Transcription
Hey there, my name is Andrew Brustansky, and I am a professional photographer based in Montreal. And today, we will be talking about the 50 Summilux Spherical versus the 50 Summicron Version 5. Whichever one that you do choose, rest assured that you're buying into one of the very best 50 millimeter lenses ever produced. Both of these lenses are benchmark lenses, and I love them both. Uh, I only can own one for the time being, but in a perfect world, I would own both.
I started off with the 50 Summicron, and I later on sold it to a good friend of mine, who lent it to me for this video and for all the testing that I have done over the last two weeks. Uh, but I've sold it to fund the 50 Summilux Spherical. Um, there are a lot of things that I miss, uh, that I came to appreciate and and love about the, uh, 50 Summicron that the Summilux does not do. But there are also a lot of things that the Summilux can do that the Summicron cannot. So, in the end, uh, I'm sticking with the Summilux for now, but I will show you why. Whichever one of these that you do decide on, you're not gonna go wrong. They are both amazing lenses.
I have used them both for professional work. I've used them for weddings, portraiture, products, and day-to-day use. Uh, both of these lenses, given the fact that they're 50 millimeters, really scratch that creative itch when you want to just go out and take some pictures. And I find I'm inspired by both of them, but in different ways. And starting with the build quality, let's just get out of the way right away. They're both very, very well-made lenses. Uh, the beauty of buying into Leica is the fact that they're serviceable. So, if you ever do use them a lot, and I'll be honest with you, over time, they do tend to loosen up. Uh, I've played with new, brand-new versions of these lenses, and now that I've used both of these for a very long time, I could start to see why a CLA could come in handy. But for the time being, they're both really well.
This lens here is benefiting from a recent CLA as of like a month ago. Actually, the hood on this lens was, was a little wobbly. Um, and, uh, my friend James, who bought it from me, uh, he got it serviced, and now the hood really comes in and out as stiff as a brand new one. There's no play, really, to speak of. The aperture blades, not the aperture, but the aperture itself is a little more clicky and a little more, uh, dampened than it was when I sold it to him. Uh, the focus throw, I can't really feel a difference from when he got it from me, but it's still, it is still, I think, the smoothest, fastest focusing lens I've ever used in terms of manual lenses. Uh, there is, there is no resistance. Uh, it is, it just goes from minimum focusing distance to infinity in a quick one-finger throw. And when you're shooting from the hip, or when you're just out and about and you want to do a quick focus on the fly, look at that. You don't need a tab for this lens.
I'm going to be really honest with you. The only times where I missed having a tab with this lens, uh, was for zone focusing. Um, 50 millimeter lenses are a little hard to zone focus with to begin with, just because when you're shooting from the hip, uh, I, I myself have a hard time predicting the framing, especially as you're getting closer to subject. Uh, and the, like, that confirmation that you get from a tab for knowing where the focus is can be useful in those instances. But, uh, it wasn't something that, once you get your muscle memory used the lens and look down at it, you can tell always where it is in its focus range. Um, but it's something to know. A lot of people gripe about it not having a focus tab, but, uh, I came to terms with it pretty early on, and it never really felt like a shortcoming for the lens. So, uh, just give it a chance. If you're looking at one of these lenses and you're hesitating just because one has a focus tab and the other doesn't, well, uh, use this lens for a while. Shoot a couple rolls with it, or, or slap it on a digital camera, take a few pictures, and, and I think you'll come to agree with me that the tab, uh, while it could be useful, it's not a necessity, especially for a lens that you can focus with your pinky. I mean, it doesn't get better than that.
