28 summicron, 50 summilux, or 35 FLE decisions, decisions...

[rscheffler]

IMO the 50 Lux ASPH is not too clinical, but it's bokeh quality is extremely neutral, which can lend to that impression. Wide open at close distance it's got a slightly soft sharpness, which is complementary for portrait work. At far distances it's already quite sharp wide open but gets to be extremely sharp when stopped down a bit.

Regarding the Zeiss 50 Planar (both focus to 70cm), the Zeiss is more contrasty at close distances and the bokeh is harder (hard edges to oof specular highlights). IMO the 50 Lux ASPH has less field curvature, but has a more pronounced mid zone dip in sharpness at wide apertures (you can see this in the MTF curves), whereas the Planar has a gradual falloff in sharpness to the edges, where it is softer than the Lux. I can shoot landscapes wide open or at f/2 with the Lux and have good across the frame sharpness, whereas with the Planar I feel I need to stop down past f/4 for the same (also my copy does not focus to infinity wide open).

I posted some close up bokeh comparison shots of the 50 Lux ASPH, 50 Planar, CV50/1.5 and CV40/1.4 here: f/1.2 or faster lenses wide open - FM Forums

I started my M9 system with Zeiss 21/35/50, then added the 90 Summarit. I found that I would use both the 35 and 50, but that the gap between 21 and 35 was pretty substantial. On SLRs I was never much of a 28mm fan, but based in part from images I've seen from the 28 Cron, added one to my kit. Initially it was a bit of an odd focal length for me, but over time I've found I use it and the 50 about equally. If it's a bit too loose for some situations, I'll simply crop the shot afterwards. 18MP (and soon to be 24) gives you that leeway.

I'll add that the 28 Cron is a very interesting lens. Great colour, saturation and sharpness, along with interesting vignetting character. It's different from my other Leica lenses, but I just added the 21SEM and think the two share some similarities... Both are very sharp and seem to have somewhat higher contrast than my other Leica lenses...

 

[MCTuomey]

I'll add that the 28 Cron is a very interesting lens. Great colour, saturation and sharpness, along with interesting vignetting character. It's different from my other Leica lenses, but I just added the 21SEM and think the two share some similarities... Both are very sharp and seem to have somewhat higher contrast than my other Leica lenses...

Ron, if you don't mind, because I'm interested in the SEM 21 as a replacement for my uncoded ZM 21 f/2.8, I'd appreciate your thoughts on (a) similarities b/w the SEM 21 and the Cron 28 ASPH (which I really like) and (b) comparisons b/w the SEM 21 and the ZM 21 f/2.8. That's a lot to ask, I know, anything you could share would be helpful.

 

[arild]

I bought the 35 FLE, in part because I´ve always liked the idea of a 35 prime, but never owned one, in part because it´s undeniably awesome when it comes to MTF curves and whatnot, and in part because it was the lens that made me buy an M9 to begin with.

I returned the FLE after a total of eight days in my ownership. It wasn´t for me, when it came down to decision time. Then I did what I should´ve done from the start; bought myself a Cron 28. Why, you ask? I like wide angles, with all their (dis)advantages, spontaneity and huge amounts of depth of field at relatively open apertures. The 28 draws gentler and allows more slop in the focusing department than the FLE, so it has that going for it, too..

I also found out that I can buy a less expensive ASPH v1 when the extra stop and/or more subject isolation is required, later on. It´s a more "standard" focal length than the 28, and I don´t love the fifty mm all that much, so it would fill that niche,too. Until then, I´ll be perfectly content with the 28, and possibly a 90, as described in my other thread. (I´m pretty green with Leicas, in case it´s not obvious)

Cron at F/2.8, curious work buddy

35 FLE at F/1.4, another work buddy

 

[SYGTAFOTO]

Resistence is futile.. Follow your guts and get the 50 lux..

I have been down this road and the constant thought in my mind was,
"Maybe I should have just bought the Leica instead of Zeiss."

It seems that you like the 50mm FOV, so I would say the 50mm lux is the obvious candidate.

I also kept a large arsenal of lenses. But in reality, you will have your favourite and you likely won't want to waste time changing lenses when you could just be shooting...

 

[animefx]

You guys helped me justify the 50 Summilux ASPH. I just ordered one today! Should get it sometime next week.

I kind of wanted my 1st experience with it to be on full frame (Leica M) instead of my M8, but the price I got for it is nearly $600 cheaper than new price so I had to take advantage of it. 66mm should be great for portraits and misc shots while we all wait for the Leica M.

I am selling my 5D2, 580ex II, 135 f/2L, and 35mm f/1.4L to pay for it, I should have a few hundred left over to put down on the Leica M next year.

 

[MCTuomey]

When I had my M8, I enjoyed the 50 focal length on it, and easily got used to the crop factor effect. As you say, very nice for portraits and a lot of city/street shooting too. I don't think the Lux ASPH will disappoint you.

 

[animefx]

When I had my M8, I enjoyed the 50 focal length on it, and easily got used to the crop factor effect. As you say, very nice for portraits and a lot of city/street shooting too. I don't think the Lux ASPH will disappoint you.

