Jump to content

Summilux-SL 50 MM F/1,4 ASPH


Leicaiste

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On a related topic, I dropped into the Leica store in Washington DC on Friday afternoon (SL and 24-90 slung over my shoulder).  A very nice and helpful reception, as always.

 

They didn't have the Summilux-SL 50 for me to try, but they did have a WATE.  Oh boy, what a lovely little lens, but at $5,200 it's a pricey little beast.  Having said that, I expect the new 16-35 SL zoom will be priced in the same range.  The smaller 16-18-21 WATE could be a useful alternative. I'm not sure that AF at the wide end is really all that useful.  It would have been nice if the new SL zoom had been a bit wider, more like the Nikkor 14-24 AF-S 2.8 ED lens (a snip at a shade under $2,000).

 

At this stage, with 15-21-28-35-50(2)-75-90 covered with M lenses, and 180-360(with Extender) with an R lens, I'm going to watch what happens with the SL lenses with reasonably remote interest.  The SL is nicely balanced with the Noctilux on it, and I don't miss the purple fringing!  After three weeks in the US with the SL and two zooms, I'm more than happy with the set up (though my shoulders thank me for coming home and not carrying the SL and two zooms).

 

I'm sure the new Summilux-SL 50 will be as fantastic as Leica intends it to be, and it will be no larger than needed.  It just won't be as small as the Noctilux/Summilux/Summicron made for the M mount (they're all APO, right?); why would it be?  Size was never a driving issue for the SL series.  Is it too big?  I doubt it.

 

Cheers

John

 

 

I have the WATE and use it on my SL all the time. It's also a true zoom which is nice and focuses to 0.5 meters on the SL. It's good enough that the 16-35 holds little interest to me. Maybe if I wanted a 16-35, 50, 90-280 kit I'd feel different. As you say if the SL wide had been a 14-28 or 12-24 that would have been special and hard to resist. I have no doubt it will be wonderful but my WATE is easy to focus with magnification via the joystick, and easily resolves the 24MP sensor. When Leica go higher maybe the native lens will be better.

 

Gordon

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the WATE and use it on my SL all the time. It's also a true zoom which is nice and focuses to 0.5 meters on the SL. It's good enough that the 16-35 holds little interest to me. Maybe if I wanted a 16-35, 50, 90-280 kit I'd feel different. As you say if the SL wide had been a 14-28 or 12-24 that would have been special and hard to resist. I have no doubt it will be wonderful but my WATE is easy to focus with magnification via the joystick, and easily resolves the 24MP sensor. When Leica go higher maybe the native lens will be better.

 

Gordon

How does the WATE hold up in the corners of the frame on the SL? I've not checked if Sean Reid has compared its performance to the M240 but I am interested in this lens. I owned two copies of the Nikon 14-24 and don't see a need for AF at those focal lengths.

 

I've been considering the Novoflex adapter and Canon 11-24 for this reason. The WATE would be better for me if it holds up without the micro lens structure of the M240.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the WATE hold up in the corners of the frame on the SL? I've not checked if Sean Reid has compared its performance to the M240 but I am interested in this lens. I owned two copies of the Nikon 14-24 and don't see a need for AF at those focal lengths.

 

I've been considering the Novoflex adapter and Canon 11-24 for this reason. The WATE would be better for me if it holds up without the micro lens structure of the M240.

 

 

It's very good at f4 and great at f8 right to the corners. It has no smearing. It's as good, if not a tad better than it is on the M240. The only downside is that it has some vignetting at f4, like it does on the M. The Lightroom profile is automatically applied if you use the Leica M adaptor so you don't really see it normally.

 

a sample below.

 

 

 

Gordon

 

p.s. apologies for the thread hijack.

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 FlashGordonPhotography
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's big. And I bet all my money, not that I have much left :-) that I will shoot this guy at the Raffles Singapore with my 50 cron with the same result.

 

Here is the comparison of heft.