Um, now on to the Summilux, which is my current lens. Um, this one here is, uh, a mixed bag. Build quality, I'm gonna say it, uh, is a little tighter. Uh, I would almost say out of the various Summilux 50 Summilux lenses that I've used, uh, they tend to feel just a little, a notch above the 50 Summicron. But maybe it's just because of the, I don't know. I think I've used about five of these at this point. The 50 Summicron V5s, they all feel generally the same. They're always tight, but I haven't felt an aperture click on the Summicron as well as they do click on a Summilux. It's just a small thing. But where the Summicron does have the upper hand is in that throw. Yes, the Lux has a tab, which is very useful, especially for fine-tuning and fine-adjusting your focus, what you're going to need because the depth of field is so razor-thin on the 50 Summilux. It challenges you to no extent, to any degree. I mean, um, you know, you can, you can focus on something and be off by a hair. It is so thin. It, it blows my mind. Uh, whereas a Summicron is a little more forgiving, but I'll get into that in a minute.
Um, the hood on the Lux. Now, this is funny. They loosen up over time. Anybody that has owned a Lux for a while, or has used a used one, will say the same thing. Uh, when you first get it, it's stiff, it pulls out with some resistance, and then over time, it kind of loosens up. Uh, it doesn't peeve me, doesn't bother me at all. Every now and then, when you're focusing with the tab and your finger is resting on the underbarrel of the lens, you're gonna sometimes freak out and be like, "Oh my god, is something wobbling?" Well, no, it's just your finger, you know, resting against that, uh, that hood and just a tiny bit of play there. Uh, the focus on this lens is fast, but because of the tab and because of the fact that you're always going to use the tab, I hardly ever touch the focus ring. And, and the tab gives you a little more torque when you're focusing because there is a little bit of stiction on the Summiluxes, particularly mine. Uh, I don't feel like this one needs a CLA just yet, but it will get one eventually. Uh, when I compared it to a new one, um, this one did feel a little more resistant at first, but now that I've used it quite a bit, um, the, the oil seems to have spread throughout the helicoid. So, I would say it's, it's as good as it's going to get. But if you go for a black chrome edition, those are actually smoother. I actually was tempted and swayed by into changing this one up for a black chrome a while ago, but the price difference just didn't justify it for me. And I prefer the tab, uh, and I prefer also the hood. I just love the industrial design of this lens. I think it's a handsome lens. And as beautiful as I think the black chrome Summilux is, um, especially for the price difference and the, and the same optical qualities, um, I just couldn't justify that extra expense, at least for the time being. Maybe down the line, I'll change my mind. But for the different filter thread, for the gigantic, cumbersome hood that comes with it, and the fact that I'm gonna want to baby that lens just a bit because it is black chrome, uh, I just, I couldn't justify it in the end. But, you know, if you're starting off fresh and you don't have to cough up the extra money, maybe it's worth looking at the Summilux black chrome over the chrome or the anodized black.
So, build, honestly, they're both fantastic lenses. You're both buying, I mean, both of them are Leica lenses, and you can't shake a stick at their build quality. They're just really good. Here, I'm going to show you guys the back of these lenses, and this is where things, where you start to see the difference in these lenses, is just how much more glass is packed into these Summilux. It's, it, the rear element goes way out to the end, at least it's flush with the mount. So, you're not afraid of banging it into things when you're resting it down or, um, or just putting it onto the, under the mount, you're not worried about scratching the rear elements, unlike a lot of other protruding rangefinder lenses. And the Summicron really surprised me. For a rangefinder lens, I honestly thought that the rear element would have been a lot closer. Um, but it's a good thing for the Summicron, really. Um, on, on mirrorless cameras, such as the, uh, the Sonys that I, I'm filming this on, they really benefit from that rear element just being a little further out than the Summilux.
There is a lot more astigmatism and corner smearing on the 50 Summilux when you compare it to this Summicron. This Summicron does have a bit of astigmatism, but, uh, it cleans up really quick. And in, in use, uh, I found I actually preferred using the Summicron on my Sonys. Oh, and another really cool fact about the Summilux, which I've never seen a lens do this other than this one, is the fact that the rear element, well, the rear lens group actually rotates when you're focusing. So, if you have a speck of dust on your rear element and it pops up in the bokeh or something like that, you are going to see that lens, that that spec move throughout the focus range. It's really funny. I've never seen that in any of my other lenses. The Summicron standard lens, the entire group expands and contracts throughout the focus range, so it's pretty basic.
