Re: [Leica] Summicron-M 50mm or Summilux-M 50mm?

["usinet.srlond" <srlondon@ibm.net>]

>
>I am afraid I am going to ask a rather difficult question.
>
>What are the relative merits of the Summicron-M 50mm f/2.0 and the 
>Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 for the M6. Tests are not always quite clear on the 
>issue, although I get the impression that the Summicron often receives 
>better test results than the Summilux.
>
>Does anyone have experience with both lenses? Which lens should be 
>preferred in terms of highest overall optical quality?

As Erwin Puts has wisely pointed out in a previous post, the Summicron is 
probably the more perfect lens, but in the low-light conditions in which 
I appreciate using the Summilux, the difference is likely unnoticable.

I purchased a late-version Summilux a month ago and have been thoroughly 
pleased with its performance.  The extra stop over the Summicron is 
useful if you're using the camera for low-light work, and I was not able 
to detect any significant loss of contrast at f/1.4.  Flare was very well 
suppressed at larger apertures, as well.  Using the lens at f/1.4 gives a 
marvellous isolation of the subject due to shallow depth of field.  The 
out-of-focus portions of the frame appear very smooth and appealing, in 
addition.

The Summilux has admirable low-light ability while maintaining a 
reasonably small size and weight.  If you don't need the extra stop, by 
all means save the money and the weight and go for the Summicron.  If you 
need an f/1.4 lens, then I'm sure that you will be more than pleased.