28mm and 50mm Lens buying opinions

[paratom]

I would choose the 28/2.0 Leica if I were you. So you dont have to mess around with lenses coding problems or manually choosing a profile.

I also belive to have read somewher ethat it shows less vignetting than the CV wide open.

I have the 28/1.4 but I would go for the Summicron today. I dont use f1.4 that often (even though it is nice sometimes) and the f2.0 is more compact lens. The Summilux size is ok but at the limit what I would want to use on my Leica M.

 

[photonomy]

In practice, after having used the 50 1.4 Lux for 4 years (and still using it) I've never noticed field curvature as an issue. Perhaps it is there and it will show up when using it on my M6 film body, but on the M10-P it would be corrected in Lightroom.

I tend to shoot fairly quick and fluidly, not fussing over framing, and field curvature has never bothered me. Perhaps it is a "con" in written reviews, but overall the lens is such a pleasure to use the rendering is so good.

Note I'm referring to Summilux model 11 891, not the earlier versions.

 

[LarsHP]

In practice, after having used the 50 1.4 Lux for 4 years (and still using it) I've never noticed field curvature as an issue. Perhaps it is there and it will show up when using it on my M6 film body, but on the M10-P it would be corrected in Lightroom.

I tend to shoot fairly quick and fluidly, not fussing over framing, and field curvature has never bothered me. Perhaps it is a "con" in written reviews, but overall the lens is such a pleasure to use the rendering is so good.

Note I'm referring to Summilux model 11 891, not the earlier versions.

On a film camera, the field curvature would probably still be a bit wavy, but the sides and corners will most likely be more in line with the center than on digital cameras. In other words, it will most likely be less of an issue on film than on digital.

Check Fred Miranda's test shots here:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1741370/3#15853850

The first is the Summilux Asph, then the Nokton f/1 and the last is Nokton f/1.2 Asph.

For reference, here's the Nokton f/1 versus the Noctilux f/0.95 and f/1:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1741370/6#15856522

They are all pretty curved compared to slower lenses. The Sony G Master 50mm f/1.2 has a pretty flat field:

Loading…

www.fredmiranda.com

 

[hendriximages]

dear nonicks,

happy you could decide on the CV 50mm F/1.2 - a great lens!

"For the 28mm, I honestly lean towards the Leica 28 cron Asph II and the Ultron II. I think the lux is now off the list as I still worry about the blockage and whether 1.4 on 28mm is that critical to what I need"

I have the 28 'Lux and the Ultron II (and had the latest 28 'Cron) ... The Ultron II is very, very close (>95%) to the 'Lux and much better than the 'Cron (esp. sharpness across the whole frame, off centre the 'Cron only catches up at around F/5.6). w/o the lens hood the Ultron's nearly not visible in the viewfinder and costs less than a quarter of the 'Cron. The 'Lux is the best 28mm FF I've ever seen but too big, too heavy and prohibitively expensive

So y'ask me go for the Ultron II - a no brainer!

Hope this helps, good luck

Hendrik

 

[hendriximages]

... another bonus for the Ultron II: focuses down to 0.58 m (vs. 0.7 for the Leica lenses)!

cheers

 

[SUPER-ELMAR]

Of the lenses you mention the 28 Summicron is the most flexible. The 28 Elmarit is what I use most. The 28 Summilux is very special but not something I want to carry often. Or just by a Leica Q it comes with a free Summilux :-O

The Voigtlanders are good but I prefer the Leicas. I buy a Leica lens and sell it a few years later for same price. Buy a Voigltander lens and it depreciates 50% before it arrives in the mail.

 

[LarsHP]

(...)

I buy a Leica lens and sell it a few years later for same price. Buy a Voigltander lens and it depreciates 50% before it arrives in the mail.

Regarding the Leica price nowadays, I think your statement applies regarding used lenses, not new ones. In the analog era, though, my impression is that you could buy a new Leica M lens, keep it for several years, and sell it for the same money, but that's history.