 

 

 

 

It's a hefty lens, no doubt. I wrote it off as too big (just as I did with the two SL zooms) until I tried it during the weekend. Once mounted the size seem less of an issue. Quite similar to handling the S system in terms of weight and size. Certainly not something you grab on the way out to shoot street, for that I would still use M. The SL system has turned out to be the most promising of the Leica offerings in my opinion.

 

attachicon.gifsl50sRGB-3.jpg

 

attachicon.gifsl50sRGB-2.jpg

 

attachicon.gifsl50sRGB-1.jpg

 

Link to DNG of Raffles doorman here.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's big. And I bet all my money, not that I have much left :-) that I will shoot this guy at the Raffles Singapore with my 50 cron with the same result.

Here is the comparison of heft.

 

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how the intrinsic qualities of a photograph has anything to do with lens size. Lens selection for me is first focal length, then character and speed (the last two usually linked).

 

To be honest, where lens size is a virtue, I'll use an M lens. That's the amazing thing about the SL. I can use any M mount lens with an adapter with no loss in quality.

 

For me, lens size is all about haptics - the zooms are huge. Comfortable in the hand, but huge. If the size is going to be an issue, an M lens is undoubtedly a better option, but it rarely has anything to do with the photograph.

 

Do you mean tight spaces or more intimate social environments where a large camera system makes you look like a papparazzi? In that case, I agree - an M camera and lens is far less intrusive. Not sure what this has to do with the new SL 50?

For me, the best lens has no character.

 

If it is a large lens, it has to offer some material advantage over a smaller equivalent to compensate for its serious disadvantage. What might that advantage be?

 

No M lens has ever let me down in terms of image quality, no photo ever spoiled because the lens wasn't good enough for my purposes. Why then pay an unnecessary penalty?

 

I don't make or particularly admire the sort of photos that depend on ultimate technical quality. (Though I appreciate the efforts of others who do and I don't criticise them for having different tastes and priorities from mine .) Extreme technical quality comes very low on the list of things that I value in photography. Technical quality can be bought, though it takes exceptionally rare ability to make use of it. I'm not very interested in it except where its absence spoils a photo, and that very rarely happens.

 

Those things like imagination, sensitivity and creativity, interesting ideas, the need to communicate or explore and other such subjective human qualities: these are the intrinsic qualities that overwhelm such small matters as the technical quality differences that are likely to exist between an M lens and its SL equivalent.

 

If size inhibits usage in the slightest, It's hard to imagine what would be sufficient compensation, within the realms of what is realistic.

Edited by Peter H
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How does the WATE hold up in the corners of the frame on the SL? I've not checked if Sean Reid has compared its performance to the M240 but I am interested in this lens. I owned two copies of the Nikon 14-24 and don't see a need for AF at those focal lengths.

 

I've been considering the Novoflex adapter and Canon 11-24 for this reason. The WATE would be better for me if it holds up without the micro lens structure of the M240.

 

 

I use the WATE because it is incomparable to other UWA zooms. You can use filters and it is so small it fits into any (almost full) bag. And it weighs only 330g, about one third of other UWA zooms.

I use it either for landscape (at 5.6, 8 or 11) or with "hyperfocal" street photography (as a dumb fix focus lens). In both cases it is sharp all over. In the wiki you can find the MTF diagrams which will confirm this.

And yes, I do not miss the AF capability.

By the way I am glad that the SL 16-35 is planned this way. As it goes to 35mm it could replace a "normal zoom" for me - and it seems to be lighter and less bulky than the 24-90. But maybe more expensive. (I used a Nikon 2.8/17-35 for the last 15 years and  find it a very useful focal range for practical shooting).

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the best lens has no character.

If it is a large lens, it has to offer some material advantage over a smaller equivalent to compensate for its serious disadvantage. What might that advantage be?

No M lens has ever let me down in terms of image quality, no photo ever spoiled because the lens wasn't good enough for my purposes. Why then pay an unnecessary penalty?