So, now on to color fringing. Everyone always says it, "Okay, the 50 Summilux is an apple lens." Yes, it is. But I feel like, uh, don't, don't think that because it's an apple lens, you're not gonna get any color fringing at all. You're gonna get some, uh, but I mean, nothing. This is the lowest color fringe, like the most well-corrected lens I've ever seen for color fringing, outside of, I mean, I haven't tested anything that's really better than this at resisting color fringing at all. There's hardly any purple casts on high-contrast subjects, hardly any cyan either. Sometimes you're going to see some, some fringing, some on the outlining of the bokeh balls on backlit situations, very high-contrast images, but, uh, it's never going to distract. It's, it's really something that you're going to have to look for to find. And in, for all intents and purposes, the Summilux does not have any color fringing.
The color fringing on the Summicron is also very, very well corrected. I was very surprised coming from the 50 Carl Zeiss for the Contax mount, the 1.4, as well as the 85 1.4 here for the ZF mount. This lens, I thought, given its design, given the age of the design, especially, I was going to see a lot of, you know, aberrations, a lot of fringing, a lot of coma, a lot of, you know, I thought I was going to have to compromise in some way, shape, or another, you know, with this lens. But no, I was shocked just how good this lens is. It blows me away. There's a reason why they still sell this lens today, almost, uh, what, 50 years later? It's incredible. If you buy this lens, you are going to be so happy and so impressed just with just how well they designed this lens from the first try. Um, so, color fringing, going to see it in some backlit contrast foliage, maybe some high-contrast reflections, you know, wherever you're going to see a highlight clip on a subject, well, you're probably going to have some fringing around that, like on chrome on a car, or, or a ring or something like that. But very, very subtle, very easy to correct, and it's never very pronounced.
So, now on to bokeh. This is a never-ending debate amongst the Leica community. It is so funny. Every time I talk about these lenses, one or the other, every time I look it up, somebody has an opinion. So, it's so, let's just say it like this: bokeh is subjective, and it's understandable, and each one of these lenses have fantastic bokeh. I bought this Summicron at first just because I love the bokeh. It didn't feel like a compromise to the Summilux. And something that you've got to take into account is, if you're shooting this lens during daytime and you're not using an ND filter, for example, I use circular polarizer filters on each lens, well, a CPL on the 50 F2, you're going to be shooting at 1/4000th at ISO 200, or even 1/2000th, depending on the lighting, and you're gonna be able to shoot wide open with this lens. Uh, but on film, at 1/1000th, uh, I don't use ND filters, I use CPLs. So, you're usually gonna be stopping these lenses down to accommodate for that. You know, I, uh, 1/1000th shutter speed, and that's work, you know, walking around with the added weight of the Summilux, as well as, um, the rendering differences. You know, those are one thing to talk about, but the general, uh, speed of this lens just matches well or better with the 1/1000th speed of this, of the film cameras.
Uh, the bokeh on each one of these, uh, get pretty similar stopped down. Uh, which is a good thing. Uh, the Summilux, when I remember when I was trying both of these lenses out, and I just, you know, even though I couldn't afford the Summilux, I said, "Let's throw it into the mix." Because I tried out the 50 F2 from Carl Zeiss, I tried out the 50 1.5 from Voigtlander, the spherical Nokton, and I tried out, uh, these two, as well as even, actually, sorry, the 50 1.5 C Sonnar. That lens is a gem, but you can't really compare it to these two, especially wide open. It's, it's a classic design, whereas these two are much more modern. Uh, I would say the 50 Summicron wide open, you're gonna get a bit of a busy, or not harsh, because I really like the bokeh, I don't want to call it harsh, because it's, it's very clean, it's painterly, it almost looks like an oil painting, as that's what I would describe it as. Uh, towards the edges of the frame, you're going to see some cat-eye effect, and that's where, coupled with that field curvature that both these lenses have, you're going to see that the bokeh gets a little more harsh towards the edges. So, depending on what you're shooting, if you're shooting a lot of industrial stuff, cityscape stuff, you know, basically anything that doesn't have too much foliage or repetitive patterns, the Summicron is gonna look clean, very, very clean, wide open.
