I'm having a good offer on a 50/M 'lux, I have used 50/1.4 from Canon and Nikon and 50/1.7 from Yashica before, but I have never been impresed by performace of those wide open, I do like performace wide open of latest 50/2 M and 50/2 DR, what shall I spect from this one owner/users?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 04, 2002

Answers

Roberto:

I have the new version with the built-in hood and it is one of my favorite lenses. It is relatively small, and IMO performed essentially as well as the Summicron it replaced.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 04, 2002.

If you can't see any significant difference between the 50/2DR and the latest 50/2 wide open, then you will be very happy with the wide open performance of the 50/1.4. To me the performance of the 50 Lux is visibly behind the latest 50/2 as well as the 11817 at f/2, and about even with the DR/rigid. At f/1.4 the 50's performance drops again, visibly. Don't even bother comparing it to the 35/1.4ASPH.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 04, 2002.

I dont have my Puts book with me , but I believe he states thats is at least as good (equal) to the summicron from f2 down, the advantage going to the extra speed when needed, I believe it is essentially a fast summicron.

-- mike (thearea19@aol.com), March 04, 2002.

I'm very happy with my first-version 50 Summilux. The 50 DR-Summicron may be very-slightly sharper at f2-2.8, but it's a subtle difference. If maximum contrast and resolution are important to you, you might be disappointed by the 'lux's wide-open performance, but the images it produces definitely have the "Leica look." Wide open, there's some of the off-axis coma, "swirly" look I've seen in Noctilux images, but it's not as severe. Image below was shot wide open:

I think the following shot was also made wide open (at about 1/25; there's a bit of motion blur):

This series was shot at f1.7.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 04, 2002.

Thankīs all for your ilustrative answers, Mikeīs pictures have help me figure out the lens look, and other sources too, it has a classic print, but in a next level of contrast compared to the DR, hope it can replace both of them.

Jay, if I say that Iīm please with my two īcrons it is not because I donīt see a diference betwen them, that is what I like of each one, I could be please with the cotrast of my 50/1.7 yashica wide open too, but I just donīt like how itīs pictures look, and it is about image look what my question is about

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 04, 2002.

It was in this forum that someone implied that the 50 Summilux was the same design as the 50/1.4 Nikkor and thus not much different in terms of overall performance-which it was further implied was way below other Leica lenses.

But is this true?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 05, 2002.

The most recent variation of the 50mm M 'lux focuses down to 0.70m (against 1 m for previous variations). This can be an important issue for some applications.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 05, 2002.

the one I'm buying is from the 80's, same design as latest but without a build-in hood, for 650 USD seemed a good price,

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 05, 2002.

I'm buying it without a hood, hope it can be easy to find, about 1mt. focusing I find it bad in my 35'lux, hope I can live with it in this 50.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 05, 2002.