I don't make or particularly admire the sort of photos that depend on ultimate technical quality. (Though I appreciate the efforts of others who do and I don't criticise them for having different tastes and priorities from mine .) Extreme technical quality comes very low on the list of things that I value in photography. Technical quality can be bought, though it takes exceptionally rare ability to make use of it. I'm not very interested in it except where its absence spoils a photo, and that very rarely happens.

Those things like imagination, sensitivity and creativity, interesting ideas, the need to communicate or explore and other such subjective human qualities: these are the intrinsic qualities that overwhelm such small matters as the technical quality differences that are likely to exist between an M lens and its SL equivalent.

If size inhibits usage in the slightest, It's hard to imagine what would be sufficient compensation, within the realms of what is realistic.

Couldn't agree more.

 

The lenses I have will never limit my photography, and I see no need for this lens for myself - not because it is big (it undoubtedly is), but because I have three very good 50mm lenses I can mount on the SL and my M cameras, and I don't need AF for this prime. It adds nothing I need, and I don't even have the APO Summicron 50 (I don't need that either).

 

We're dancing on the head of a pin. I do understand others wanting this lens, but I'm not one of them.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica is just maximising profits. That's the only reason for the large lens size. They could build a smaller better lens (much like the 50APO) one stop faster w/AF but they choose to take the cheaper "compromised" route and built it big. And still charge a lot for it. 

 

No compromise quality.. Well when you compromise on size, it's still a compromise. And thats what they're doing straight up.

 

Agree, disagree... It doesn't matter.

 

At the end of the day, if you're all still willing to buy it, then Leica will continue to make big lenses. If you take a stand and don't buy the lenses.. But instead buy the allegedly smaller summicrons. Maybe Leica will get the msg. But bitching about size and then buying the lens anyway, that's not going to prompt Leica to make smaller lenses. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica is just maximising profits. That's the only reason for the large lens size. They could build a smaller better lens (much like the 50APO) one stop faster w/AF but they choose to take the cheaper "compromised" route and built it big. And still charge a lot for it. 

 

No compromise quality.. Well when you compromise on size, it's still a compromise. And thats what they're doing straight up.

 

Agree, disagree... It doesn't matter.

 

At the end of the day, if you're all still willing to buy it, then Leica will continue to make big lenses. If you take a stand and don't buy the lenses.. But instead buy the allegedly smaller summicrons. Maybe Leica will get the msg. But bitching about size and then buying the lens anyway, that's not going to prompt Leica to make smaller lenses. 

 

 

Rubbish!  :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica is just maximising profits. That's the only reason for the large lens size. They could build a smaller better lens (much like the 50APO) one stop faster w/AF but they choose to take the cheaper "compromised" route and built it big. And still charge a lot for it. 

 

No compromise quality.. Well when you compromise on size, it's still a compromise. And thats what they're doing straight up.

 

Agree, disagree... It doesn't matter.

 

At the end of the day, if you're all still willing to buy it, then Leica will continue to make big lenses. If you take a stand and don't buy the lenses.. But instead buy the allegedly smaller summicrons. Maybe Leica will get the msg. But bitching about size and then buying the lens anyway, that's not going to prompt Leica to make smaller lenses.

 

The 50 APO is definitely smaller than the 50-SL but it's also more expensive, smaller aperture design, and doesn't have AF or weather sealing. I believe the M-mount diameter is also smaller (44 mm) than the SL (51 mm). I haven't measured myself but these are the numbers I remember reading prior to purchasing the SL.

 

I don't think "maximizing profit margin" is the driving factor for lens size. Certainly price is a factor, but Leica has proven the willingness to build high price lenses to meet a design objective (50 APO- small size and excellent quality, Noctilux- large max aperture and excellent quality).

 

Compare to Sigma's 50 f1.4 Art lens which in Canon format (54mm mount diameter is similar to the SL) is 3.36" diameter (3.46" for the 24-90 and presumably the same for the 50-SL) and 3.93" long (very similar to the 50-SL based upon its size compared to the 24-90, which is 5.43" in length). The Sigma weighs 815g. I don't expect the 50-SL to be far off of that weight.