Uh, the Summilux, with that said, has the cleanest bokeh of any lens I've ever tested. I love it. I think it's personally the, the best bokeh of any lens I've ever used. I said that the first time I tried this lens, and years later, I still say it. I absolutely love the rendering of this lens. It is modern, it's very corrected, uh, not overly corrected in terms of the, of the bokeh, though. And the Summicron, you, you just have to respect it because it is a 50-year-old design that's still in production today. Mandler knocked it out of the park with this one. And stopping this one down, this is where things get interesting. So, the 50, uh, Summicron has a greater depth of field at F2 than the Summilux does. So, what that means in real use is that when you're focusing with this lens, on the Cron, you're going to be able to get more in focus at any given moment, even at F2. When I shoot this lens at F2, then when I shoot the Summilux at F2, the Summicron still has a greater depth of field. So, it's a little more forgiving. The contrast is different, the sharpness is different, but it's to say that this Summicron is a little more forgiving, uh, with regards to your rangefinder calibration, or just in focusing in general. And up until F4, the Summicron has a greater depth of field everywhere. In terms of bokeh, in terms of the subject, and, but once the field curvature kind of settles in at around F4, both these lenses are super equal. The only differences you're going to see really are the outlining for the bokeh balls. The inwardly curved nine blades on the Lux are much more pronounced at every, any given aperture. Up until F16, the Summicron has straight edges, and you're gonna see that, uh, the bokeh balls are gonna be outlined, but they're not as pronounced as the ones in the Summilux. What I mean by that is, uh, they are, they don't distract as much. You get this like ninja star look with the Summiluxes, which I actually really like. But they're both fantastic in their own rights. And I find with the Summicron, uh, it's kind of like a two-for-one lens. You're getting classic bokeh wide open, depending on the background, though, because it can be very, very clean without much outlining in general. F2 stop, this thing down, and you're getting extremely similar bokeh to what you get out of the Summilux.
So, the Summilux, on the other hand, is always very, very, very shallow. And it can overpower an image, it can overtake a subject. If you're, if you're aiming to get environmental portraits, for example, just get the Summicron. You're not going to go wrong. The Summilux, on the other hand, has pretty much, for the most part, replaced my 85 1.4 Zeiss. I used to use this lens a lot more, but since I got the 50 Summilux, the rendering on this lens is so, um, medium format, I would say. The bokeh is so similar, and, and the separation is so similar to that of the 85 2.8 Zeiss in the Hasselblad 500 that I use a lot, that I wind up taking out the Summilux and either the M2 or the M10 combo for walks way more often than any other, any other combo. It is inspiring. Uh, the look is, is full of detail, and the subject separation is very pronounced. On the Summicron, you do have a bit of that 3D pop, but it's not as pronounced as the Summilux, partly because of the shallow depth of field, though. The shallow depth of field on the F2 is good, but I wouldn't really, I would call the depth of field and the even the light transmission out of this lens closer to like a T 2.5, 2.4, and an F 2.4. I, it maybe isn't like that scientifically, but in real world use, out of the thousands of images I've taken with the 50 Summicron, I always found that, um, in terms of the depth of field, I found the Summicron is actually a little closer to like 2.4. But that's me, maybe your results may vary, but that's what I found after, you know, using it over the course of a few years.
