer and lower contrast until f/4 and much heavier and more expensive, and until the current version it only focused to 1m. It is the weight that has kept me from owning it; that and the fact that the 35/1.4ASPH is simply amazing at f/1.4 and hand-holdable 1 speed slower. One of these days I think I might have to get a 50 Lux-M, just to be able to say I had one.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 04, 2002.

he said he wasn't going to post again, so on his behalf i'll add that on the well regarded photodo.com site, the 50mm lux is bettered handily by the 50mm f1.4 offerings from minolta, canon, contax and (by a smaller margin) nikon, as well as many others. i know there are unmeasurables at play here (heck, i use my summarit more than my summilux), but i . . . er he . . . still thinks it is VERY STRANGE that leica has not come out with a 50mm lux APO. people wanting the special look of the lux have forty years of used beauties to choose from. 50mm has been the bread and butter lens for leica since the beginning when they nailed a 50 to the A. what's the story here??

-- NOT roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 04, 2002.

Just for the record:

As for weights: New version black 'Lux, 275gm. New version black 'Cron 240gm. Or about a one ounce heavier.

As for sizes: New version 'Lux, 46.7mm x 54.5mm. New version 'Cron, 43.5mm x 53mm. Or about 1/8th of an inch longer and 1/16th of an inch wider.

Both focus to 0.7M

All added up, probably not even a notable difference when stuffed in your bag, especially considering you got the extra stop too...

The biggest difference IMO is that the 'Lux uses an E46 filter, while the 'Cron uses an E39... If that matters to you.

;-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 04, 2002.

I had one, I used it, I sold it. Compared to a 50 Summicron, there was simply "no contest." If I needed the extra stop, there was always an ASA 200 film instead of an ASA 100 film. The 50 Summicron at 2.0 was clearly better than the 50 1.4 at 1.4, and also at 2.0. IMHO, There's a significant price to pay - - - in dollars, weight, and performance, by adding that one stop between 2.0 and 1.4

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), June 04, 2002.

For what it's worth, Erwin Puts ranks the Voghtlander Nokton 50mm/f1.5 in front of the 'lux. He calls the Lux better engineered, but optically, not as good. Just food for thought.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), June 04, 2002.

I totally agree with Roger Michel. Because Leica refuses to upgrade their antique Summilux, I have completed my Summicron 50 with a Nokton 50, that is a bit better than the old 'lux but much cheaper. I will wait until Leica puts a modern 50 'lux on the market.

-- Frank (Thoma2811@aol.com), June 05, 2002.

Bench tests aside ( I rarely make photographs of benches, test patterns or newsprint ), each of the Leica 50s exhibit a specific characteristic that is different from one another. I specifically like both the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths enough to own multiple versions of each. Of the 50s, the Lux 1.4 is my most recent aquisition having never owned one before. So far, I've found it to really shine in harsher contrast conditions were the Cron actually over does it a bit when shooting people. I like that there are all these subtile selections. For the same reason, I would eventually like to aquire a pre-ASPH 35/1.4 to compliment my f/1.4 & f/2 ASPH versions. Comparing the 50 LUX to the Contax 50/1.4 & Nikon version ( I use both) is like comparing apples to oranges. The only thing they have in common is the focal length. All that said, It would be nice to see an upgraded LUX for those who want comparable performance to the 35/1.4 ASPH. There are enough of the current version out there that no one would go wanting if the current formula was discontinued. P.S. nice photo Jack.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), June 05, 2002.

While the design of the 50mm Summilux-M is old, remember, it took nearly forty years, and aspheric elements to create a lens which is optically only MARGINALLY better. I seriously doubt anyone on this list could tell the difference in practical photography between the Summilux and the Nokton. To say the 50mm Summilux is substandard is wrong. I own both the 50mm Summilux and 50mm Summicron. Normally, I use the Summilux for color work (usually E100VS) and the Summicron for B&W (usually) Tri-X or T-Max 100) but not always. To answer the original question, in my opinion, it is a stellar lens.

-- Sal DiMarco, Jr. (sdmp007@pressroom.com), June 05, 2002.

A couple of years ago when I was talking to Gunter Osterloh I asked him why all the catalogs and ads I'd seen about Ms always had a picture on their cover with an M6 and its 1.4/50. Why was it always that lens on that body? Of course, I told him I knew that the 2/50 is fine for okay light, better for focussing wide open, it's lighter and it's less expensive.

