50mm Summilux has some real competitors

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There was a time when the M Summilux 50mm was top of the heap, and it probably still is, when size is taken into account.

 

The SL Summilux 50mm looks bulky in comparison.  It has AF, of course, but it now has some serious competitors the Otus (only manual focus) and the new Sony / Zeiss f1.4 lenses, not to mention the Sigma Art.

 

I am beginning to wonder what Leica is going to pull of of the hat to keep ahead of the game (and command what will inevitably be a premium price).  

[meerec]

The Otus and Sony Zeiss 50's aren't particularly small lenses at all. The new Leica lens will be similar size I think. To make the lenses high IQ and fast AF it's what you get as a result.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Unless the Otus or Sony develop AF that works on the SL as well as the native lens, I'll still be getting the Summilux. While I do own and A7R2, I'm building my main 35mm AF system around the SL.

 

While I'm sure the Sony is fabulous, and I may end up with the new ZA 50mm (unlikely as I already have the A series ZA and the FE55mm), I'll still be getting an AF Summilux.

 

Gordon

 

p.s. I'm considering selling my M Summilux as I think I actually prefer the CV 50mm 1.5.

[steppenw0lf]

I do not think that there is an alternative to the SL 1.4/50 because it is the only one with perfect AF for the SL.

The question is rather, is such a big and probably expensive lens really attractive? And also the question if for the 50mm the 1.4 aperture is really important.

I find the M lenses and also the R lenses very useful and prefer them to new Otus or other giants. And unfortunately the oversized new lens really turns me down.

I wonder how long it will take Leica to realize that a set of small AF primes would make the SL very sexy (even if only humble Summicrons instead of Summiluxes).  (28, 50, 90 or 100, maybe even 135).

 

This is to be seen in the context of the new X1D. Many were attracted because of the relatively small primes (for midrange). The SL could easily improve upon that regarding size and especially regarding noise (a camera for weddings, churches, in court, etc.)

The AF in the 90-280 is focusing in complete silence, unlike Canon or Nikon. Also compare the shutter noise of the SL to the noise a midrange lens produces when taking a shot (shutter in lens).

Edited July 31, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[wlaidlaw]

I am guessing that the 50SL will provide equivalent image quality to the 50 APO. In which case, it looks like a bit of a bargain. I have always thought the price performance ratio of the 50 APO was difficult to justify. There is more than one professional reviewer, who has said that the Zeiss ZM 50 Planar is close the performance of the 50 APO for a fifth of the price, with maybe superior flare resistance. I replaced my 11819 50 Summicron with the 50 Planar after having had two poor examples of the 11819. Will I buy the 50SL? I am not sure at the moment, since I am finding the 24-90 so satisfactory and for those occasions I want a faster lens, I have my 50/.95 Nocti. For those occasions when a faster lens is needed with the attendant shallow DOF, I feel that MF confers considerable advantages for accurate and quick selection of focus point. Focus of the Noctilux, I find is easier on the SL than on my M240, especially in low light. I am not too keen on the "fly by wire" manual focus on the SL lenses and much prefer the more linear feel of a conventional mechanical linkage.

 

Wilson

[dkCambridgeshire]

The SL/T cameras' lens mount is not small thus no SL/T AF lens can be small; the reasons why Leica SL telecentric AF lenses are large are well documented. 

 

dunk

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M lenses have always had a certain cachet on account of their size, rendering and performance. A further plus point has been that they are mechanical, which means that we are not relying on electronics for them to function. (Nikon used to have that advantage too, but recent lenses have electronic diaphragms.)

 

The new 50mm does not have OIS, so far as I can tell. It is being sold as having benchmark performance (ie, that it will out Otus the Otus, but with AF). Since the recent Zeiss / Sigma / Sony 50mm f1.4 lenses are as good as anyone might need (which is not really the case with the (relatively) cheap and cheerful Canon / Nikon equivalents) I'm wondering what (apart from the mount) is going to make this lens stand out from the crowd to the extent that the Leica premium can be charged. The existing zooms are, in my opinion, a cut above the competition's 24-70mm and 70-300mm offerings (in performance and, in the case of the latter, speed).