And the Summilux, on the other hand, the, the shallow depth of field, because of how clean it is at 1.4, you never feel like you have to stop down. Uh, with other lenses like the 85 1.4 that I have here, or the 50 Zeiss that I'm filming this with, those wide open, you get this classic bokeh with lots of outlining. You don't have that with the Summilux. The Summilux is, is like shooting a lens that's been stopped down by just half a click or a full click, because you don't get any outlining. The bokeh is just mush. It looks as if somebody just placed the subject onto the background. And the Summicron does the same thing, but to a lesser degree, because the depth of field is, is less pronounced. And the only time you're going to have really similar depth of field as the Summilux is at F4. At F2, you're gonna have that separation, uh, but it's just not as exaggerated as it is with the Summilux. But they're both very, very good in their own right. So, uh, as far as bokeh goes, both great lenses, very similar bokeh, uh, after around four, after on F4, up until, um, I would say a two, F2 on the Summilux, you're going to see a bit of a cat-eye effect, even around the outline bokeh balls. On the Summicron, same thing at 2.8, you're going to see a bit of outlining on your, on your bokeh. So, you're going to see the edges of the aperture blades, but you're also going to have, like, a cutout for the cat-eye. At F4, very similar.
And now on to the colors. This was something that I felt, and I was proven right when I did a color checker test the other day. I set up a DIY layout with various colorful objects, and I took a picture of it. And the Summicron renders, not renders, but the color, the colors coming out of the Summicron, the color palette is actually colder and a little more subdued than the colors coming out of these Summilux. It's not a bad thing at all. Uh, in fact, I would describe it as the following: the 50 Summilux is warmer, more saturated, more punchy. It kind of glamorizes real life, whereas the Summicron is transparent. It's a tool. This lens is just a workhorse. I'll say it again. This lens, um, you can take any picture with it, and you can rest assured that it has represented real life, and it leaves very little signature behind it. The only, I would say, telling sign of the lens that you use with this lens, other than, well, the bokeh, I would say, is the colors are just natural on this, and you can just boost the contrast out of this lens and boost the colors, and you're going to get any kind of image you want. On black and white, I love the Summicron. I, I find the results are full of micro-contrast and tons of detail. I've taken some of my favorite pictures I've ever taken with the Summicron and the M2.
The Summilux, it has a complete different rendering on film. I was very shocked and very happy to see just how differently it resolved on film. The micro-contrast is there. It's a little more glowy, partly because I tend to overexpose more with this lens than I would with the Summicron, and the subjects have a bit of a glow to them as a result. And the bokeh and the subject separation just get carried over into film, but in a different way. I find that with grain, with the added grain from film, the bokeh has just a little bit more definition to it, and that 3D effect is a little more subdued. And it's a really nice thing to see because it's like having two lenses in one, basically. On digital, you get this very digital, modern-looking lens, and on film, it's such a unique experience to use. To have all these technological aids, this, this overly engineered lens, pretty much on a film camera, is an interesting experience, to say the least. Uh, you're going to see the field curvature just a bit towards the edges, so it kind of gives this lens a classic look despite being very modern. Uh, the Summicron, as well, you're going to see a bit of that field curvature, but it just, it adds to that classic charm that I really like about this lens.
On to the flare resistance, and this is really the Achilles' heel of the Summicron. Uh, one of the reasons why I parted ways with the Summicron, uh, a little easier than I would have, was because of the veiling of this lens. Uh, the flare resistance is actually very good on the Summicron, I would have to say, especially to direct light and sunlight and backlit objects. It doesn't really suffer too much from that, but it's more angled stray light that really kicks this lens down. You're going to notice a dip in contrast when you have any stray light coming in onto the front element. The built-in hood doesn't, doesn't change things either. I've done a lot of product shoots with this, with this lens where, uh, I wouldn't notice until I looked at the pictures later on, uh, that there was a dip in, in contrast, just because of some angled stray light hitting it, hitting it from a weird direction.
