Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/05/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have the original 35mm summilux aspherical.It is massively and obviously better than the old one wide open. Stopped down below f5.6 the difference is negligible. The 50 f1.4 is mt 50 of choice, the newer ones are only notably better in the edges, Its age does not mean it is not superb. I bought the CV Nokton 50 f1.5 but did not likethe look at all so sold it. These expensive lenses are well worthwhile if you use the wide open often. If you live somewhere where it is usually bright and use 400asa film you may not see their benefit often enough to justify their price. I live in England and use Kodachrome 64 :-) YMMV Frank --- Juan Gea-Banacloche <banacloj@mac.com> wrote: > I was not subscribed to the LUG when the 53mm 1.4 > ASPH showed up (did > the LUG exist back then?), so I have nothing to > compare this discussion > to, although I imagine it might have been similar. > > To me, it seems pretty straightforward. Leica tries > to make the best > lenses they can, regardless of the cost. > > "Need" is an overused word. I would just say that, > the same way many > prefer 35mm lenses, many others prefer 50mm. For > those who do prefer > 50mm, it is nice to have the possibility of having a > 50mm 1.4 as good > as the Summicron (or better). "The best 50mm ever, > bar none". I don't > know who could truly "need" it. I honestly doubt > Leica, one of the > ultimate luxury brands, is about need. > > Did Leica have to build this lens so no-one could > say the $350 Nokton > was better than the $2100 50mm Summilux? > > Did they "need" to do it? > > Does anyone "need" a $2100 lens (the current 50/1.4) > that (reportedly) > does not perform much better than a $350 one? > > If one prefers to have the freedom to use f:1.4, is > 19% more ($400 more > than $2100) too much to ask for a better lens? (In > other words, can > anyone say with a straight face "one could need a > $2100 50/1.4, but not > a $2500 50/1.4? > > There may be reasons to buy Leica (most members of > this list have one > or two), but I doubt they are all reasonable. As a > matter of fact, I > would bet most of them are not reasonable. And yet, > here we are. > > In this case, if you like to use 50mm lenses, why > would you not want > the best possible lens? Why would you prefer the > inferior lens? > > To the lucky ones who can afford $2500 on the new > lens and want to have > it, congratulations (regardless of if you are a pro > shooting all the > time at f:1.4 or just a guy who would take the same > boring photos with > an $80 XA). I would like to own this lens (heck, I > also would like to > have a Leica M7), even if my my Summarit or Summitar > have never been > the limiting factors in my photography. > > Best regards, > > Juan > > On May 27, 2004, at 11:15 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: > > > On 5/27/04 12:50 PM, "B. D. Colen" > <bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >> It wouldn't surprise me if this was their best > all time lens. But the > >> reality is that unless one's ultimate use of the > lens is shooting test > >> charts, that isn't a reason to buy it; is it the > best lens ever made, > >> or > >> ever made by Leica, in a focal length that will > get enough use to > >> justify the expense? For me, if it was a 28 or > 35, the answer might be > >> "yes," although I'd be hard pressed to figure how > Leica could improve > >> on > >> the 35 Summilux ASPH, or the 28 Summicron ASPH, > both of which are > >> stunners. (Of course if they produced a 28 > Summilux, that would be a > >> whole different reason to rob a child of > tuition!). :-) > >> > >> B. D. > > > > > > I think some of this is an image thing. > > :) > > > > It's a thing of "so you're a premium camera system > huh? HOW GOOD IS > > YOUR > > 50MM 1.4 LENS?" > > For that to be anything resembling a sore point > really is intolerable. > > Leica needed to amend that. And it had just done > so in the R system. > > Shooters porting their workflow over to > rangefinder still think 1.4 is > > all > > about forgetting the fact that this does not > brighten the groundglass > > making > > it pop in and out more defiantly. As the > groundglass is completely > > clear! :) > > And they may forget how few times they really use > the 1.4. > > The 50 1.4 is a standard benchmark from way back > despite the wide use > > of > > 35's. > > Bu they have to be compared against a 50 f2 which > is a lens MUCH > > easier to > > design and implement and much more likely to be > superior even perhaps > > as a > > high speed lens. The front glass to air surface > perhaps being the > > toughie. > > > > To quote part of Erwins summary on his new > Summilux R report: > > > > Summarizing: > > the new 1,4/50 Summilux-R defines the current > state of the art of large > > aperture standard lenses. It outclasses the > previous version of the > > 1.4/50 > > Summilux-R by a clear distance. It edges ahead of > the current > > Summicon-R and > > improves upon the current Summilux-M 1.4/50. > Nonscientific comparison > > pictures with the Summicron-M show comparable > performance in most > > picture > > taking situations however. The current Summicron-M > is still the high > > speed > > standard lens to beat. > > > > > > Any quote is of course out of context the the > whole article should be > > read. > > I just read it 3 times it is intriguing and has > many unexpected points. > > > http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/rseries/testr/r14-50.html > > > > > > > > Mark Rabiner > > Photography > > Portland Oregon > > > > > > > > New-improved > > http://rabinergroup.com/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug > for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for > more information