 

Since we already have the excellent zoom, the 50mm will need to do something special at f1.4-2.8 to earn its place.

 

Nikon has gone for background rendering, rather than absolute resolution, in a couple of their recent lenses (58mm and 105mm f1.4), to distinguish themselves. Similarly, the Sony GM lenses are making a selling point of circular bokeh.

 

I suppose that Leica had to make a 50mm Summilux, since that it their signature M lens, but I can't help wondering whether they would not have been better served producing a wide angle zoom (16-24mm, say) or a macro lens or some much more compact, slower lenses, as someone above has suggested.

 

In any case, a lens road map might help those wondering whether or not to buy into the system make a better informed decision.

[Sandokan]

Not a scientific comparison, but what he has to say about the optical incorrectness of a modern lens compared to one designed for the film era is interesting (it is the in-camera and RAW converters that fix many optical issues).

 

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.ch/2016/07/look-harder-sony-55mm-f18-versus-and.html

 

For me, I would like compact AF fixed focal length lenses for the SL (f1.8 or f2 would be acceptable). I can live without OIS. I can understand why they need to have a wide diameter at the rear lens mount, but not why they need to be Otus size (which is a Distagon and not a Planar design)?

[steppenw0lf]

The SL/T cameras' lens mount is not small thus no SL/T AF lens can be small; the reasons why Leica SL telecentric AF lenses are large are well documented. 

dunk

 

Where ? I'd like to read and understand in depth - not just "discussions" where language skills and perseverance and not physics decide which is the "right solution".       So well documented, not only well discussed.

For example explain how diameter influences the length so crucially. Small is anything smaller than the X1D 45mm or 90mm medium format lenses - not as small as the typical M lens. (Probably the SL also has smaller bayonet than X1D, but did not check). And small means filter diameter much smaller than the ridiculous 82mm. Again very easy. (Say short instead of small if this is easier for you).

That is easy (just look at them) and they have the additional handicap of the in-lens shutter. The obsession to produce Summiluxes has a much bigger influence on size. How unnecessary they are you can easily see with the new M 1.4/28. Fifty years of great Leica fotos went by without one. And even now hardly anyone has bought one. And even then 1.4 is not often used/shown for great fotos. So 1.4 is only/mainly for marketing and not for decent fotos. Sorry Jono, but even in your nice test of the Summilux 28 I liked the beach/cloud fotos at f11 (or thereabout) best.

 

(Generally, I am also rather fed up of the "great fotos" shown in this forum, where the greatness consists of great sharpness and contrast with an aperture 1.4 or 2 and not of a captivating scene. Sorry for this digression.) ("Look even this face in the corner is tack sharp !" :-)

Edited July 31, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Jeff S]

I suppose that Leica had to make a 50mm Summilux, since that it their signature M lens, but I can't help wondering whether they would not have been better served producing a wide angle zoom (16-24mm, say) or a macro lens or some much more compact, slower lenses, as someone above has suggested.

 

In any case, a lens road map might help those wondering whether or not to buy into the system make a better informed decision.

 

I'd be very surprised if a wide angle zoom isn't on the short list.

 

But, yes, a road map would be terrific....but unfortunately not Leica's style...and conditions have been known to change.  For instance, the 'informal map' for the S lens line (predicted even by dealer members here several years ago) that included more tele lenses, wide T/S lenses, etc, never materialized.  

 

Jeff

[wlaidlaw]

Surely it is not either or for the 50/1.4 and wide angle zoom. I would not be at all surprised if the wide angle zoom was the next or next but one lens. I would assume the next part of the lens road map for the SL will be announced at the pre-Photokina press meeting. I am getting the impression that the SL is a success and it would be silly not to capitalise on that. A wide angle zoom, I would certainly buy. The WATE is not quite the answer, as a WAZ would need to have an extended zoom range in comparison. 

