[xjjohnno]

Daniel, like you I ended up grabbing a Summilux, partially for bragging rights I suppose but also because I quite like that focal length and had to see what Leicas are about. Unfortunately my copy doesn't focus to infinity so some comparos between a Super Tak and Leica I'm not able to do. A benefit is a closer focus potential for my Leica. Other lenses, forgive me for setting you off on more LBA, worth a look at in my toy box are the CZ Planar and the Voiglander Nokton. As for comparing the lenses, both have their own appreciable characteristics.
We must catch up sometime for a lap of the botanical gardens or a bird shoot with long lenses..

[estudleon]

It's very rare the comparison among this two lenses.

They are completely different lenses, with very different schames.

The S.t. (any version) and the S-M-C have similar schame with the Summilux M first version made till 1966.

The second version of the summilux M and from the first R version are totally different lenses.

Well, actuially all the comparisons are interesant, but I saw in some forums the one made the Tak and the leica 1,4/50s.

And not with lenses of similar schames (all the japanese except miranda 1,4 lenses) and zeiss.

Rarest.

Rino.

[DanielT74]

Hi John, yes we should catch up around the gardens. I need to lug my A*300/2.8 around a bit more!

Can't afford any more purchases at the moment but thanks for the tip!

I also think I've figured out why the colours came out colder - when the image is oversize the forum software compresses it. Maybe someone in the know can confirm or deny this?

Will try to post some more tripod pics today.

[DanielT74]

Well here's my attempt to be more precise with this testing thing Shooting on a tripod (that only moved very slightly... ) And to spice it up, I am adding the A50/1.2 that I just got today to the mix. The lens is roughly contemporary with the Summilux-R 50/1.4 and the price is similar.

So lets see what they look like (I got a nasty rose thorn cut for these...)

---

Last edited by DanielT74; 06-11-2012 at 03:06 AM.

[DanielT74]

a50/1.2 followed by the leica then supertak (each with a 100% crop)

[estudleon]

Nice test. All wide open?

The ST rendering is the normal for not MC 7/6 elements lens. The backgruond is something distracting one. And has not the resolution power of the other two lenses.

Very good the 1,2 lens !!

It seems to me that the leica and the 1,2 are focused at different distances.

Thanks to share.

Rino

[DanielT74]

Yes, these are all wide open. Here's the comparison at f2.5. I will upload the comparison pics on flickr when I get the chance, because the colours are just wrong here, unfortunately...

---

Last edited by DanielT74; 06-11-2012 at 03:06 AM.

[DanielT74]

super-tak, last again.

[DanielT74]

And f4 (in case you were wondering)...

((sorry the focus is not quite the same, but I was in a rosebush looking at the viewfinder upside down, so hope you cut me some slack...))

[DanielT74]

super-tak...

[DanielT74]

I will try to compress a picture (A50/1.2) in Photoshop and upload to see if the colours are right...

Yep, it came through pretty close - the pixel dimensions are within the limits. I will try to go back and change the rest...

[Pentaxor]

Daniel, could you redo the test using a more elaborate or colorful background? shooting from MFD (for close-up bokeh and sharpness), midrange and a bit close to infinity. from wide open,2.8 and f4. also use a certain focus point on the image on the 3 lenses, as much as possible use magnified LV mode for focus.

this might be much to ask, but would appreciate it if you could for reference purposes. thanks.

[DanielT74]

I will try when I find the time (I am squeezing these things in between the job and family responsibilities - got one of the three kidlets asleep in the car right now as I type!).

I've also noticed that my summilux has a shiny ring inside the barrel as I look in - just before the aperture blades. This shouldn't be there I imagine - I may have screwed something up when I changed mounts... Will contact David at Leitax.

[Pentaxor]

I will try when I find the time (I am squeezing these things in between the job and family responsibilities - got one of the three kidlets asleep in the car right now as I type!).

I've also noticed that my summilux has a shiny ring inside the barrel as I look in - just before the aperture blades. This shouldn't be there I imagine - I may have screwed something up when I changed mounts... Will contact David at Leitax.

thanks. the reason why I ask is to see some consistency and more accurate representation. there are times that I see the the other lens is better at wide open but not so much stopped down. some of them seems to be not focused on the same image point for sharpness comparison (e.g. rose flower). this can be due to difference in DOF representation among lenses, but anyway could be better with more precise focusing. also the ST's bokeh seems to differ on the last image (maybe due to variable natural lighting condition. also I find the A50/1.2 sharper than the ST? also, can you tag each image of which lens were they take with? Thanks.

[DanielT74]

If you right click to save as, you will see the name of the lens and the aperture in the file name. The yellow rose pics are A50/1.2+crop, Leica Summilux-R 50/1.4+crop, Asahi Super-Takumar 50/1.4+crop. First at f1.4, then f2.5, then f4. Lighting condition may have changed a touch (or did I have one at f2.8??).

Yeah, I realize these are not really precise tests, more like impressions. When I have time to do some more, I will try to follow the points you bring up and change the pixel dimensions so that the forum software doesn't have to compress the image and wreck the colour scheme.

I also found the A50/1.2 to be sharper and the Leica to have more depth of field and somewhat smoother bokeh than the rest. Also notice the rims of colour/light around the out of focus petals. Here the pentaxes show more. I think this is what Lowell was talking about before.