About two years ago, I bought a used Leica 28mm Summicron-M Asph II for less than half the MSRP here in Norway. It was even in a shop, with warranty included, and they had it for sale for months before I contacted them and got 20% off their asking price. When I sold it more than a year later, I got roughly what I paid for it (about half of MSRP), and it took me three or four months to sell. The 90mm Elmarit-M I had, was bought and sold for the same used price, and it took two or three months to sell. Both lenses were in near mint condition.

Buying and selling used lenses for the same price isn't something unique to Leica lenses, in my experience. That's more like the rule.

The newer Voigtländer lenses hold their prices surprisingly well. For instance, I saw one selling the Nokton 75mm f/1.5 VM recently, about 20% lower than the MSRP. I contacted him saying I wanted to buy it, but at a lower price. He declined, because he had already sold it for the asking price. It was sold within a day or two.

 

[SUPER-ELMAR]

(...)

I buy a Leica lens and sell it a few years later for same price. Buy a Voigltander lens and it depreciates 50% before it arrives in the mail.

Regarding the Leica price nowadays, I think your statement applies regarding used lenses, not new ones. In the analog era, though, my impression is that you could buy a new Leica M lens, keep it for several years, and sell it for the same money, but that's history.

About two years ago, I bought a used Leica 28mm Summicron-M Asph II for less than half the MSRP here in Norway. It was even in a shop, with warranty included, and they had it for sale for months before I contacted them and got 20% off their asking price. When I sold it more than a year later, I got roughly what I paid for it (about half of MSRP), and it took me three or four months to sell. The 90mm Elmarit-M I had, was bought and sold for the same used price, and it took two or three months to sell. Both lenses were in near mint condition.

Buying and selling used lenses for the same price isn't something unique to Leica lenses, in my experience. That's more like the rule.

Indeed bargain hunting is serious business in HK. Camera stores will always protect a little profit but private buyers and estate sales can be very lucrative and fun.

The newer Voigtländer lenses hold their prices surprisingly well. For instance, I saw one selling the Nokton 75mm f/1.5 VM recently, about 20% lower than the MSRP. I contacted him saying I wanted to buy it, but at a lower price. He declined, because he had already sold it for the asking price. It was sold within a day or two.

It is fun lens for the price. Those are 8000 HKD new here but sell for 4000HKD used. There are lots available - people try them out for a while and move on to something else.

 

[LarsHP]

(...)

I buy a Leica lens and sell it a few years later for same price. Buy a Voigltander lens and it depreciates 50% before it arrives in the mail.

Regarding the Leica price nowadays, I think your statement applies regarding used lenses, not new ones. In the analog era, though, my impression is that you could buy a new Leica M lens, keep it for several years, and sell it for the same money, but that's history.

About two years ago, I bought a used Leica 28mm Summicron-M Asph II for less than half the MSRP here in Norway. It was even in a shop, with warranty included, and they had it for sale for months before I contacted them and got 20% off their asking price. When I sold it more than a year later, I got roughly what I paid for it (about half of MSRP), and it took me three or four months to sell. The 90mm Elmarit-M I had, was bought and sold for the same used price, and it took two or three months to sell. Both lenses were in near mint condition.

Buying and selling used lenses for the same price isn't something unique to Leica lenses, in my experience. That's more like the rule.

Indeed bargain hunting is serious business in HK. Camera stores will always protect a little profit but private buyers and estate sales can be very lucrative and fun.

The newer Voigtländer lenses hold their prices surprisingly well. For instance, I saw one selling the Nokton 75mm f/1.5 VM recently, about 20% lower than the MSRP. I contacted him saying I wanted to buy it, but at a lower price. He declined, because he had already sold it for the asking price. It was sold within a day or two.

It is fun lens for the price. Those are 8000 HKD new here but sell for 4000HKD used. There are lots available - people try them out for a while and move on to something else.

The Nokton 75mm f/1.5 is not only smaller and lighter than the 75mm Summilux, it's also a sharper lens (with smooth bokeh too). So, it's not just a good lens for the price, it beats the Leica lens which admittedly is an old design.