The Summilux, on the other hand, is a lot more flare resistant. With regards to stray angled lights, direct sunlight, and direct light hitting this lens, gives a really interesting flare, kind of reminiscent of the outlined circle that you get, the mechanical, I guess, uh, vignette from Voigtlander lenses like the Noktons, the 35 1.4 and the, and the 40 1.4 that I have. Uh, they tend to create this ring, this disc in the image. It's kind of a unique touch that this lens does as well. I like it. And what's really interesting about this lens too, is when you get a very harsh flare on it, the middle of the lens doesn't really lose as much contrast as the rest of the image does.
So, on to the sharpness. Now, that's where these lenses can kind of be differentiated just a little bit more. At F2, the Summicron is sharp edge to edge. It really is an engineering feat, given the production date of this lens, too. I mean, the very first optical, um, iteration of this lens appeared in the fourth-generation Summicron, and it's still been carried out until now. And I understand why Leica still sells this lens brand new today. The sharpness just gets better and better and better, and there's no hiccups, there's no fluctuation on one side or another. It's just sharp edge to edge. In the extreme corners, there is a dip, though. With that being said, you'll see a tiny bit of smearing, um, in the very extreme corners, but it's really nothing noticeable or nothing that detracts from your image in general. Uh, and stopping down kind of remedies it, really, really quick. An F 2.8 is almost gone, F4 gone.
The Summilux, on the other hand, well, that's where I was surprised, but not because I researched this lens before buying it. So, I wasn't too shocked, and I understood that it, there is a mid-zone dip. People talk about it. I was so afraid of it affecting me and every image I ever took, you know, "Oh, watch out for that mid-zone dip." At first, I really missed the Summicron for that extreme edge-to-edge sharpness. And this was kind of like a wake-up call owning the Summilux, because you don't notice the mid-zone dip in day-to-day life. You really don't notice it in use at all. How often are you magnifying your image way out to the extremes? You're not. And even when you frame for having a subject in the center, or not the center, but the, um, the third portion of your frame, it's not that you're not gonna notice that they're gonna get softer. Uh, maybe if you zoom in a bit, or you crop a little heavy, at one point four, at around maybe two meters away, you're gonna see that the eyebrows can kind of lose a bit of sharpness, but they don't lose contrast or colors or anything else. So, it's not a smear. The mid-zone dip, it's just kind of like a loss in, uh, sharpness. You're not going to really notice in real life. And that was a very happy discovery of mine after using this lens for a few months. I was very happy to see and happy to report that you're not going to notice that mid-zone dip. And then the image kind of cleans up towards the edge again, and then dips again at the very extreme edges. Corners, you're going to see a bit of smearing as well on the Summilux. Wide open, stop down, clean at F8, these lenses are the same for all intents and purposes, really.
The Summicron is going to be a bit sharper in the center third portion of the image. The Summilux sharper in the middle. I'm going to say it right like that. From close distances until about pretty much far out until infinity, the Summilux is going to be sharper in the center than the Summicron. Not by, I would almost say not even by a very measurable amount. On a 40-megapixel plus sensor, you might see it a little bit more, but on 24 megapixels, and especially on film, uh, they're the same. You could pretty much call them the same in terms of sharpness. The edges up until 5.6, so the center third towards the edge of the frame, the Summicron will be sharper globally. But the Summilux, if you generalize, let's say it's the same thing. At F2, I find the Summilux renders a bit more sharp than the Summicron does at F2. If the F2 on the Summicron has a bit of a glow to it, it's not overly sharp, but it's sharp. The Cron renders images with a coarser brushstroke. You're going to have just a bit more of a harsh contrast to your images. It's a little more unforgiving than the Summilux. The Summilux kind of has like a glow going on on the images, and it's not a Mandler glow, it's not really kind of like, uh, you know, a hazy image or whatever. This isn't a pre-spherical Summilux, to say the least. It's, it's very sharp at F2, very well corrected, but it almost looks as if you put a halation filter in it. And I, I'm no technical lens engineer in any regard, but when I bought this lens, I did the flashlight trick, and I shone a light right through the lens to see if there was any dust or whatever in there, and I was taken aback