Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH

[Bjorn van Sinttruije]

Only have one (test) shot to show so far, since I don't own this lens just yet, but expect to see more photos in, say, two years (?).



Have a look at the full resolution shot here:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4140/491 ... 711e_o.jpg

- Bjorn -

[dubaiphil]

That's the 50 to have!

[Bjorn van Sinttruije]

The 50mm is (and will remain for some time) the only lens I have for my Leica, but there are few better lenses to have. A 35mm Lux would probably serve me even better, but a fifty worked for HCB, and so it will do just fine for me.
I could post all the pictures I have shot with the lens in this thread, but I guess linking to some albums works better. Just click on the pictures below to go to the albums.


Paris:





London:





Berlin:





Museum watching:





Sets of series:





Daily shots:

(many of these are taken with my Leica D-Lux 5, but there are quite a few M + 50 Lux shots too)


- Bjorn

[renjith]

Bjorn,I have this question in my mind for a quiet long time! dont take it as an offence

What extra would u able to get with ur new Leica as compared to to old DSLR other than that BIG BRAND NAME
As par as my understanding, their lenses are great but couldnt find any marginal difference in IQ!
Also its lacking lot more things including AF as compared to modern DSLR
Dont u think that the modern FF DSLR can resolve more details and produce better Dynamic range with faster AF and other advantages
Whats the point of moving from A DSLR to Far expensive Leica system?

May be i sound stupid, but i found that this forum is the best place to get the answers for those questions in my ind

[dubaiphil]

Here's my initial input, although I have only briefly used a Leica that a friend owns. Bjorn will no doubt give you a far more balanced assessment!

In terms of image quality, Leica generally has superior optics to main brand DSLR manufacturers. Due to the lack of a mirror, the lens sits closer to the sensor itself which helps IQ - I'm sure Bjorn will go into far greater detail here...

Most DSLR lenses (there are a few exceptions) offer optimum performance once stopped down. Most of the Leica range perform very strongly wide open. The nearest I have in terms of performance is my Carl Zeiss 2/35 Distagon which is sharper at f2 than my 24-70mm f2.8 pro zoom at f4. Sure, there may be relative 'dogs' in the range, but as a whole the lenses are good performers wide open. That's before you get onto colour rendition, bokeh etc etc

AF is not the be all and end all! Far from it! With my manual focus Carl Zeiss, in certain circumstances, I can get a sharp in focus keeper far quicker than with an autofocus lens.

Hard stop at infinity - check
Distance scales for zone focusing - check

Form factor - the M9 is bigger in the flesh than you may think, but it is far more compact as a system and more discrete.

Shutter speeds - without a mirror clacking about, with smaller lenses and less weight, you can get away with slower shutter speeds hand held

Viewfinder - depending on lens, you can see subjects before they enter the actual shot. In some ways and circumstances, very useful

In many ways the M9 and M9-P may seem outdated when comparing specs, but rangefinder shooting is a completely different experience. I for one will be very interested to hear Bjorn's summary on the M9-P versus the new M and his reasons for disliking the latest Leica offering. There are many features on the M9 range that seem antiquated which for the money I feel should have been updated (LCD resolution being one, for example).

So if you get caught up in the marketing advances (who realistically, as an amateur, NEEDS 36MP, if they only occasionally print at 6x4"?) then the M may seem behind the times and antiquated. However, as a shooting experience I fell in love with it!

Patek Phillipe versus Timex. They both do the job, vary considerably in cost, many buyers of the slightly ( ) more expensive Pateks just buy to collect but many more to wear and appreciate for many years to come...