His answer was more like that which Jack already stated above. The 2/50 itself is really okay, even great, the 1.0/50 is pretty big, heavy and expensive etc, but the 1.4/50 is still really the best allround 50.

And, as he always says (check it out in his book) the 1.4/50 is a great Bad-Weather-Lens. (Wouldn't mind having one myself.)

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), June 05, 2002.

I posted this before in a thread related to Contax G series and Leica lenses, but it might be of interest here. This person did a review of the 45mm Contax G lens tested against three Leica 50s, the f/2.8, f/2.0 and the f/1.4. You can read this person's results in an aperture by aperture review, that was based on photographs, not test charts. This test show a pretty clear indication of what aperture certain lenses have the optical advantage, and also where they pretty much equalize.

Click

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), June 05, 2002.

"the 1.4/50 is still really the best all-around 50"??? in what sense? it's not as sharp as the cron at any aperture (except 1.4 where it's tons better).

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 05, 2002.

I use both the 50mm Elmar-M and the 45mm Contax G lenses. From the tests which I have done (distant subjects with Velvia, using 4X & 8X Schneider loupes) I rank the lenses as essentially equivalent. The Planar has a warmer, more color saturated look but also has more corner darkening at 2.8. Resolution at the apertures of 2.8, 4, & 5.6 looked indistinguishable to me, tack sharp :-).

-- Doug from Tumwater (dbaker9128@aol.com), June 05, 2002.

but doug, isn't tumwater perpetually shrouded by thick fog? this certainly must affect your resolution tests. or am i thinking of ormskirk??

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 05, 2002.

50 1.4 is best all round lens most likely refers to range of apertures available for a given light situation. Having a shot without camera shake means more to me than having shots that are slightly sharper.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), June 05, 2002.

This is my favorite lens, please check my many examples on the camerea link -r http://home.pacbell.net/johnyoko/index.html

-- RC Lopez (johnyoko@pacbell.net), June 05, 2002.

My lousy old first-generation Summilux may be substandard, but it's very rarely the limiting factor in the quality of my photos. Maybe when I get to be a better shooter, I'll demand a better-performing design.

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

mike -- i think it's your modesty that i love best about you!!

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 05, 2002.

and if the quality of the equipment is never a limiting factor, why use pricey leica gear at all -- surely a battered f/f2 with a trusty pre-AI nikkor 50 1.4 would already be tremendous overkill.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 05, 2002.

Roger Michel wrote: "but doug, isn't tumwater perpetually shrouded by thick fog? this certainly must affect your resolution tests. or am i thinking of ormskirk??"

No, not too much fog but lots of rain! :-)

-- Doug from Tumwater (dbaker9128@aol.com), June 05, 2002.

all i know is that whenever i'm in tumwater, i stroll into a pub, have a few beers, stumble out into the fog, and next thing i'm knee deep in the deschutes!!

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 05, 2002.

Roger, it's not modesty; it's a realistic assessment of the relative importance of the various "links in the chain" to pull off a great/very good photo. To answer your question re Nikon: I can't reliably hand hold an SLR at the slow shutter speeds that I can with an M and the shutter lag with SLRs is annoying.

I'm not saying that the quality of ones equipment is entirely unimportant; I'm just saying that if a 50 Summilux isn't up to people's standards, then their standards are most likely based on something other than the quality of the images they produce.

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

fair enough.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 05, 2002.

"...the 50mm lux is bettered handily by the 50mm f1.4 offerings from minolta, canon, contax and (by a smaller margin) nikon, as well as many others."

NOT Roger. "Bettered handily"? Hardly. If you look at the overall ratings, they vary from 4.2 (50/1.4 Slux M, Nikon 50/1.4 AF D) to 4.5 (Contax Planar), with Canon EF 50/1.4 coming in at 4.4. If you look at the graphs they provide these are trivial differences. Also Leica vs Nikon each at 4.2, what small margin? These numbers are the same.

