brusby
Well-known
When I got this lens about ten years ago I took a very short walk in the park of just a few hundred feet down a little path and back in order to test it. I was surprised by the nice reception I received from most of the people I encountered.
In the order taken. All natural light. M240
L1003139 by Brusby, on Flickr
L1003141 by Brusby, on Flickr
L1003143 by Brusby, on Flickr
In the order taken. All natural light. M240
L1003139 by Brusby, on FlickrL1003141 by Brusby, on FlickrL1003143 by Brusby, on Flickr
Last edited:
brusby
Well-known
brusby
Well-known
35photo
Well-known
Very Nice!! I love mine, colors and tones are spot on.
brusby
Well-known
Thanks, it's probably my favorite and most used lens.
bcostin
Well-known
Those shots are lovely. I recently stumbled across a book titled "Central Park Country", published in 1968 by the Sierra Club. Fashion aside, these immediately reminded me of the photos from that book.
raid
Dad Photographer
These images look very nice. I do no own such a lens, so I can only guess what you could use this lens for.
Freakscene
Obscure member
@brusby your local park is very productive. Ours is mostly empty. The light was really beautiful and well captured too.
Flare from out of frame bright light. 50/1.4 ASPH, M10M. Megwalon Ki Dhani, Rajasthan, 2023.
Marty
The 50/1.4 ASPH is good for anything that a 50mm lens is good for, with the bonuses that it is already very sharp at f1.4, doesn’t have any noticeable focus shift, and very low distortion and vignetting. Its only downsides are a mild resolution drop at mid-distance (bearing in mind that its resolution is very high) and occasional flare from in-frame near the edge or just out of frame bright light sources. The newer close focus version is tweaked to improve the evenness throughout the focal range, but still flares. That is the cost of high local and overall contrast.
Flare from out of frame bright light. 50/1.4 ASPH, M10M. Megwalon Ki Dhani, Rajasthan, 2023.
Marty
Last edited:
brusby
Well-known
Oh, sounds like an interesting book, I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the heads up!
Very versatile lens. I think it's probably the most useful I've found for the widest variety of applications from portraits to landscapes and from very low light to direct sun.
If I wanted to get serious about landscapes I might pick a slower lens that has a bit more pop like a Voigtlander 50mm f3.5 or Elmar/Tessar lens or maybe even Zeiss Planar
My take on it -- much smaller and lighter than Noctilux 0.95 but can sometimes be used to produce just a bit of that dreamy kinda feel when shot wide open and particularly with people up close. Goldilocks skin tones and textures -- not too contrasty or too flat -- jussssst right haha. Pretty sharp and entirely useable from wide open and from corner to corner without the veiling flare at large apertures found in some other lenses like the Nikkor 50mm SC f1.4 or 35mm Summilux pre-asph (not denigrating those very fine lenses that I also own and love, just a comparison). It can clean up the few aberrations it does have and get very sharp by just stopping down a tad.
Thanks! Sometimes our park is empty too. Just luck of the draw I guess. But I do try to go just before dusk so I can avoid midday sun and hopefully get decent light.
Agreed
I haven't used the new one. Interesting info.
Last edited:
tcmx3
Established
Looking at the expanded width of the close focus Lux one has to wonder if they've maybe increased its coverage or something to deal with the corners.
Totally not worth it to me. I so rarely feel the need for sharp corners on a 50 and when I do, that sort of work typically allows for use of apertures greater than f2.8 anyway.
More generally, the 50 Lux ASPH is more or less apochromatic by design (though the exact meaning of the word depends on the particular lens) and features a floating lens group. It's just a remarkable little thing and if you want to do better you have to buy either a very big lens, or a considerably slower one. Having owned Summicrons and the Zeiss planar, I dunno I mean yeah it's noticeably sharper than those (no hands on experience with the 50 APO cron) but what really sets it apart IMO is the way it renders the falloff of focus. In this category, it is my all time favorite lens for any system.
These days you can throw a rock and hit a sharper 50 but it's not very meaningful. Of all the ultra-sharp 50mm or so lenses out right now, the vast majority are pretty boring to me. Nikon does a good job though. Canon does too, if you're into their look (which personally I'm not). Sony and Sigma are amazing on a technical level but boring IMO. The Voigtlander 50mm APO is very interesting but pretty portly itself. Of course when this lens was originally released in 2004, it was a step change in terms of what you could get for a 35mm system IMO.
I recall this being a Karbe lens, but it would have been in the early days. I'm not sure exactly what years it would cover, but the era covering the 95 Noctilux, 50 Lux ASPH, 28 cron ASPH, 35 Lux FLE, 21 SEM, 75AA and maybe stretching back to the 90AA too will likely be remembered as one of significance in Leica lens history. In the past couple of years IMO we've seen other companies catch up, but again often at the expense of size.
brusby
Well-known
It's worth it to me.
