Jump to content

Good Leica 50 1.4 summilux-m asph review at..


Ivan Muller

Recommended Posts

"Sharpness

Unfortunately, for a $4,000 lens, results are somewhat soft when used wide open at ƒ/1.4; however, if you look across the field of offerings produced by Canon, Nikon and Carl Zeiss, you'll note that it produces the sharpest results between them all at this aperture. To produce sharp results at ƒ/1.4 is an engineering challenge, to say the least."

 

I bought a pig at the market today from Tesco... It does not fly... However, if you look across the field of offerings produced by Sainsburys, Fortnum & Mason, Waitrose and Whole Foods, you'll note that none produce a pig that fly. To produce a pig that flies is an genetic challenge, to say the least.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sharpness Unfortunately, for a $4,000 lens, results are somewhat soft when used wide open at ƒ/1.4

Piffle. Mine is extremely sharp wide open and way, way ahead of offerings like Canon's 1.2L (had one, sold it) and 1.4 (useful, but far from Canon's best offering - very noisy too).

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they are "interesting" results for sure. The still life shot at f1.4 is clearly out of focus, except for maybe the front pepper / salt mill, which is just coming into focus.

 

Someone goofed.

 

So I'm not sure what the reviewer's idea of sharpness is. But the 50 Summilux M is certainly sharp wide open.

 

I've seen this a couple of places now recently on the net. I'm not sure people are very good at focusing the M9, or are using some weird jpeg practice or something? I don't know, but it's demonstrably wrong.

 

The 50 M Summilux ASPH is the sharpest 50 1.4 lens I've ever seen, even at 1.4 ;) Oh--and edge to edge (which is important) it's also sharp. Is it sharper at f2 or f4? Yes. So what?

 

A couple of references, with 100% crops, from my own messy kitchen, shot on the M9 at 1.4 with the 50 Summilux ASPH, minimally processed in C1, default sharpening (so not much) and nothing else.

 

They look *nothing* like the test. I wonder why?:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

Edited by Jamie Roberts
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

E. Puts explains it well here IMO.

 

Jeff

 

Yes, and I think this is the perfect summary quote:

 

"The jump in quality when going from 1.4 to 2 is however a subtle one and not as visible as with all other high-speed designs. It is easy to assume that a picture made at 1.4 was made at smaller apertures. In this respect this is the first lens where you do not have to accept a compromise quality because of the high speed. The visible advantage of the Summilux is the excellent quality over the whole image area, where very fine detail is reproduced with clarity and crispness."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"Sharpness

Unfortunately, for a $4,000 lens, results are somewhat soft when used wide open at ƒ/1.4; however, if you look across the field of offerings produced by Canon, Nikon and Carl Zeiss, you'll note that it produces the sharpest results between them all at this aperture. To produce sharp results at ƒ/1.4 is an engineering challenge, to say the least."

 

I bought a pig at the market today from Tesco... It does not fly... However, if you look across the field of offerings produced by Sainsburys, Fortnum & Mason, Waitrose and Whole Foods, you'll note that none produce a pig that fly. To produce a pig that flies is an genetic challenge, to say the least.

 

Yep - define sharpness - it is not an optical parameter. In this case it means lack of focussing ability.:rolleyes:

 

The other part of the "review" says it all....

 

Despite its precision, though, the Leica M9-P gave me the most trouble when trying to focus indoors. Luke and Rob also had plenty of trouble in the lab.

 

 

Does not sound too expert to me....

Edited by jaapv
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, my results are completely contrary. :rolleyes:

 

I agree with your results, I really do think the tests linked to in this thread are faulty.

 

Though for other reasons I often still prefer the Noctilux 1,0 or, if I want sharp without the higher contrast of the 50 Summilux M ASPH from 1.4 to f2, the 50 Summilux R does the trick :) Can't put that on an M9 though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the 'best lens ' in the world test and Jamies proof thereof, I decided to test the worst lens in the world...my all plastic, not sure if the elements are glass, but you never know, cheapest lens in the system, and to cap it all, I dropped it this morning, it only bounced a few times, please no boos, Canon EF1.8mkII.

 

The model for my test is my new gardener, and he doesn't know it yet, ... test pilot...Lukas, the man with the golden teeth....

 

According to Lightroom my settings were F1.8, iso 200 and a wopping 1/750th sec shutter speed..I had to make sure there were no camera movement, otherwise the test will be null and void... I focused on his right eye with the center AF spot

 

If the forum will make an exception, then I will post these non Leica images from the fourth best 35mm dslr camera in the world...

 

A confession first. Its the first time that I have used this lens wide open, I usually shoot at F5.6 to F11, I am not a wide open man, and all the tests stated that the lens was rubbish wide open, so I just never bothered...but this 'best lens in the world' test made me curious....and I wanted to see just how bad it can get...

 

Btw my X1, also plastic, Leica optical viewfinder cost three times more than this lens...just to put things in perspective...and not to judge this excuse for a lens too harshly..!

 

Looking at the posted images now I noticed that everything was a touch softer than full screen full size images....but that's no excuse, I know....O yes, one last thing, these are from pukka raw files, I never ever ever shoot jpeg...( cross my heart and hope to die )

 

Btw Jamie, I just love your coffee machine..!

Edited by Ivan Muller
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry images didn't load...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you should start reading better tests:p. The ones I know state that this lens, despite being all plastic and shockingly cheap, is a little gem.

 

Certainly one of the best values in the world. FWIW I would rather have this lens on a Canon than their 50 1.4 :)

 

And to everyone who commented on how dirty that (wonderful Alex Duetto II) espresso machine is, it's clean again :) I had just had an issue with a "bottomless" portafilter and some old coffee that left coffee, um, everywhere!

 

(PS Rick--nice "Rocket" too!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

By whatever parameter you decide to try to define sharpness by, the 50/1.4 Asph is sharp, and it IS sharp wide open;).

 

 

I never had problems with the sharpness of the lens. It's incredibly sharp. Comparing with my summicron 50 ( IV ) it was even a big difference. IMO it's worth the money I payed for it. Because I am using it for more than a decade now, it was not as expensive at that time. I bought it for about 2000,- Euro. IMO it's the best lens I ever used. And the most rewarding. Everytime I am surprised by its results.

 

A friend of mine bought a M9P + Asph 50 recently and he had real problems with getting a good image. He sent the stuff to Solms and they repaired it in 3 weeks. Now it's flawless.

 

My conclusion. Lens is better than allright, but sometimes the camera can be wrong and needs adjusting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...