Leica M11-P + Summilux-M 50mm F1.4 Classic reissue
Leica's reinterpretation of the Summilux-M 50 f/1.4 marks the rebirth of a legend. It combines classic, vintage design with state-of-the-art technology. Traditional charm meets the high demands of modern photography.
Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Written and posted 8 June 2025
Bought it yesterday at Friday 6pm. As of today Saturday 6pm, these are the shots I got whilst supporting family and friends at a sporting event. Tomorrow I'll be back out for a couple of hours in same spot for day 2 of said sporting event, but will bring the Lux 50mm ASPH so I can do some comparisons.
There do not seem to be many reports on this lens yet, with few real-life images. I'm sharing for those that may be interested, but also so I document for my own purposes of evaluating and deciding which of the two 50's - Classic vs ASPH v4 - I will eventual keep.
Shooting early afternoon, blue skies, 36 degrees C, some direct light, some shade, some indoors at higher ISO. I like to shoot at f1.7, f4 with some f8. Most shots here were at f1.4/1.7; some at f4 and a couple of the landscape ones at f8, and mostly at 18MP mode
Quick first day observations
- this is very sharp at f1.4; I prefer to shoot at f1.7; pretty easy to nail focus. For landscapes I almost don't need to focus further than f5.6 it's that sharp
- corners are mostly always softer - to be expected with this lens I would assume
- not fussed about 'long' focus throw, didn't seem to long to me. It seems to me to be a design and benefit, this lens is able to achieve super sharp and crisp images *if* critical focus is achieved which is helped by the long focus throw. I think I'm finding that if focus is *slightly* off, then it blooms and glows
- no LR lens profile (right now that is, not sure if there will be one in an update in future)
- exhibits distortion; dialled in +7 (in LR) on medium-to-long shots; +10 when right up to MFD
*update* to this, the curvature is real and is significant, although I do think +5 is more reasonable. I'm not sure how much this detracts from the lens for me though
Some example below where I dialled in +5 distortion correction in LR; always the 2nd shot in series
It seems the M11 in-camera JPG engine also applies some sort of distortion correction but it doesn't go far enough. I wonder if the firmware is not yet updated for the lens
Camera JPG
LR edited +5 distortion correction
Camera JPG
LR edited +5 distortion correction
Camera JPG
LR edited +5 distortion correction
Camera JPG
LR edited +5 distortion correction
- haven't noticed much vignetting, if any
- it will flare and it will CA
- glow is subtle, even at f1.4
- shoots on cooler side vs ASPH, have yet to do a side-by-side but I think could be closer to the Sonnar than the ASPH
- looks beautiful on the M11
- weight is noticeable but not unbearable, I am okay with but but YMMV
- I prefer the scallop focus vs the tab for 50mm, probably why I haven't quite got along with the ASPH yet. For 40mm and below, I do prefer the tab
Observations vs the ASPH
- the ASPH is much lighter and it makes a difference in shooting experience. It’s no “light” but you definitely more aware of the classic
- the aperture ring is much more “mechanical” on the Classic. Whereas the ASPH is dampened and smooth, the Classic has that crunch and you can feel each individual indent, it’s not bad or broken. It’s just sounds/feels more steam punk. I like it
- the ASPH focus ring is definitely inferior, my copy is not as smooth and exhibits that well know “stick-tion” effect where it becomes stickier half way.
- it seems easier to get critical focus at f1.4 on the ASPH. I’m not entirely convinced if that’s real or if it’s because I’ve had the ASPH for a while now vs only 1 day with the Classic. Will test more
- sharpness, ASPH does seem sharper at first impression but to be confirmed
- out of focus areas, definitely a difference but need more experience before I can put my finger on what it is I like or don’t like between the two
- flare and CA - very clear. The APSH doesn’t
Additional observations
- the ASPH and Classic weight tips the M11 forward when placed down. Due to heaviness the audible “clunk” is not pleasing leading me to be extra careful when putting the camera down - obviously not good for usability/peace of mind. The Sonnar doesn’t have this problem.
- rendering, the more I’ve pixel peeped the images the more I’m coming to conclusion that centre sharpness at f1.4/1.5 across all three lenses is essentially negligible. Of course there are differences (ASPH sharpest then Classic then Sonnar) but in real life viewing I don’t find it a concern….
- however… the ability to achieve critical focus at f1.4/1.5 is the key factor. I’m finding it easier to get critical focus (at infinity) with the ASPH. The Classic and Sonnar is a wash, meaning equally more difficult than the ASPH but for different reasons. Classic you have to be very precise. I find the EVF view is not precise enough so you have to rely on a good eye using the range finder. The Sonnar is classic focus shift, where you thought you focused may not be the sharpest point but where if did end up focusing is very sharp.