If I were doing only conventional single-person portraits with the subject's eyes in or near the center of the frame I might not need the extra edge definition, but the strongest case IMO for increased corner sharpness is when trying to make an image with multiple people scattered throughout the frame. IF there is a falloff in sharpness toward the periphery, the faces of anyone in the outer zones will look blurry or at least less sharp or well defined than those in the center. It creates an odd feeling image where people located at different distances from the center can look shockingly dissimilar from one another.
I was happy to have the increased edge sharpness of this lens when I was making the above images because there are a few people whose faces are located in the outer third of the frame. I think they are rendered in a way that seems to work well with the more centrally located faces.
Last edited:
tcmx3
Established
That's fair. I did, fwiw, put a "for me" on my post.
Reason being for me is that I am trying to limit size. Otherwise I would probably just stick with a (differently I guess) mirrorless system. The 50 Lux's performance already aligned well with what I need it to do, and the new one is more size for performance I wouldn't personally realize. If the new one works better for you that's great though.
Out of curiosity though, wouldnt your use case run into the field curvature of the lens? I'd think you'd want a ZM Planar, 50 APO Lanthar or 50 AA which all have really flat fields, for that sort of thing. Also as far as I've seen from samples, it's not even periphery that's improved, it's specifically the corners. I suppose you'd still have people's bodies down there so extra flatness there might be welcomed. Just not a type of photograph I ever find myself taking, as I reach for a wider lens almost immediately upon seeing more than one person around (usually 28).
Thank you for the illumination though, I was struggling to think of an example and yours is very reasonable.
brusby
Well-known
I'm not quite sure I follow what you're trying to say. Not trying to be critical, just want to understand.
Do you consider the 50mm Lux ASPH a large lens? I have the 1st generation. Is there a newer, larger one that you're objecting to?
Regarding periphery versus corners, is there a meaningful distinction between them? Aren't they terms describing essentially the same thing -- areas of the frame at increased distance from the center that tend to be less sharp or less well corrected than the center -- with corners I guess being a subset, or more restricted definition, of periphery? But I'm open to being corrected.
And I'm not necessarily looking for a super flat field. When doing portraits or even people pics like the ones above, subjects are rarely lined up in a single plane unless we're doing the family-get-together kind of thing. In fact that approach can be pretty boring -- everyone in a straight line running across the frame, and all looking directly at the camera. I've done it when I had to in order to document a large family, and for that I'll agree that flat field could be an advantage.
But, a little field curvature might not be too bad, and it might actually serve to bring people positioned off center into greater focus.
I think I'm primarily concerned with having a lens whose qualities are capable of producing a more homogeneous image than one with noticeable sharpness falloff away from center. A little field curvature wouldn't necessarily be bad, although I agree some lenses are pretty horrific in that regard, so I'd probably avoid any like that which produce unpredictable results.
Do you consider the 50mm Lux ASPH a large lens? I have the 1st generation. Is there a newer, larger one that you're objecting to?
Regarding periphery versus corners, is there a meaningful distinction between them? Aren't they terms describing essentially the same thing -- areas of the frame at increased distance from the center that tend to be less sharp or less well corrected than the center -- with corners I guess being a subset, or more restricted definition, of periphery? But I'm open to being corrected.
And I'm not necessarily looking for a super flat field. When doing portraits or even people pics like the ones above, subjects are rarely lined up in a single plane unless we're doing the family-get-together kind of thing. In fact that approach can be pretty boring -- everyone in a straight line running across the frame, and all looking directly at the camera. I've done it when I had to in order to document a large family, and for that I'll agree that flat field could be an advantage.
But, a little field curvature might not be too bad, and it might actually serve to bring people positioned off center into greater focus.
I think I'm primarily concerned with having a lens whose qualities are capable of producing a more homogeneous image than one with noticeable sharpness falloff away from center. A little field curvature wouldn't necessarily be bad, although I agree some lenses are pretty horrific in that regard, so I'd probably avoid any like that which produce unpredictable results.
Last edited:
tcmx3
Established
Leica released a v2 of the 50 Lux ASPH last year, with improved corner performance, changes to the way it handles flare, 11 aperture blades and an increased size (6mm longer, 5mm wider). Most relevant, the mfd was reduced to .45m for folks who need their rangefinder lenses to focus super close. Is the 50 Lux a large lens? Well, on an M body it's heading in that direction, IMO. Smaller is better, if performance doesn't suffer. I have very recently spent automobile money to acquire a smaller system than the Zf which I enjoy, but do _not_ enjoy using with the 50/1.8 all that much trying to walk around with it around my neck.
I have the v1. I do not think the v2 is worth the upgrade, for my own personal usage.
Re periphery vs corner, my apologies. I thought you meant the edges of the frame. The 50 Lux ASPH is... not the best in the absolute corners compared to some newer designs but this doesnt matter to me personally. I also like the red flare, I think it's charming.