because I saw this haze in the image, and I said, "This lens is garbage. I can't buy this lens." And then we opened a brand new Summilux right out of the box, and it had the same exact phenomenon. I don't know what sorcery Leica was using. I don't know if it was the spherical element rebound, like, you know, reflecting the light in some odd way, but I have a feeling that carries out into how this lens renders. It has a bit of a glow at 1.4. You can sharpen it, you can maybe de-haze it a bit, but it looks, looks as if you're using a, uh, halation filter on the lens without having one. And it gives a very nice, subtle glow to all your images. So, highlights kind of pick up a little bit more with this lens. Same thing with the Cron, to a degree. And the transition from in-focus to out is more forgiving on the Summilux. It's, it's just softer. Maybe it's that warmer temperature and rendering that the Summilux has, or maybe it's something else. But I find that when I miss a shot with the Summilux, it doesn't really scream out at you that you missed it. Whereas with the Summicron, I find sometimes, especially given the fact that the depth of field is a lot greater on this Cron, you kind of notice it when you miss a shot more with this Cron. And the contrast is a little more blunt with the Summicron, whereas the Summilux, it has, I would say, greater micro-contrast but less global contrast. And stopping down, the Summilux picks up whatever detail you need. It really. Both these lenses are as sharp as you're ever going to want, and the rendering is beautiful. Both of these lenses inspire me endlessly. And with that all being said, there is no wrong choice here.
And I'm going to tell you why I went with the Summilux in the end. I, uh, lusted after the Lux like most Leica users do. When they first step into the system, or they first buy their first Summicron, you kind of have that inkling to try the Summilux and see what the fuss is about. Well, I'll tell you what, if you have a Summicron and you're debating on getting a Summilux, try the Summilux. Rent it for a day, rent it for a week, whatever it takes before committing to one of these, because the price difference between the two does not reflect any kind of change in performance, per se, other than you're getting a very different lens at 1.4 than you are getting a lens at F2. So, at 1.4, you're going to get a bit of a glowy, romanticized, I would say, like a, you know, a glamorized version of real life with the Summilux. Whereas with the Summicron, it's very true, very true to life, and, and it does justice to every shot you that you take. The Summicron, it doesn't play around. There's a subtle signature to be had with the Summicron, and you will see it, and you will notice it, especially if you have one. Uh, you can find it in every image. There's always a little, little, you know, signature left by the Summicron, which I really liked. I loved diving into the photos that I took with this lens because you're always looking for it, especially on film, you know, when I'm trying to differentiate which lens I used and trying to pick it out from the roster, I can always tell which picture was taken with the Summicron.
The Summilux, on the other hand, kind of always shouts out at you that you took this with the Summilux, and it's a little more fun when you're scrolling through all your images at the end of the day when you can see, um, you know, just which lenses. Every time I take a picture with the Summilux, I know right away I took it with the Summilux. It really pops out, it really jumps out at you. The Summicron, I would use this as a journalist lens, as a street photography lens, and I used it pretty much for every personal photo I took, as much as I could. I really loved the Summicron. But, but as a professional, it was really hard for me to justify having such an expensive lens for just my own means. And the Summilux actually made more sense for me. So, I wound up selling it to fund this lens. And the Summilux has not disappointed, disappointed me once. I did get it in the middle of COVID, so I couldn't do too much with it, but I still managed to squeeze in a few weddings with this lens and a lot of actually odd jobs. So, I'm happy to report that, I would say almost a year later, um, fantastic. It really lived up to the expectations I had for it and more. I mean, that pretty much settles it. Uh, they're both fantastic lenses. There's no wrong or right option here between the two. It really comes down to a matter of taste. And, and budget aside, they're both fantastic lenses. I mean, you can't go wrong with either one.
So, which one would you choose if you had the option, or which one do you have? Please let me know. Uh, like, comment, subscribe. I really put a lot of work and love into these reviews because I love and use these lenses. So, check back soon for more stuff, and thank you so much for watching.