 

Wilson

[steppenw0lf]

Sorry, Wilson, but the WATE is the answer for me. The probable size and cost of a new lens  (maybe weight of 1 kg and cost of 8k to 10k dollars) makes it useless for me. And so maybe also for a lot/some other prospective buyers.

All this only for the AF that nobody needs in a UWA lens ...     

 

Remember how many complaints there were about the price of the SL (More than 10k for a AF starter kit). And now again the most expensive (and rather exotic) zooms.  "Cheap" primes are more attractive and would probably find a much bigger market. Look at the reaction of the "foto crowd" towards the X1D. But maybe this is just a short-lived phenomenon.   (Of course I do not know, so take it with a grain of salt.)

 

I would even prefer a "alternative" entry midrange AF zoom, a SL 28-75 with constant 3.4 or 4. For beginners like me.    But less so than the "handy" primes.

Edited July 31, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[satijntje]

I am guessing that the 50SL will provide equivalent image quality to the 50 APO. In which case, it looks like a bit of a bargain.

 

Has Leica already announced a price ticket for the 50LX  for the SL?

Edited July 31, 2016 by satijntje

[wlaidlaw]

Has Leica already announced a price ticket for the 50LX  for the SL?

 

The price I have heard mentioned is €3999 + tax. However, I had a good look through the folks that often post prices ahead of others like Red Dot and Foto Mundus and there seems nothing official yet. €3999 seems about right to me which would make it tax paid a bit more than current price for 24-90 and about the same price as the 35 FLE Summilux. 

 

Wilson

[thighslapper]

There was a time when the M Summilux 50mm was top of the heap, and it probably still is, when size is taken into account.

 

The SL Summilux 50mm looks bulky in comparison.  It has AF, of course, but it now has some serious competitors the Otus (only manual focus) and the new Sony / Zeiss f1.4 lenses, not to mention the Sigma Art.

 

I am beginning to wonder what Leica is going to pull of of the hat to keep ahead of the game (and command what will inevitably be a premium price).  

 

On paper (ie. MTF's) it will almost certainly exceed the 50/2.0 apo ...... which in itself is virtually 'transparent' in the manner it renders with almost no perceptible aberrations and colouration, and well exceeds the resolving power of digital sensors. 

 

In use it will prove to be unremarkable ...... like the 50 apo ..... basically a lens that puts on the sensor exactly what is there ..... nothing more, and nothing less. 

 

Throw in fast AF and you will have that most depressing of products ...... something that you can't find much to complain about ...

 

..... but hey, it's a Leica, so it will be too big, too expensive, too black and have 1001 other faults for those unable to afford it ....

Edited July 31, 2016 by thighslapper

[kikouyou]

Peter Krabe indicated that the exceptional technical accomplishment on the M 50mm Summicron APO was that it was very difficult to achieve such a performance in a very small form factor. If the form factor is not an issue any more, the challenge may not be as difficult to meet...

Personally I will not consider native primes on the SL if they are as big as what is being proposed now. I will stick to my M lenses.

Edited July 31, 2016 by kikouyou

[Guest VVJ]

I wonder how long it will take Leica to realize that a set of small AF primes would make the SL very sexy (even if only humble Summicrons instead of Summiluxes).  (28, 50, 90 or 100, maybe even 135).

 

 

+1.  I am sure a relatively small AF 2.8 28mm (Elmarit-M like) or 35mm would make a lot op people very happy...

[Guest VVJ]

I'd be very surprised if a wide angle zoom isn't on the short list.

 

I would be as well.  If the Leica T is any indication I would expect it to be lens 4 or 5.

Edited July 31, 2016 by JorisV

[Guest VVJ]

But, yes, a road map would be terrific....but unfortunately not Leica's style...

 

Hopefully Leica gets it one day...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

I love this. A new lens that no one has seen, that isn't shipping yet, and already everyone has an opinion about its quality, its desirability, its price, whether the competition will prove it lacking or of limited advantage, etc etc. 

 

I wish I could see the future so clearly!