Freakscene
Obscure member
The new close focus version of the 50/1.4 ASPH is 5mm wider and 7mm longer than the old one, but weighs the same. In practice I found the size difference immaterial. It’s certainly still very much smaller than most of the giant 50mm f1.4 and 1.2 lenses for mirrorless cameras, even the very best of which are only marginally better than the Leica M. The Nikkor Z 50mm f1.2 S, as an example for comparison, is approximately the size of a house brick*.
The big difference for me is that I can use the 50/1.4 in close focus mode as a substitute for the 75/2. So the new lens makes my bag 430g lighter, or lets me carry an 18mm Super Elmar and my bag is still lighter.
Marty
*exaggeration, but it is really huge. The Nikkor weighs about the same as a 50/1.4 ASPH and an M10 or M11 series Leica M camera.
tcmx3
Established
Well, you already have to pixel peep to see a difference between the 50 Lux and the v5 50 Cron if everything is in focus, and you normalize contrast at all IME.
If you do, the 50 Lux is superior.
Both Nikon 50mm lenses, and I'd assume the 58, are clearly superior to the 50 Lux ASPH when it comes to pixel level sharpness especially outside the center. The 50/1.8S is one of the most stark examples of time passing I've ever seen. The idea that you could, for about 500 dollars and change, buy a brand new Nikkor with aspherical elements and performance that crushes all but the 3 or 4 finest 50s from the last generation, is still wild to me. Well, I'm certainly on the record as liking that lens a lot. Still prefer the 50 Lux due to size concerns and overall rendering.
IME, all of these lenses you stop down because you want more depth of field. The difference in sharpness between apertures is so small that even with a high res sensor if I'm downsizing I see little point to fret over it. Some folks will argue that the 50 Lux ASPH was the first lens to cross the threshold, others maybe the 50 planar or v4 cron. Some even the old Nikon 5cm f2 rf lens. Many people were content with lenses clearly worse than all of those.
I personally do buy that being able to change your aperture mostly with concern towards DOF rather than any material sharpness is the point at which a lens becomes "sharp enough". The reason this matters is not that I need sharpness wide open exactly, just that it's one less thing to worry about, and who doesn't love a bit of convenience. But, as always, different folks will have different requirements. If I needed to shoot with the absolute highest sharpness possible across the entire frame, I'd rent one of those 100mp Hasselblads. Everything I see out of them stuns me. But they're hard cameras to carry around town.
If you do, the 50 Lux is superior.
Both Nikon 50mm lenses, and I'd assume the 58, are clearly superior to the 50 Lux ASPH when it comes to pixel level sharpness especially outside the center. The 50/1.8S is one of the most stark examples of time passing I've ever seen. The idea that you could, for about 500 dollars and change, buy a brand new Nikkor with aspherical elements and performance that crushes all but the 3 or 4 finest 50s from the last generation, is still wild to me. Well, I'm certainly on the record as liking that lens a lot. Still prefer the 50 Lux due to size concerns and overall rendering.
IME, all of these lenses you stop down because you want more depth of field. The difference in sharpness between apertures is so small that even with a high res sensor if I'm downsizing I see little point to fret over it. Some folks will argue that the 50 Lux ASPH was the first lens to cross the threshold, others maybe the 50 planar or v4 cron. Some even the old Nikon 5cm f2 rf lens. Many people were content with lenses clearly worse than all of those.
I personally do buy that being able to change your aperture mostly with concern towards DOF rather than any material sharpness is the point at which a lens becomes "sharp enough". The reason this matters is not that I need sharpness wide open exactly, just that it's one less thing to worry about, and who doesn't love a bit of convenience. But, as always, different folks will have different requirements. If I needed to shoot with the absolute highest sharpness possible across the entire frame, I'd rent one of those 100mp Hasselblads. Everything I see out of them stuns me. But they're hard cameras to carry around town.
Last edited:
brusby
Well-known
Oh, seems I've been out of the loop for all the latest and greatest new lenses. I'm very happy with the v1, love it's size and optical qualities and agree with you tcmx3 about not needing or wanting to upgrade. But if I didn't already have one or needed/wanted closer focusing capabilities like Marty, the new version sounds nice.
tcmx3
Established
I'll add separately that I find it humorous that the Nikon 50/1.2 got so big with the F to Z move...
but the 2.8S zooms which are probably more useful to most people who'd be shopping for a 50/1.2 all got smaller.
but the 2.8S zooms which are probably more useful to most people who'd be shopping for a 50/1.2 all got smaller.
Freakscene
Obscure member
The additional width is to accommodate the longer helicoid to facilitate close focus. The coverage is about the same; it's just the correction is improved with the new design having an improved front 3 elements.
Marty
rodt16s
Well-known
Mine flares quite badly, I thought it was just my sample. I tried a deeper hood thinking it might help, sadly not.
Sent it to Leica, they said there was no problem.