Hi,

I investigated the f-stop vs. price relationship in M lenses and was wondering if the move from Summicron to Summilux was worth $1,000 and from Summilux to Noctilux another $1,000. I realize money is a relative thing on this newsgroup, but are Summicrons on a par with the Summilux and Noctilux in terms of quality, if price is not a factor?

It is hard to get an unbiased answer by trolling the website because Noctilux owners tend to justify their purchase in very eloquent terms.

FWIW I ended up buying the 35mm Summicron-M Asph because I liked its size, very convenient, lives up to the Leica promise of discreteness. However, I now wonder if I should have bought the Summilux instead. Somehow these ideas creep up at the wrong point in a purchase of this kind, for after agonizing over the price and justifying it, and then spending it, suddenly Summilux greed takes over.

Thanks,

-- Vikram Singh (VSingh493@aol.com), January 22, 2002

Answers

Having gone through the same post-purchase pangs, my suggestion would be to go forth and photograph, carrying a small note pad and a pencil. Every time you just can't get the shot at f/2, make a note in the notepad. Look at the notepad at the end of 3 months, and again at the end of 6 months. My notepad would be empty. Yours might not be, but you'll have documentation to back up any second guessing you might want to do.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 22, 2002.

How can you advise on subjectivity? Speaking only for myself, I can't imagine missing one f-stop like I would miss the extra grand that stop costs. I think you will find f2 to be plenty fast. $1,000 buys a bunch of film.

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), January 22, 2002.

Your first paragraph implies you are asking about lenses with a 50mm focal length, as you mention the Noctilux. However your second question seems to be asking a question on the 35's...

My answer is one that others have used for this question in the past on the 'Cron/'Lux/Noct debate: At f5.6 and above, you'll have a tough time telling them apart. At f2, the 'Cron probably has a slight edge over the "lux and the Noct, at f1.4 the 'Lux probably has a slight edge over the Noct, but blows the 'Cron away, and at f1 the Noct wins hands-down.

The point is, all Leica glass is very good and there is no need to pay for an f-stop you don't need or will rarely ever use.

To your second question, how often have you wanted an extra stop on your 35 'Cron? If the answer is "quite often" then you probably should consider getting the 'Lux. OTOH if your answer is "only on occasion" then you are probably just as well off with your 'cron and a heavier wallet.

;-) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 22, 2002.

I've have considered your questions several times myself. I have found that even 1.0 might not be fast enough all the time. I no longer stress over the "which lens" question, but now consider which film. Faster films have eased my pain.

-- Don M (Maldos@home.com), January 22, 2002.

Im with Don on this one. Ive always found myself creeping toward faster and faster lenses, both for rangefinder and slr. The truth that Im starting to realize, is that very often nothing is fast enough, and Im much better served to go with a faster film. This may be of course because Ive been doing most of my shooting indoors lately too-- 1.4 is fast enough, I found that I struggled with my Canon 50 f1.2 over DOF issues. But then again there's that nagging "maybe if you caved in for a noct, you'd practice a lot more.." Go with the lens you have, and you will know after some time if you NEED faster. Best,

-- Marke Gilbert (Bohdi137@aol.com), January 22, 2002.

sadly, I am not a Leica owner so take my words lightly. I can, however, relate this to my Hasselblad endeavours, and tell you that I recently purchased a 110mm F2 lens because it offers me something no other lens can. the delicious lack of DOF at f2 in medium-format. my photography requires this, and a Noctilux would be my 35mm equivalent. I am not looking for sharpness nor edge definition when I shoot wide-open. I want character. I want a signature. I wanted something that f4 doesn't yield, and I paid the price.

quit thinking pure f-stops ... and look deeper.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), January 22, 2002.

For me a 35/1.4ASPH is a useful lens with a useful aperture, especially since I use a Tri-Elmar for most shooting, which is 3 full stops slower, and no performance penalty over the 35/2ASPH. The 50/1.4 OTOH represents a less clear-cut decision because f/1.4 is visibly lower contrast and less sharp in the corners than the 35/1.4ASPH and you even give up something to the 50/2 in the performance at f/2 and f/2.8. In addition the shallow DOF at f/1.4 with a 50mm has a very, very limited usefulness in my photography. The Noctilux represents not only an enormous price increase, but also an enormous weight and bulk increase not to mention blockage of a significant chunk of the viewfinder. Plus, to me the only subject I could cover satisfactorily with the meager DOF at f/1 would be a newspaper taped to a wall. I've wondered sometimes if that might not in fact be the subject most often photographed with Leica lenses ;>) (Except that the vignetting at f/1 would make it unsuitable even for flat-copy work.) So you can probably guess which 50 I own.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 22, 2002.

When i was comparing a 35/1.4 and a 35/2 of 2 different brands of SLR lenses, i did notice that even at same aperture size, the 35/1.4 register bigger discs with out-of-focus highlights. More obvious when shooting at 1.5m than at 2.5m and when i took it to 1m, the character is hard to ignore.

That is my basis of choosing my next lens: 35/1.4 ASPH, no matter what others say about the 4th 35/2.

-- y.shawee (shawee@pacific.net.sg), January 22, 2002.

In Leicadom, faster is always more attractive: the quality is there at maximum aperture, and you will be shooting whatever stock when your competitors will be packing up, weither it is K25 time or T- Max3200 time...

If you can afford the 35 'lux, buy it. Size is not that bad and it will serve that extra mile where the 'cron stalls. If you can afford the 50 'lux, buy it, for the same reasons. Nocti is a little less versatile and therefore more questionable, but f1 will let you shoot when even f1.4 users decide to pack up...

