So Many M 50's... Shooting with three of Them, Part 1

[Rodenmg]

I have the oppertunity to work with three M 50's. I wish I had a pre-ASPH but I don't so...

Tres Amigos, the ASPH V2, the latest Close Focus, and the Noct 0.95.

This is work in progress and I'm no expert so cut me a little slack. Please.





I just got the ASPH back from Leica NJ and the Noct was recently refreshed there so all should be valid comparisons.

I'm going to be posting some of these full size jpg. That's why I will break this up into multiple posts. I think some might like all the pixels.

First up distortion. In Lr all lens corrections are turned off.



















To me the only notable thing here is there is slight amount of barrel distortion with the Noct. But I don't think it's enough to ever notice in any real photo.



Field curvature. Using Roger Cicala's "Find Edges" test.





Here The ASPH has a bit of front focus at the edges and the ASPH shows a bit of the classic Mustache curvature. The Noct has a very pronounced Mustache curve. The CF here does start to show a bit better focus at the edges of the frame.

--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

 

[Rodenmg]

Resolution, or apparent sharpness.

The Zeiss Star...

These were done focusing on the center as close as possible using the Visoflex, magified view, and peaking. I shot three of each and took the sharpest of the lot.

In the center the ASPH and CF look identical to me. The Noct at f1.4 is so close you would never notice any difference in a real photo. The ability to focus manually has much more importance than any different in the lenses. At f0.95 the Noct is still sharp but now shows softness. We also start to see some color fringing with the Noct.



At the edge of the frame. For this I refocused at target at the edge of the frame to eliminate effects of field curvature. We see some light fall off and the softness of the Noct becomes more noticeable. Again I see no difference between the ASPH and the CF.



And now the WALL. The infamous WALL. For the wall I did not refocus for the corners. The same frame focused at center. These pretty much show the same thing. The ASPH and CF are indistinguishable in center and corner. The Noct being softer at the corners. It's called character.





--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

 

[Rodenmg]

Flare. This was hard to be fair and repeatable. I tried to shoot from the same position and instead of putting the camera on a tripod and just switching lenses I decided to hand hold and while looking at the rear screen move the camera around slightly to produce the MOST flair I could get.

No filters were used. They all can produce huge amounts of flair. Surprisingly, the Noct seemed the best to me. I would have thought the CF the best based on newer coatings.


ASPH


CF


Noct



As I posted this I noticed I totally screwed up and shot the Noct stopped down. I will try and redo this. Sorry.

--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

 

[Rodenmg]

Some photos. Again, manually focusing it's hard to be perfect. Again, using the Visoflex, magnified view, and peaking doing the best I can. Three shots of each frame, refocusing for each, and picking the best when viewing at 300% in Ps.

Looking at these my takeaway is the ASPH and CF are again indistinguishable. The thing with the Noct at both aperatures is the difference in the bokeh of the plant in front of the focus point. Yes, the focus point is the Star Saphire card. Every time I come home from visiting the grandkids I find little treasures in the shirt front pocket. They love sneaking little surprises there for me.

Looking at the Sypder Checker there are minor differences in color response but not enough to worry about.











--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

 

[Rodenmg]

I don't have much to say about this. The one thing that seems to be obvious is that the Noct seems to be about 1/3 stop faster than the indicated f stops on the aperture ring.

In all the situations where I shoot using manual exposure and just switching lenses, of course compensating when shooting at 0.95, the Noct seems to transmit about 1/3 more light than the ASPH and CF at the same apertures. Not important but it is what it is.









--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

 

[Rodenmg]

Now we see why the Noct exists.

But again, I can tell no difference between the ASPH and CF.

Before I sent my ASPH into Leica for a refurb I would have sworn there was more difference between it and the CF. Now I see none. To me the only thing the CF gets you is closer focusing. And there's something about the ergonomics of the ASPH that makes me like using it better. Anyway, hope someone finds all this of interest.









--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

 

[brick33308]

I've got the lux 50/1.4 asph (version with retractible hood), cron 50 rigid, 50/1.4 pre-asph v2.

The 50 pre-asph is my favorite by a long shot. Given its versatility (beautiful wide open, stopped down as sharp as the asph version), I'm on the fence whether to sell my other 2 lenses. They were both recently CLA'd by Ye, so maybe I should keep them, but I'm unsure why I'd ever select one of them to shoot with given how great the 50 pre-asph is.

Yes, the quandry of multiple 50 lenses

 

[Rexgig0]

Flare. This was hard to be fair and repeatable. I tried to shoot from the same position and instead of putting the camera on a tripod and just switching lenses I decided to hand hold and while looking at the rear screen move the camera around slightly to produce the MOST flair I could get.

