Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Unfortunately I can't compare the two. But 25 years ago I bought a used 50mm lux. For almost 23 years it was my only Leica lens (on a M3). It was my available light combo and I used it as a first choice and low-light backup for all my photography. The cron may be sharper somewhere, but I've never taken a picture with this lens that I thought was lacking with respect to sharpness, contrast or clarity - I'm sure those are all abstract measures but I prefer this lens to any pictures I take with my N*. The isolation of the subject from the background at f2/f1.4 is outstanding. I agree with the comments that it is a bargain. I use my Leica for mostly "people" shots and if there is any improvement in sharpness in the cron it is of little importance to my kind of photography. Regards, Roger Bob Walkden wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm planning to buy one or other of these, preferably a 50mm chrome Summilux > post s/n 1844001, for my M3. I've had various comments which claim that the > optical quality is noticeably inferior even at small print sizes to the > equivalent Summicrons, and that mechanically they are also poorer because of > soft aluminium (aluminum) used in the gears and cogs and things, but others > which claim that the 'luxes are, if anything, better optically than the > 'crons (of course they are at 1.4). > > Is there a resource which compares the different 50s in their different > incarnations, giving the pros and cons of each one? > > Thanks, > > Bob > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com