I've done what you did. I like my 35 'cron, I use it daily with complete confidence. Great at all apertures, small, etc. But boy, do I lust for the 'lux. That extra mile is soooo useful !

And yes, f1.4 with 35mm allows more selective focus effects, difficult to obtain with a wide angle. Same with f1.4 (or f1) with 50mm: fight the ugly backgrounds with minimal DoF.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.

One of the good features of a rangefinder is its compactness. When you use lenses with a bigger maximum aperture, you lose some of this quality. I do love fast lenses, but sometimes I would prefer something smaller and lighter.

Leica lenses are getting better and better, but unfortunately they are also becoming bigger and heavier.

The other day I just went to a shop full of Leica stuff and I one more time dreamt about getting one of the old LTM mount cameras: They are so small and compact that the M looks big in comparison. And also the old LTM lenses. For example their was an old 28mm Hector whose height must half been barely more that a half inch... I will get one of these cute little bastards one of these days.

Before commiting to a lens, decide what is the most important to you: Speed or compactness. Both current 35mm are great.

-- Xavier C. (xcolmant@powerir.com), January 23, 2002.

Since you mentioned 50mm lenses first (assuming that "Noctilux" means you're thinking about 50s), maybe you're trying to decide what to get for your next lens. In that case, you might consider that a used 50mm Summilux certainly doesn't need to cost $1000 more than a new Summicron.

And if you think beyond just the f-stops, as daniel taylor suggests, you may also be interested in the many fine 50 f/1.4 lenses from Leica, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, and others over the past 50 years. Many of these lenses are also known for having particular signatures.

If you're looking for a new 50, and you want Summilux speed, but you're worried you won't use it enough to justify the price, you might also consider thes Voigtlander (Cosina) Nokton 50 f/1.5, for about $400.

-- John Morris (jtmorris@slb.com), January 23, 2002.

To answer your question, of course the Summicrons are "on a par" w/the Summilux & Noctilux in terms of quality--actually they tend to perform better (if only slightly so) @ the same apertures (designing & manufacturing faster lenses involves many optical compromises). As other posters have noted, you should only get the Summilux or Noctilux if you really need (or want) the extra stop or 2 & you can justify the extra $$ to get that extra speed.

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@cris.com), January 23, 2002.

Thanks again for all your opinions. It's amazing how much agonizing thought (and psychic energy) goes into choosing a lens when there are sometimes only two to choose from in a particular focal length. The whole process is really quite a joy that only lovers of this stuff can understand.

Note: I didn't get into the black vs. chrome thing, but I would guess there are strong views on each side.

Thanks very much,

-- Vikram Singh (VSingh493@aol.com), January 23, 2002.

It's funny how many of us get caught up in endless analysis before deciding what our next equipment purchase will be. We ponder and ponder and even ask others in the community for advice. And then when we finally purchase and actually use that next item, the fog fades and it all becomes so clear ... whether that analysis was dead on or way off the mark.

-- Kelvin Leung (kleung@alumni.calpoly.edu), January 24, 2002.

Vikram,

I have owned the Asp35'lux, 50'lux and Noctilux. The speed of the lenses is very important with lowlight photography, but the modern highspeed films available today make slower lenses very competative too.

I sold both of my 1.4's and shoot mostly with my Nocitlux now. As far as image sharpness and contrast go, the 35 wins hands down. It is better ergonomically and probably is a more practical focal length.

It probably is the best lowlight lens too, given the focal length to aperature ratio.

My reasons for my choices? Purely emotional. I don't like the bokeh of the Asp 35 and love the look of the Noctilux.

It's image is soft, there is vignetting, it's big and heavy and slow it use. But when I look at the prints.....nothing else comes close.

The 50'lux is very similar and infact has more contrast and almost no noticable vignetting and is much smaller than the Noctilux. However, the bokeh is still not the same, even at the same aperature settings. ;-)

Do I miss these lenses. Sometimes. I think not having a 35 can be a pain, but I had an emotional distance to my 35'lux which was bought used and my dealings with the seller soured my feelings. Plus I sold to a friend who will benefit from it's use.

I am now eyeing off a 35'cron that is much more compact and much lower in price than the 'luxes.

Vikram, nothing about Leicas is rational. Emotion rules in this particular field of interest. If we were truely right brained about our photography we'd all be shooting with something else....

Now to come off my tangental ramblings.....the 35Asp'lux has very similar performance to the 35Asp'cron. A little sharper in the centre and a little softer at the edges. The benefit of the 'lux is one extra stop-and a high contrast useable stop at that. The benefit of the 'cron is greater edge to edge eveness in performance and a flatter field image. Plus it's smaller and it's cheaper.

Simon

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.

Vikram. The relationship of the price vs maximum aperture is not related to optical quality per se. The larger the aperture, the harder it is to design a high quality lens and the greater the cost of the glass (more glass plus expensive special types of glasses needed to provide the necessary correction). To defray the designcosts and the materials costs, the manufacturer charges more for lenses of the same focal length with larger max apertures.

Basically, you're paying for the maximum aperture. Gnereally speaking, other things being equal, the lenses with more modest apertures will have the best absolute performance. The Noctilux is a good example, not as good optical quality as the Summicron, aperture for aperture, but much more expensive. The 50/2 Summicron is still the best 50 Leica makes.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 25, 2002.

Simon and Eliot,

Thanks very much for your responses, even though your conclusions are diametrically opposed! As Kelvin said, we ponder and ponder.

The 35 Summicron Asph is a cutie, and the other lenses look huge by comparison. Only the 50 Summicron comes close. In spite of the small size, the images from the 35 are wonderful, if only my talent and vision could keep up!

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), January 26, 2002.