 

[Bags27]

A lot of folks who own a lot of M glass and for whom price is of little consideration say that the M28 Lux is the finest lens Leica makes. YMMV

 

[Francis E]

For general and versatile use, I would rule out the 50mm f/2 lenses, since the degree of blur is limited

This with Summicron - R 1:2/50 mounted on a Sony A7.

 

[nonicks]

(...)

I buy a Leica lens and sell it a few years later for same price. Buy a Voigltander lens and it depreciates 50% before it arrives in the mail.

Regarding the Leica price nowadays, I think your statement applies regarding used lenses, not new ones. In the analog era, though, my impression is that you could buy a new Leica M lens, keep it for several years, and sell it for the same money, but that's history.

About two years ago, I bought a used Leica 28mm Summicron-M Asph II for less than half the MSRP here in Norway. It was even in a shop, with warranty included, and they had it for sale for months before I contacted them and got 20% off their asking price. When I sold it more than a year later, I got roughly what I paid for it (about half of MSRP), and it took me three or four months to sell. The 90mm Elmarit-M I had, was bought and sold for the same used price, and it took two or three months to sell. Both lenses were in near mint condition.

Buying and selling used lenses for the same price isn't something unique to Leica lenses, in my experience. That's more like the rule.

Indeed bargain hunting is serious business in HK. Camera stores will always protect a little profit but private buyers and estate sales can be very lucrative and fun.

The newer Voigtländer lenses hold their prices surprisingly well. For instance, I saw one selling the Nokton 75mm f/1.5 VM recently, about 20% lower than the MSRP. I contacted him saying I wanted to buy it, but at a lower price. He declined, because he had already sold it for the asking price. It was sold within a day or two.

It is fun lens for the price. Those are 8000 HKD new here but sell for 4000HKD used. There are lots available - people try them out for a while and move on to something else.

The Nokton 75mm f/1.5 is not only smaller and lighter than the 75mm Summilux, it's also a sharper lens (with smooth bokeh too). So, it's not just a good lens for the price, it beats the Leica lens which admittedly is an old design.

I heard good comments on the Voigtlander 75/1.5-M too. Not that I need one. But the bokeh looks really good indeed.

But when I look closer, my main concern is that the travel of the focus ring between 5m and infinity is too short. Will that make focusing ( or getting critical focus) between 5m and infinity a little harder? Just curious.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/183079213@N06/

 

[LarsHP]

The Nokton 75mm f/1.5 is not only smaller and lighter than the 75mm Summilux, it's also a sharper lens (with smooth bokeh too). So, it's not just a good lens for the price, it beats the Leica lens which admittedly is an old design.

I heard good comments on the Voigtlander 75/1.5-M too. Not that I need one. But the bokeh looks really good indeed.

But when I look closer, my main concern is that the travel of the focus ring between 5m and infinity is too short. Will that make focusing ( or getting critical focus) between 5m and infinity a little harder? Just curious.

The focus throw is in fact a bit shorter than I'd like, yes. Is it a considerable problem? Not really. It just means I need to be careful with focus, but I am always careful getting focus precise, particularly at wide apertures.

 

[LarsHP]

For general and versatile use, I would rule out the 50mm f/2 lenses, since the degree of blur is limited

This with Summicron - R 1:2/50 mounted on a Sony A7.

The shorter the focus distance, the more blur. If this was shot at f/1.2, the degree of blur would be comparatively higher.

One of the points with very fast lenses is that you can get a noticeable background separation at longer distances than slow lenses. And at short distances, you can get images made up of creamy blur with just a bit in focus.

 

[Francis E]

The shorter the focus distance, the more blur. If this was shot at f/1.2, the degree of blur would be comparatively higher.

One of the points with very fast lenses is that you can get a noticeable background separation at longer distances than slow lenses. And at short distances, you can get images made up of creamy blur with just a bit in focus.