Now if you look a little deeper, compare Canon (4.4) vs Leica M (4.2), you will see that at F/1.4, the Leica actually comes out ahed 0.60 vs 0.58 for weighted MTF. And the central contrast at 50/1.4 for Leica at 10, 20, 40 lp/mm [90%, 75, 50, resp.] are higher than for Canon [85, 65, 35]. Actualy this is not bad for a Leica design that dates back to 1961. Bear in mind that these tests do not indicate the degree of flare control or distortion. The conclusion that the 50/1.4 lux is bettered handily is not justified.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), June 05, 2002.

if you look at the raw numbers for the nikon and the leica, the nikon is a little better at every line pair height, just not eough to affect the overall score. and whether a few tenths is significant or not in the overall scoring is a subjective question. if you don't accept that such small differences are meaningful, then you mite as well just say that all the 50s from the major mfrs are the same. i should add that a few of the lenses that bettered the lux cost 1/20th as much.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 05, 2002.

Roger Michel wrote: "all i know is that whenever i'm in tumwater, i stroll into a pub, have a few beers, stumble out into the fog, and next thing i'm knee deep in the deschutes!!"

Oh, OK now I understand! You must have been down at the Golf Course visiting the Tumwater Valley Bar & Grill. Yes, the fog does lay about down there. ;^) Next time you are in town give me a call and I will drive down and buy you a drink!

-- Doug from Tumwater (dbaker9128@aol.com), June 05, 2002.

thanks!!! that explains the dimple-patterned bruises all over my body (but not where my clothes -- exclusive of my collector's edition leica boxers -- went).

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 05, 2002.

If y'all had read all of Mike Johnston's words, rather than just reacting, you would have noticed that he actually described the 50 Summilux as "substandard (for Leica)." (And then didn't define his terms.) We all would likely agree that's a pretty high standard. What's substandard for Leica could well be top of the line for most of the other brands. Sharpness ain't everything, unless you're locking your camera to a tripod and taking pictures of rocks and cacti at f/8, in which case, for the bux, IMO you're shooting the wrong format. As a handheld 50, the Summilux is great: it's not much bigger or heavier than a Summicron, the photos it produces look wonderful, and I've never seen a Summicron that could take a picture at f/1.4.

Who the hell is George?

-- David Casman (davecasman@yahoo.com), June 05, 2002.

Roger. Sorry, according to photodo, the Leica Summilux M is better than the Nikkor 50/1.4 D at F/1.4. The numbers are just a little better, nothing spectacular, but that's what the data show. But the 50 Lux surely is the oldest M lens and could use a redesign. No disagreement there.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), June 05, 2002.

eliot -- the only important numbers are the MTF figures. at 10 lp/mm it's leica 91, nikon 91, at 20 it's leica 79, nikon 80 and at 40 it's leica 58, nikon 59. the lux does not better the nikon at any image height.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 06, 2002.

I've heard from at least 2 sources that Leica basically isn't interested in investing in improving either the f/2 or f/1.4 50s for the M. The 50 'lux redesigned for the R (which is a big improvement) takes 60mm filters and is just to big/heavy to adapt - it would be the size of a Noctilux with 1 less stop.

I've used the 50 'lux, and while I'm not a big 50mm fan I liked it OK - it has a certain beauty at all f/stops (see Jack's/Mike's pix) - but it is even more ridiculously priced than the other M lenses - for what it offers.

If you can find an older one (say 1970-1990) and can live with the 1m close focusing 'sted .7 meters, AND can find one for under $600 - then I could see getting one as a short portrait lens for the extra soft backgrounds at f/1.4 (sort of a compact lightweight alternative to the 75 or the pre-APO 90 f/2).

Incidentally (since Photodo.com popped up here already) the 50 f/1.4 is SUBSTANTIALLY sharper/contrastier at f/1.4 in the center than everyone's beloved 75 f/1.4 - 50% contrast @ 40 lines vs. 33%.

So if the 50 'lux is "less than stellar" then the 75 is LESS THAN less than stellar.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), June 07, 2002.

andy -- i agree 100%. the 75 lux is a lens i could never understand given its size weight and performance wide open (which is the only reason to buy such a lens). makes you appreciate the nikkor 85 1.4 all the more.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), June 07, 2002.

so which is the version of the 'lux to get?

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), June 07, 2002.

Hi everyone! Very interesting topic we have here, I am just having experience with a 50/1.4M from the 70's that bougth three months ago, I had only worked with summicrons, and found contrast and flare supresion a plus in my Žlux, something I never had in my canon and nikon 50/1.4.

In my opinion flare supresion is a caracteristic that put this lens in the favourite list of many photographers, and about the 75 low rates besides 50, here again FS is the strong point of a lower resolution 75/1.4 (make clear I have never try it)

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), June 07, 2002.