I think your right, both M8 and M9 photos I've seen taken with this lens are beautiful. I was wrong about the shipping... I should get it tomorrow because they aren't too far from me!

Maybe I'll take the lens to Chicago or St. Louis this weekend. I'll post photos and my impression in a seperate thread probably by Monday or Tuesday

 

[glenerrolrd]

Ron, if you don't mind, because I'm interested in the SEM 21 as a replacement for my uncoded ZM 21 f/2.8, I'd appreciate your thoughts on (a) similarities b/w the SEM 21 and the Cron 28 ASPH (which I really like) and (b) comparisons b/w the SEM 21 and the ZM 21 f/2.8. That's a lot to ask, I know, anything you could share would be helpful.

These are my most used lenses 21 and 28 M . If you use the 28/2asph as a point f reference ..resolution is exceptional ,color is near perfect ,and contrast is moderate without harshness . The ZM 21 has a typical zeiss ..biting sharpness and contrast . So it has a different aesthetic . The 21SEM is IMHO as perfect an M lens as I have seen ....excels in every measure of IQ . I find the 21SEM and the 28CRON work very well together ..although the 21SEM has stronger contrast and color saturation . (its is similar to the 35/1.4FLE in rendering).

 

[algrove]

If you like the 35 on your M8 (about 50 equivalent) then would not the 50 on the M be the lens for you?

 

[MCTuomey]

These are my most used lenses 21 and 28 M . If you use the 28/2asph as a point f reference ..resolution is exceptional ,color is near perfect ,and contrast is moderate without harshness . The ZM 21 has a typical zeiss ..biting sharpness and contrast . So it has a different aesthetic . The 21SEM is IMHO as perfect an M lens as I have seen ....excels in every measure of IQ . I find the 21SEM and the 28CRON work very well together ..although the 21SEM has stronger contrast and color saturation . (its is similar to the 35/1.4FLE in rendering).

Thank you much, Roger. All noted - will be very helpful in my decision-making. --Mike

 

[rscheffler]

Ron, if you don't mind, because I'm interested in the SEM 21 as a replacement for my uncoded ZM 21 f/2.8, I'd appreciate your thoughts on (a) similarities b/w the SEM 21 and the Cron 28 ASPH (which I really like) and (b) comparisons b/w the SEM 21 and the ZM 21 f/2.8. That's a lot to ask, I know, anything you could share would be helpful.

It's still early for me with the SEM 21, but I feel the colour quality, contrast and sharpness between it and the 28 Cron are similar. The difference is that when stopped down around f/8, the SEM seems to have little visible vignetting whereas the Cron never seems to totally lose the vignetting. I'm not sure if this is a lens correction profile decision by Leica. I've noticed in higher ISO shots with the SEM (wide open where vignetting will be stronger) that noise at the image edges can be somewhat high because the correction profile is countering the vignetting perhaps more than I would like. Also, wide open the SEM is already very sharp across the frame, except perhaps at the very edges and corners, and stopping down doesn't really result in much of a change, other than more depth of field. The Cron wide open is somewhat softer in these areas (though very sharp centrally), but then, it's f/2 and stopped down to 3.4 or 4 is very good as well. The Cron exhibits some simple barrel distortion whereas the SEM seems better corrected, though Leica's distortion numbers for it indicate it distorts more than the Cron, and that distortion is more complex. LR4 has profiles for both and seems to correct both quite well.

SEM vs. the ZM21 f/2.8.... The ZM was one of the lenses I started with on the M9, but I haven't yet done a direct comparison between the two. I hope to do a shootout at some point. But here are my impressions: The ZM seems to have a fair amount of field curvature which results in soft edges/corners if photographing a fairly flat subject. Central sharpness is excellent, but you have to stop down a couple stops for the edges to catch up. The SEM seems to have a flatter plane of focus. Physically the SEM is a bit shorter and the focusing tab is nice to have, as is proper coding and recognition by the M9. Optically I suspect the SEM is more telecentric than the ZM, which on the M9 might not mean all that much since the firmware update around June 2011 eliminated my need for a Cornerfix profile with the 21 Elmarit non-ASPH code for the ZM, but the SEM will probably play nicer on a wider range of mirrorless cameras. I get the feeling both are quite high contrast. On paper the SEM should be sharper, and so far I have been impressed with it. In this respect, I can definitely see the difference between it and my 21 Lux. Vs the ZM... I think if you're shooting a lot stopped down a fair amount - landscapes, urban scenes, etc. - there won't be a significant difference between the two. I think I would choose the SEM primarily because it's better wide open and would be willing to give up the half-stop for this and the smaller size of the lens.

And as mentioned, at some point I hope to do a shootout between these two, and maybe throw in the 21 Lux as well.

BTW, I can tell you the SEM outclasses the Lux for across the frame sharpness with both at f/3.4, but nothing, other than perhaps the upcoming CV21/1.8 can touch the Lux for subject/background separation.

Hope this helps....

 

[MCTuomey]

Hope this helps....

Very much so, Ron. I value your assessment. Better corner performance at wider apertures is a plus for me (longer exposure architecture/cityscape night shooting is something I do), so I need to weigh the extra cost of the SEM21 against that benefit. I'm usually shooting my ZM 21/2.8 at f8 to ensure good corner sharpness.