The difference is equivalent to, say, 2/3 or 3/4 of an f-stop-i. 2.5), at also has less DOF and more blur beyond the DOF area than the Summarit at the same aperture. If you want selective focus and narrow DOF then the Summilux is to be preferred. However the rendition of the far out-of-focus background at full or near-full aperture (f/2.5 f/2.8) is less favourable it tends to double lines (at f/4, it's as smooth as the Summilux's). Furthermore, it has more DOF and less blur outside DOF at the same apertures. In comparison to the Summilux-M Asph, the Summarit-M has nicer foreground bokeh and a more natural rendition of the sharp-unsharp transition at the depth-of-field (DOF) limits. Still, it's the Summarit that gets more use due to smaller size and weight, unobtrusive appearance (makes the M9 look like daddy's old point-and-shoot), and rendition. If I was limited to one then I'd keep the Summilux. With the limited choice of options, the poll above (or the result thereof) will be pointless and distorted.Ĭurrently I have two 50 mm M lenses the Summilux-M 50 mm 1:1.4 Asph and the Summarit-M 50 mm 1:2.5. I am always astounded (in a negative way) how people pretend the Summarit-M line of lenses just didn't exist.
0 kommentar(er)