 

The Sigma has a 77mm filter thread and 13 elements. The Leica 82mm and 11 elements. Both are internal focus designs. The Sigma has no weather sealing, the Leica does.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 They could build a smaller better lens (much like the 50APO) one stop faster w/AF but they choose to take the cheaper "compromised" route and built it big. And still charge a lot for it. 

 

 

 

If they could, I bet the cost would be well more than double the cost of the existing lens.

 

Profits are surely a goal....and so are sales necessary to generate those profits.

 

I'll leave it to Leica to make those determinations....and I'll make purchase decisions on what's available given my needs and preferences, not to make some sort of statement.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica is just maximising profits. That's the only reason for the large lens size. They could build a smaller better lens (much like the 50APO) one stop faster w/AF but they choose to take the cheaper "compromised" route and built it big. And still charge a lot for it. 

 

No compromise quality.. Well when you compromise on size, it's still a compromise. And thats what they're doing straight up.

 

Agree, disagree... It doesn't matter.

 

At the end of the day, if you're all still willing to buy it, then Leica will continue to make big lenses. If you take a stand and don't buy the lenses.. But instead buy the allegedly smaller summicrons. Maybe Leica will get the msg. But bitching about size and then buying the lens anyway, that's not going to prompt Leica to make smaller lenses. 

 

..... you forget that the SL is meant to be a 'system' camera, and as such Leica WILL be obliged to offer a full range of zooms and primes, fast and slow, big and not so big, although it may be several years before the final line-up is available.

 

I don't hear anyone complaining that Leica has two 50/2's, a 50/1.4 and a 50/0.95 available for the M ...... you could also argue that 3 of these are unnecessary and one is an enormous pile of solid glass. 

 

The SL 50/1.4 is the premium AF fast 50 ....... it's up to SL users to decide whether they need it or not.

 

but .......I doubt it will be a big seller considering the quality of the 24-90 and the fact that with OIS 50 on this lens comes in at f1.4 equivalent anyway as far as 'low light is concerned' .... and all you are getting in reality is shallower DOF. 

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica is just maximising profits. That's the only reason for the large lens size. They could build a smaller better lens (much like the 50APO) one stop faster w/AF but they choose to take the cheaper "compromised" route and built it big. And still charge a lot for it. 

 

No compromise quality.. Well when you compromise on size, it's still a compromise. And thats what they're doing straight up.

 

Agree, disagree... It doesn't matter.

 

At the end of the day, if you're all still willing to buy it, then Leica will continue to make big lenses. If you take a stand and don't buy the lenses.. But instead buy the allegedly smaller summicrons. Maybe Leica will get the msg. But bitching about size and then buying the lens anyway, that's not going to prompt Leica to make smaller lenses. 

 

1+

 

The size factor is most definitely a choice here, as it was when the 50 APO was first imagined. In the latter, they engineered it to be dimensionally in line with other 50 Summicrons and embraced a daunting engineering challenge. The excuse of weather sealing for the 50 SL bloat is a weak one when you consider the size bump over the 77mm filter sized Sigma. I would imagine that tolerances to achieve the desired results less rigorous when you jump to this size. In turn, complexities of manufacturing as well as cost must go down. That would reckon to be a more likely motivation on the part of Leica.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1+

 

The size factor is most definitely a choice here, as it was when the 50 APO was first imagined. In the latter, they engineered it to be dimensionally in line with other 50 Summicrons and embraced a daunting engineering challenge. The excuse of weather sealing for the 50 SL bloat is a weak one when you consider the size bump over the 77mm filter sized Sigma. I would imagine that tolerances to achieve the desired results less rigorous when you jump to this size. In turn, complexities of manufacturing as well as cost must go down. That would reckon to be a more likely motivation on the part of Leica.

If you're referencing my post that highlighted the differences between the Leica and Sigma, weather sealing was just one difference between very similarly sized lenses. They are not the same optical design and actual performance differences are still TBD.