Thanks for that. I do have faster lenses. The only Leica camera I have i(as opposed to compacts) is the R6, but none for it.

The fastest is f/1.4 on a compact.

 

[SUPER-ELMAR]

(...)

I buy a Leica lens and sell it a few years later for same price. Buy a Voigltander lens and it depreciates 50% before it arrives in the mail.

Regarding the Leica price nowadays, I think your statement applies regarding used lenses, not new ones. In the analog era, though, my impression is that you could buy a new Leica M lens, keep it for several years, and sell it for the same money, but that's history.

About two years ago, I bought a used Leica 28mm Summicron-M Asph II for less than half the MSRP here in Norway. It was even in a shop, with warranty included, and they had it for sale for months before I contacted them and got 20% off their asking price. When I sold it more than a year later, I got roughly what I paid for it (about half of MSRP), and it took me three or four months to sell. The 90mm Elmarit-M I had, was bought and sold for the same used price, and it took two or three months to sell. Both lenses were in near mint condition.

Buying and selling used lenses for the same price isn't something unique to Leica lenses, in my experience. That's more like the rule.

Indeed bargain hunting is serious business in HK. Camera stores will always protect a little profit but private buyers and estate sales can be very lucrative and fun.

The newer Voigtländer lenses hold their prices surprisingly well. For instance, I saw one selling the Nokton 75mm f/1.5 VM recently, about 20% lower than the MSRP. I contacted him saying I wanted to buy it, but at a lower price. He declined, because he had already sold it for the asking price. It was sold within a day or two.

It is fun lens for the price. Those are 8000 HKD new here but sell for 4000HKD used. There are lots available - people try them out for a while and move on to something else.

The Nokton 75mm f/1.5 is not only smaller and lighter than the 75mm Summilux, it's also a sharper lens (with smooth bokeh too). So, it's not just a good lens for the price, it beats the Leica lens which admittedly is an old design.

That lens older than I am Try a 75 noctilux and you will understand.

 

[LarsHP]

The Nokton 75mm f/1.5 is not only smaller and lighter than the 75mm Summilux, it's also a sharper lens (with smooth bokeh too). So, it's not just a good lens for the price, it beats the Leica lens which admittedly is an old design.

That lens older than I am Try a 75 noctilux and you will understand.

Never gonna happen.

The 75mm Noctilux is almost US$14,400. That's $13,500 more than the 75mm Nokton, and it's also three times as heavy (1055 grams / 2.3 lb), which negates the whole idea of using rangefinder lenses and cameras (for me and many others).

It's funny how Leica fanboys (at L-camera-forum.com for instance) always find one reason to say the Leica lens is "better" than the Voigtländer or Zeiss, or at least that they prefer it, but then their priority will vary from case to case. They will say that even though the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM is optically better, they prefer the Summilux Asph because it is smaller. The same applies regarding the 50mm Apo-Lanthar versus the Apo-Summicron even though the size difference between the Leica and the competition isn't that big. However, they will say they prefer the Leica 75mm Summilux or Noctilux over the 75mm Nokton, even though it is significantly smaller and lighter than the Leica options. To me, this means it's a brand priority (to say it politely) regardless of optical features, performance, and not to mention the extreme amount of money they pay extra for the Leica name.

I have one Leica lens left in my bag, the 90mm Apo-Summicron-M, because there are no modern 90mm f/2 M lenses from Voigtländer or Zeiss. The 90 AA is a great performer at long distances, but not so much at closer distances since it doesn't have an FLE. There is also more bokeh fringing than I'd like, so even though the lens is US$ 5,500, it is far from perfect.

 

[Bags27]

The Nokton 75mm f/1.5 is not only smaller and lighter than the 75mm Summilux, it's also a sharper lens (with smooth bokeh too). So, it's not just a good lens for the price, it beats the Leica lens which admittedly is an old design.

That lens older than I am Try a 75 noctilux and you will understand.

Never gonna happen.

