rscheffler
New member
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...
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...