- rendering. Still needs more time and experience to come to conclusion. But one thing I’m finding so far is that at viewing size, the Classic does look softer across the whole image than the ASPH, however when pixel peeping at 100% the sharpness is essentially the same. Perhaps this is more a difference in contrast between the two? Need more experience
- the ASPH at F5.6 and above on a bright sunny day is almost too sharp, making all images crunchy. My wife prefers the cityscapes of Hong Kong skyline shot at f4 over those at F5.6 or f8. At normally viewing size that is. When zoomed to 100% of course you can tell there is out of focus softness - still to be tested
Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5/50
Summilux 1.4/50 ASPH
Summilux 1.4/50 Classic reissue
Final observation & early conclusion
Took time to do some more consistent side by sides and I think I'm comfortable to come to some early conclusions
The lens are a wash, they are equally a good as each other. The Classic has field curvature, which impacts corners. The ASPH does not. In the middle they are the same. The Classic runs cooler but negligible. The ASPH costs more money than Classic, I essentially see that extra dollars going to corner sharpness. Unless you specifically want the Classic, you don't need it. Glow? yes it exists but it's so pixel peeper-y that it's a wash. Bokeh, Classic is slightly more nervous, ASPH is smoother but again, it's a wash.
TLDR: if you care only about image quality - Save your money, keep the ASPH. If you know you want it for the looks or ergonomics get the Classic
Now, where I do see the actually value in difference coming from is the ergonomics and this is mostly preference rather than empirical.
Weight - Classic much heavier, you will notice it
Size - fatter and shorter vs thinner (in the case of the v4 ASPH) and longer; both tip the camera
Throw - longer and more precise vs shorter and quicker . You will want the preciseness to achieve critical focus on the Classic
Focus - tab vs scallop
Curveball round vs the Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5/50
I initially thought the Classic would be a perfect combination of the ASPH and Sonnar. I know think it's the other way around. The Sonnar is a perfect mix of ASPH and Classic.
Centre sharpness of the Sonnar is not quite as sharp as the Classic or ASPH (splitting hairs, all 3 are incredibly sharp in the centre)
Mid sharpness, the Sonnar wins, the Classic gets smeary.
Corners the Sonnar is smoother than the Classic
Both Classic and Sonnar run cooler than the ASPH. Or in really the ASPH runs too warm, the temperature of the Classic and Sonnar seem more 'normal'
Sonnar and Classic both glow the same, more than ASPH but only slightly (see above)
Size, weight and ergonomics, the Sonnar is probably like the Classic but a bit more manageable.
The only problem with the Sonnar - and it's a big one - is the focus shift issue, which led me to look into the Classic in the first place. Otherwise the Sonnar is a better Classic imo
TLDR - if you want the classic rendering but still have massive central sharpness for 'pop', then the Sonnar is going to get that for you at a fraction of the cost of the Classic. Probably the reason why I have kept this lens for 12 years at this point. It's a very good lens. If you don't want to deal with focus shift, get the Classic
Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5/50
Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5/50
Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5/50
Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5/50
Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5/50
Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5/50
Left: Zeiss C Sonnar 1.5/50. Middle: Leica Summilux 1.4/50 Classic. Right: Leica Summilux 1.4/50 ASPh (v4)
TLDR
At a high level, the Classic seem exactly what Leica says it is - a Summilux without ASPH - everything about the Classic and ASPH seem very similar except at the corners, which is where the ASPH seems to help. In the centre of the frame, the Classic and ASPH are the same. In the mid-frame, same again. Some ever so slightly more secular highlights in the out of focus areas but you'd be hard pressed to notice unless viewing with same scene shot with the ASPH side by side.
For me, it seems the ASPH is perhaps going to go. The only real win it has better corner to corner sharpness and relatively flat field (I say relatively but even need to dial in -25 adjustment to the profile distortion to really get things right). The bokeh is overall smoother but it's moot unless viewed side-by-side. I'd probably say at this point I'd be selling the ASPH and rebuy a Cron. Keep the Classic and Sonnar.
TDLR the TLDR
Use the Classic on the M11, use the Sonnar with EVF on the SL2. Get a Cron if I need light setup or for landscapes.
Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Kowloon City, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Kowloon City, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
IFC, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Rosewood Hotel, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Dragon Boat - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Dragon Boat - Leica Summilux-M 1.4/50 Classic reissue 2025
Leica M11-P + Summilux-M 50mm F1.4 Classic reissue
Leica M11-P + Summilux-M 50mm F1.4 Classic reissue