The 75mm Noctilux is almost US$14,400. That's $13,500 more than the 75mm Nokton, and it's also three times as heavy (1055 grams / 2.3 lb), which negates the whole idea of using rangefinder lenses and cameras (for me and many others).

It's funny how Leica fanboys (at L-camera-forum.com for instance) always find one reason to say the Leica lens is "better" than the Voigtländer or Zeiss, or at least that they prefer it, but then their priority will vary from case to case. They will say that even though the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM is optically better, they prefer the Summilux Asph because it is smaller. The same applies regarding the 50mm Apo-Lanthar versus the Apo-Summicron even though the size difference between the Leica and the competition isn't that big. However, they will say they prefer the Leica 75mm Summilux or Noctilux over the 75mm Nokton, even though it is significantly smaller and lighter than the Leica options. To me, this means it's a brand priority (to say it politely) regardless of optical features, performance, and not to mention the extreme amount of money they pay extra for the Leica name.

I have one Leica lens left in my bag, the 90mm Apo-Summicron-M, because there are no modern 90mm f/2 M lenses from Voigtländer or Zeiss. The 90 AA is a great performer at long distances, but not so much at closer distances since it doesn't have an FLE. There is also more bokeh fringing than I'd like, so even though the lens is US$ 5,500, it is far from perfect.

I'm completely on your side emotionally here, and by far the Leica glass I use most is very vintage stuff. But I sort of disagree with some of the facts and interpretations.

1. A whole lot of folks over at Leica Users Forum praise to the sky non-Leica glass. Just earlier today, a bunch of us were saying how much we enjoy the VC 75 f/1.5 and posting photos from that lens. It's somewhat unfair to make fun of them or deny their objectivity.

2. Years ago, I took a very deep breath and bought a (2nd hand) M 35 f/1.4 FLE over the Zeiss. I truly believe that every once in a while I can see something magical in its rendering. It has a cinematic look that I've never seen from the Zeiss or any other 35mm lens, including the Leica 35 Cron APO. I'll probably sell it eventually, but I know why I bought it. BTW, the difference in size between the Leica and VC APO versions is quite significant: the former blocks ~8% of the viewfinder; the latter ~25%.

3. I will never own the M 50 Cron APO--unless I sell the 35 FLE and maybe not even then. But for me, it is the best lens ever made for 35mm cameras. It renders with incredible delicacy, perfect bokeh, subtle fall off, beautiful skin tones. You name it, it's astonishing. I was praying that the VC model would do the same, since it is in my price range and it tests so well. But it does not have that magic for me...at least not a single photo I've seen.

It's easy to knock Leica. In terms of self-marketing, they've become a vulgar caricature of themselves. A whole lot of people buy their stuff for the red dot. I certainly have.

But when all is said and done, they produce equipment that is uncompromising in every way...including cost. Some of their bodies and optics are simply breathtaking. No other camera company has quite their passion.

 

[SUPER-ELMAR]

The Nokton 75mm f/1.5 is not only smaller and lighter than the 75mm Summilux, it's also a sharper lens (with smooth bokeh too). So, it's not just a good lens for the price, it beats the Leica lens which admittedly is an old design.

That lens older than I am Try a 75 noctilux and you will understand.

Never gonna happen.

The 75mm Noctilux is almost US$14,400. That's $13,500 more than the 75mm Nokton, and it's also three times as heavy (1055 grams / 2.3 lb), which negates the whole idea of using rangefinder lenses and cameras (for me and many others).

You are missing out. You seem to have talked yourself out of it before ever trying it. Expand your horizons.

It's funny how Leica fanboys (at L-camera-forum.com for instance) always find one reason to say the Leica lens is "better" than the Voigtländer or Zeiss, or at least that they prefer it, but then their priority will vary from case to case. They will say that even though the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM is optically better, they prefer the Summilux Asph because it is smaller. The same applies regarding the 50mm Apo-Lanthar versus the Apo-Summicron even though the size difference between the Leica and the competition isn't that big. However, they will say they prefer the Leica 75mm Summilux or Noctilux over the 75mm Nokton, even though it is significantly smaller and lighter than the Leica options. To me, this means it's a brand priority (to say it politely) regardless of optical features, performance, and not to mention the extreme amount of money they pay extra for the Leica name.