 

The real point is that a high quality 50 f1.4 lens with auto focus isn't going to be much smaller than what is already available. To make it smaller isn't just an engineering challenge, it's also a question of how expensive the lens is intended to be (as Jeff S mentioned in an earlier post. The Sigma being similarly sized and much cheaper is the counterpoint to the idea that maximizing profit drives lens size.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew what I was getting myself into when I made the decision to move from the M series to the SL with the 24-90mm. I walked around DTLA doing some street shooting for about 2 hours today, no complaints. I no longer wanted to be a lens collector with a shelf of silver boxes. I have pre-ordered the SL 50mm and will then take a break from GAS for a year. I don't intend to complain about the size of the SL 50mm.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1+

 

The size factor is most definitely a choice here, as it was when the 50 APO was first imagined. In the latter, they engineered it to be dimensionally in line with other 50 Summicrons and embraced a daunting engineering challenge. The excuse of weather sealing for the 50 SL bloat is a weak one when you consider the size bump over the 77mm filter sized Sigma. I would imagine that tolerances to achieve the desired results less rigorous when you jump to this size. In turn, complexities of manufacturing as well as cost must go down. That would reckon to be a more likely motivation on the part of Leica.

 

 

I am more concerned about my motivation to go out and take photos, than about Leicas motivation.

(A lot of vain ramblings here    ;) ) .

Leica needs no excuse for the lenses they produce (or their size). Neither does anybody else.

Simply do not buy them. (Buy Sigma if you prefer ...    :D  :D )

(I think if you found other lenses much better, you would simply buy them and never be seen on this forum again - because you are so happy with your perfect lenses. I know a Otus user who never even thinks about checking what Leica or others offer. But it is only one.)

 

Someone made the decision to take 82mm as the "normal" filter thread size - I think it is also common in the S system ?!

I do not like that decision, but it is as it is. Technically I have the impression that 77mm would also have been possible, as there is quite a thick ring with engravements at the front of each lens that could have been spared. Someone is using 77mm close-up lenses and they work without vignetting on the 24-90. But it is as it is.

What I more regret is that they did not use the additional space to add a built-in hood. (the sophisticated R style)

 

I only hope that the next 4 lenses - slot 4 to 7 in the roadmap - will have a smaller filter thread size (maybe not the 16-35, but hopefully the primes.) Let's see.

A Summicron 35 with 82mm would be ridiculous, just as a Summicron 28 or 24 (not announced, yet). Also a Summicron 90 or 75.

Edited by steppenw0lf
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that filter size 82 was a design decision. With this diameter of the lenses which end up with the 82mm front element, the lens while mounted on the SL creates a flat plane with the bottom of the body. If you put the SL on the table, it stays flat even with the 90-280 lens attached. I actually like it.

 

 

I am more concerned about my motivation to go out and take photos, than about Leicas motivation.

(A lot of vain ramblings here    ;) ) .

Leica needs no excuse for the lenses they produce (or their size). Neither does anybody else.

Simply do not buy them. (Buy Sigma if you prefer ...    :D  :D )

(I think if you found other lenses much better, you would simply buy them and never be seen on this forum again - because you are so happy with your perfect lenses. I know a Otus user who never even thinks about checking what Leica or others offer. But it is only one.)

 

Someone made the decision to take 82mm as the "normal" filter thread size - I think it is also common in the S system ?!

I do not like that decision, but it is as it is. Technically I have the impression that 77mm would also have been possible, as there is quite a thick ring with engravements at the front of each lens that could have been spared. Someone is using 77mm close-up lenses and they work without vignetting on the 24-90. But it is as it is.

What I more regret is that they did not use the additional space to add a built-in hood. (the sophisticated R style)

 

I only hope that the next 4 lenses - slot 4 to 7 in the roadmap - will have a smaller filter thread size (maybe not the 16-35, but hopefully the primes.) Let's see.

A Summicron 35 with 82mm would be ridiculous, just as a Summicron 28 or 24 (not announced, yet). Also a Summicron 90 or 75.

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...