No filters were used. They all can produce huge amounts of flair. Surprisingly, the Noct seemed the best to me. I would have thought the CF the best based on newer coatings.


ASPH


CF


Noct

As I posted this I noticed I totally screwed up and shot the Noct stopped down. I will try and redo this. Sorry.

This set is especially useful, for which I am grateful. The CF will not result in any “improvement” in flare characteristics. My bank/retirement accounts are safer, now.

Not that I find the flare of my much-loved ASPH 11891 to be a “problem.” The flare is reasonably predictable, and can be used artistically. For times that I have to shoot in conditions likely to cause flare, I can simply switch to my Cosina Voigtlander 50 APO VM or Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZM.

--
By accident of availability, I learned to use Canon and Nikon DSLRs at the same time. I love specific lenses made by both Canon and Nikon, too much to quit either system. Since 2018, Leica-M has been my “mirror-less” system. I am, certainly, not an expert.

 

[Rodenmg]

Noct

This set is especially useful, for which I am grateful. The CF will not result in any “improvement” in flare characteristics. My bank/retirement accounts are safer, now.

Not that I find the flare of my much-loved ASPH 11891 to be a “problem.” The flare is reasonably predictable, and can be used artistically. For times that I have to shoot in conditions likely to cause flare, I can simply switch to my Cosina Voigtlander 50 APO VM or Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZM.

From what I've seen every M lens I own can produce flare when angled just right. But move the camera a smidge and it mostly disappears. For me it's not an issue. I rarely shoot with the sun in the frame.

When I started to do this test I had b+w 007 clear filters on the lenses. Before taking the shots I removed the filters. I need to go back and do this again because I think there was actually less flare with the filters on.

 

[Rexgig0]

I do, very much, appreciate the effort necessary to create and produce this. Thanks!

I started Leica M shooting with a Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, 11891, that I found pre-owned at nearby Houston Camera Exchange, in 2018. I made at least three visits, trying that lens on pre-owned and demonstrator M9 and M Type 240 cameras, to make certain that I could use* the rangefinder, that I liked using a rangefinder, and, of course, to be certain that I liked the lens, and the results that it could produce.

I decided to buy that specific Summilux 50 ASPH 11891 before I knew which camera I would be acquiring, upon which to use it. It remains my favorite M-mount lens. (I bought a new M10. Coincidentally, it had just become possible to buy a new M10, without having to first be on a waiting list. Notably, a left rotator cuff injury had caused me to postpone buying a VERY expensive Nikon “super-telephoto” lens, so, another happy coincidence was that that my budget was prepared. No regrets; I later bought a much-less-expensive, lighter-in-weight lens for chasing birds.)

*I wear eyeglasses, so, using a rangefinder was an unknown factor, until I actually went hands-on, and eyes-on, with the real thing.

 

[Rodenmg]

I do, very much, appreciate the effort necessary to create and produce this. Thanks!

I started Leica M shooting with a Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, 11891, that I found pre-owned at nearby Houston Camera Exchange, in 2018. I made at least three visits, trying that lens on pre-owned and demonstrator M9 and M Type 240 cameras, to make certain that I could use* the rangefinder, that I liked using a rangefinder, and, of course, to be certain that I liked the lens, and the results that it could produce.

I decided to buy that specific Summilux 50 ASPH 11891 before I knew which camera I would be acquiring, upon which to use it. It remains my favorite M-mount lens. (I bought a new M10. Coincidentally, it had just become possible to buy a new M10, without having to first be on a waiting list. Notably, a left rotator cuff injury had caused me to postpone buying a VERY expensive Nikon “super-telephoto” lens, so, another happy coincidence was that that my budget was prepared. No regrets; I later bought a much-less-expensive, lighter-in-weight lens for chasing birds.)

*I wear eyeglasses, so, using a rangefinder was an unknown factor, until I actually went hands-on, and eyes-on, with the real thing.

I feel that overall and for all around use the 11 891 is my favorite M lens. I like 50's.

I'll probably end up selling the newer CF 11 728. Compared to the ASPH it does have the closer focusing capability, which is nice at times. When shooting around f4 the Ninja Star bokeh highlights are a little smoother. But the difference would not be a deciding factor for me choosing between the two lenses. If you really pixel peep the CF might be a tiny bit sharper with better contrast out at the corners. But again, it's not enough for me to worry about.

For me the biggest difference between the two, and makes me like shooting the ASPH over the CF is the physical design. The ASPH is slightly slimmer which feels so good in hand, to me and it just looks "right". The ASPH is beautiful to hold and look at. The CF is chunky. lol!