Some have different interest, priorities and needs than you. No reason to snivel about it.

I have one Leica lens left in my bag, the 90mm Apo-Summicron-M, because there are no modern 90mm f/2 M lenses from Voigtländer or Zeiss. The 90 AA is a great performer at long distances, but not so much at closer distances since it doesn't have an FLE. There is also more bokeh fringing than I'd like, so even though the lens is US$ 5,500, it is far from perfect.

What lens is perfect?

 

[LarsHP]

I'm completely on your side emotionally here, and by far the Leica glass I use most is very vintage stuff. But I sort of disagree with some of the facts and interpretations.

1. A whole lot of folks over at Leica Users Forum praise to the sky non-Leica glass. Just earlier today, a bunch of us were saying how much we enjoy the VC 75 f/1.5 and posting photos from that lens. It's somewhat unfair to make fun of them or deny their objectivity.

2. Years ago, I took a very deep breath and bought a (2nd hand) M 35 f/1.4 FLE over the Zeiss. I truly believe that every once in a while I can see something magical in its rendering. It has a cinematic look that I've never seen from the Zeiss or any other 35mm lens, including the Leica 35 Cron APO. I'll probably sell it eventually, but I know why I bought it. BTW, the difference in size between the Leica and VC APO versions is quite significant: the former blocks ~8% of the viewfinder; the latter ~25%.

3. I will never own the M 50 Cron APO--unless I sell the 35 FLE and maybe not even then. But for me, it is the best lens ever made for 35mm cameras. It renders with incredible delicacy, perfect bokeh, subtle fall off, beautiful skin tones. You name it, it's astonishing. I was praying that the VC model would do the same, since it is in my price range and it tests so well. But it does not have that magic for me...at least not a single photo I've seen.

It's easy to knock Leica. In terms of self-marketing, they've become a vulgar caricature of themselves. A whole lot of people buy their stuff for the red dot. I certainly have.

But when all is said and done, they produce equipment that is uncompromising in every way...including cost. Some of their bodies and optics are simply breathtaking. No other camera company has quite their passion.

I didn't say that all users at the Leica forum are fanboys. I was referring to some users over there, that I consider Leica fanboys, and I said "for instance" too, which means there may be Leica fanboys in other places as well.

The 75mm Nokton has been getting several good comments there, yes. I remember seeing one of the long-time Leica users saying he sold his Summilux for the Nokton too, IIRC.

I don't feel the same about Leica being special, making "uncompromising" equipment. From my viewpoint, you can say the same about the other top camera producers considering their pro cameras and lenses, and regarding the top of the line super telephoto lenses, the prices are also extreme. Huge lens elements takes time to make, and the high-end autofocus systems have a high cost, if we are to believe the producers at least.

The issue I have with Leica is only (or mostly) the price they charge for what they sell. Some people think that the price is so high because Leica has much lower production tolerances or something like that, but my experience doesn't warrant such ideas. My story with the 28mm Summicron Asph II and Ultron Asph II shows the opposite.

Is Leica equipment more solidly built, for instance? I'd like to think that if I pay five times as much for a similar product, that the extra money is spent on making a durable, service-free product. I am sure it isn't, because Leica users send in their equipment for service quite often. CLA again and again. This should be unnecessary if the lenses and cameras were of high build quality. My 90mm Apo-Summicron-M needs a CLA, because the focus isn't as smooth as it should. It appears as if the oil has dried out. Almost no other lenses I have owned had such an issue. Why should the US$ 5,500 need service, when the US$ 1,000 lenses don't? It doesn't make sense, except for Leica making a huge amount of money on each item they sell.

I want to repeat: I am criticizing the price level compared to what we get from Leica, not the products as such.