Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hans, I'm not entirely sure CapsTeeth's comments on the 50'lux were based on a 1980's vintage lens. I don't have online pics published, but having used 3 different vintages of the 50'lux I find his comments sound like he has an early lens, ser. no earlier than 1844000 which were very soft at the widest apertures. Leica changed the optical formula after that and the second version, which was produced up to 1995 I think, was much less 'flare-y' at wide apertures. This second version performs very well indeed at f2, though some feel that the Nokton is sharper when comparing both lenses at the widest apertures. I don't have a Nokton so I can't comment. What I can comment, though, is that the 2nd and latest 3rd version 50'lux lenses are pretty good, definitely not soft everywhere at f2-2.8. A bonus is that wonderful watery bokeh. I don't have a modern 50'cron to do direct comparisons at f2 so CapsTeeth may very well be correct, but I personally find that 1.4 pretty useful in difficult lighting. One may argue that even the current 50'lux (with built-in shade) has an optical formula from the 1960's and that the modern Nokton optics are indeed decades ahead. I stand guilty as charged for enjoying the look of pictures made by older Leica glass, namely the 5cm Elmars and the 50'cron DR as well as the 50'lux for B&W. You might want to test this latest 50'lux for 2 reasons; that it is very similar optically to the 1980s version you were thinking of (though I think wide open flare control is a touch better), and that it focusses down to 0.7m (the 1st and 2nd versions focus down to 1m only). The built-in hood is somewhat more robust than that irritating 50'cron hood and doesn't get knocked askew so easily. Also, it takes modern E46 filters rather than those rare and expensive E43 ones. Hope you find this useful. Best wishes, Terence H. M. Tan Singapore - -----Original Message----- From: Hans Pahlen <hans.pahlen@mark.komvux.se> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Date: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:38 AM Subject: Re: [Leica] Summilux 50 bo-ke? >Thanks CapsTeeth and Deadman for your answers (and images)! >I think that CapsTeeth is right in his message below. Comparing the Nokton and the Summilux, the Nokton seems to produce crispier images with a higher contrast, factors that I personally value higher than a smooth bo-ke. I took another look at my Nokton images (now completed with a slide shot) at http://www.geocities.com/hanspahlen/bokeh.htm and I like them better (from a technical point of view, that is). The Summilux 50 reminds me of the Summilux 35 non-asph at wide apertures. > >To sum up, I guess CapsTeeth also is right about the Summicron 50! The Summicron 50 will perform better than any other lens at F/2.0, comparing sharpness and contrast. Anyway, I will probably keep the Nokton as a fast reserve lens when I use slow slide films. > >Johnny, do you still have any Nokton images on the web? It would be interesting to compare the light conditions/backgrounds on Oxford Street with your Summilux images. >Sorry for my ramblings... > >Hans > >> If you're referring to the M-mount, I had one of these lenses. The images at >> large apertures (1.4-2.8) were nice and soft everywhere, with low contrast. >> A wonderful lens for low-light portraits in harsh light (which I rarely >> shot). A disappointing lens for crisp tack-sharp images with lots of detail, >> which just happen to need large apertures for higher shutter speeds, (which >> is what I usually shot). I sold mine for a new 50 Summicron, now use that >> with faster film or a 1-stop push and get much better results at f/2 than the >> Summilux did at f/1.4 (or 2 or 2.8 for that matter). >>