PS: I still think the ASPH renders smooth skin tones better and under the right light it has more of that classic Leica glow. But I have not been able to prove it yet.

--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

 

[Jay OC]

So far I am loving my 11891 (previous version .7m focus) It is larger than the Summicron. I have been meaning to do a side by side comparison of the two. If I wait until my son comes down from Dallas, I could include his Summicron Rigid in the mix.

 

[Rodenmg]

Outdoors.

Focus on the near flowers....



















And focus on the flag.



















And the Bench....





















--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

 

[Rodenmg]

Ninja Star bokeh balls.

Yep, the ASPH has the strongest Kung Fu.

The Newer CF and the Noct aren't perfect but noticeably smoother. Makes me wonder why Leica doesn't used curved aperture blades?









--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

 

[LCT]

Ninja Star bokeh balls.

Yep, the ASPH has the strongest Kung Fu.

The Newer CF and the Noct aren't perfect but noticeably smoother. Makes me wonder why Leica doesn't used curved aperture blades?

Unsure if aperture blades are curved on the Summilux 50/1.4 v3 (below) but its bokeh balls look significantly rounder than the Summilux 50/1.4 asph v1's (above)
Best,
LCT

 

[Rodenmg]

Ninja Star bokeh balls.

Yep, the ASPH has the strongest Kung Fu.

The Newer CF and the Noct aren't perfect but noticeably smoother. Makes me wonder why Leica doesn't used curved aperture blades?

Unsure if aperture blades are curved on the Summilux 50/1.4 v3 (below) but its bokeh balls look significantly rounder than the Summilux 50/1.4 asph v1's (above)
Best,
LCT

Actually, the blades are sort of curved but in a way that creates the stars rather than a smooth circle. The difference with the newest version, what I’m calling the CF (close focus), is they went from 9 blades to 11 making the balls smoother.



The Noct blades are similar to the summilux CF







-
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

 

[LCT]

Ninja Star bokeh balls.

Yep, the ASPH has the strongest Kung Fu.

The Newer CF and the Noct aren't perfect but noticeably smoother. Makes me wonder why Leica doesn't used curved aperture blades?

Unsure if aperture blades are curved on the Summilux 50/1.4 v3 (below) but its bokeh balls look significantly rounder than the Summilux 50/1.4 asph v1's (above)
Best,
LCT

Actually, the blades are sort of curved but in a way that creates the stars rather than a smooth circle. The difference with the newest version, what I’m calling the CF (close focus), is they went from 9 blades to 11 making the balls smoother...The Noct blades are similar to the summilux CF [...]

Also similar to the Summilux 50/1.4 v3 i was referring to apparently.
Best,
LCT

 

[Rodenmg]

Ninja Star bokeh balls.

Yep, the ASPH has the strongest Kung Fu.

The Newer CF and the Noct aren't perfect but noticeably smoother. Makes me wonder why Leica doesn't used curved aperture blades?

Unsure if aperture blades are curved on the Summilux 50/1.4 v3 (below) but its bokeh balls look significantly rounder than the Summilux 50/1.4 asph v1's (above)
Best,
LCT

Actually, the blades are sort of curved but in a way that creates the stars rather than a smooth circle. The difference with the newest version, what I’m calling the CF (close focus), is they went from 9 blades to 11 making the balls smoother...The Noct blades are similar to the summilux CF [...]

Also similar to the Summilux 50/1.4 v3 i was referring to apparently.
Best,
LCT

Good to know.

 

[aknyc]

I see you are having fun with all the tests.

I did similar tests when I replaced the Summilux-M with the close focus.

There is almost no reason to have both.
To me, the deciding factors were:
- Silver version lighter in CF
- the CF is convenient at times
- The lens shade has a rotating lock.

The rounder F-stop bokeh is only visible when you stop down a few stops. wide open, they are both round.

If you take all the lenses to f8, you can notice that the Noctilux has the sharpest image with the most microcontrast.

Flare, using filters with give you different results. The recommendation on the Noctilux is not to use filters and always use the lens shade extended.
For creative reason we can do what ever we want ;-)

 

[David Kieltyka]

Ninja Star bokeh balls.

Yep, the ASPH has the strongest Kung Fu.

The Newer CF and the Noct aren't perfect but noticeably smoother. Makes me wonder why Leica doesn't used curved aperture blades?

As a wacky-bokeh lover (or is that wacky bokeh-lover?) I like the Ninja Stars and other odd OOF shapes. The post-WWII Zeiss 50mm Sonnars do the same thing. Unfortunately it looks coolest at the apertures where focus shift is also most obvious. There are even claims Zeiss went with the star shape to reduce focus shift effects…

-Dave-