Jump to content

Please convince me the SL 50/1.4 is better than summilux


leica1215

Recommended Posts

The AF 50/1.4 just be available past week or so, I m considering this new lens , but besides the AF is it any other pros on this SL 50/1.4 over the summilux?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AF and weather sealing if you care about either. [btw I don't]

For me it's too big, and summilux-M is so easy to focus with on SL thanks to its size.

IQ the same as far as I am concerned from a practical point of view, not pixel peeping.

I'd say I prefer summilux-M because it's a true Leica optical design, not as much, if any, corrected in software as the Summilux-SL apparently is. I own summicron-M 50 and I'm happy like a hippo.

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

Why does it HAVE to be better ?

 

It's an AF lens designed to complement the SL. 

 

If it is as good optically as the equivalent MF summilux I would be pleased, if it is better and approaches the characteristics of the 50/2 apo I would be delighted. 

 

All the current Leica lenses are superb ...... that is what they are renowned for after all, and a few have almost reached perfection from a practical usage point of view. 

 

It's a lot of money for AF if you already have the MF equivalent and are happy to use it. 

 

........ but if you are daft and have more money than sense like me you will get the SL 50/1.4 AF  :p

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

They are no match. The Summilux-SL 50 is far superior to the Summilux-M 50 (look at the MTF graphs) and a comparison with the Apo 50 is more interesting (much closer IQ).

Will I buy it ? No need for it. I have already several 50mm lenses. A new 50mm for the SL is not so important for me - a Summicron 28mm would be much more useful. (my current 28mm lenses are not perfect)

But if 50mm is "your style", then this lens is the best for the SL.

 

The "problem" is that the lens is perfect - just as the 24-90 zoom. That means the photos are "nothing special". While the Noctilux is different. So the Noctilux is a very interesting companion to the 24-90, which adds something different. But the Summilux-SL 50 is technically the better lens, no doubt. And maybe even easier to use because of AF. (though I typically prefer manual focus with shallow DoF).

 

I will wait for a Macro 50mm or 60mm - this is more useful for me. Unfortunately I cannot afford both.

But if you can afford the SL 50, definitely buy it. The size is not nice - but what does it matter - easily forgotten while taking pictures.

Even the ugliest or heaviest lenses are not the slightest problem IF they produce the photos you want. And this lens is simply perfect. Much better than the Otus 55 - because of AF !

 

Is it possible to live without it ? Of course! I looked at my current lenses (how many photos they take) and the 50mm are "overrepresented" and not delivering enough output (keepers) in comparison to others (WATE or 28mm or 100mm)

 

P.S.

Just came to my mind: If you look for a reason not to buy this lens (SL 1.4/50) and save some money, then look at the first report about it. It is "amazing" - and even more interesting that somebody is willing to show these disastrous results !  http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/

Warning: Definitely do not look at the photos Thighslapper "threatened" to publish here when he gets his lens in a few days !  :)  :D  It might melt your resistance away like snow in spring.

Edited by steppenw0lf
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apart from the physical characteristics and the AF, the new SL lens is better corrected than the M (so no purple or other fringing / CA). 

 ..... yes but is that generated optically or in firmware correction ? ...... I suspect mostly the latter.

 

others have noted the noctilux has less fringing on the SL as well.

 

this also raises the issue of what 'fringing' actually is on digital cameras .... as some of us are not convinced at all that all of it is simple CA alone....... but as that nearly caused a riot on a previous thread maybe we had better not go there .....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

P.S.

Just came to my mind: If you look for a reason not to buy this lens (SL 1.4/50) and save some money, then look at the first report about it. It is "amazing" - and even more interesting that somebody is willing to show these disastrous results !  http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/

Warning: Definitely do not look at the photos Thighslapper "threatened" to publish here when he gets his lens in a few days !  :)  :D  It might melt your resistance away like snow in spring.

 

mmmm ........ I had not actually 'threatened' to post 'wallet emptying' examples ...... for that I think Leica will have to start offering me some 'inducements' .....  :rolleyes:

 

I suppose I could do an SL-Summilux 50/1.4 v Noctilux 0.95 v Summilux 50/1.4 v 50/2 apo, v 50/2.8 v 50/2 collapsible v Zeiss planar 50/1.4 ..... comparison, although I'd probably need to turn into an ultra-nerdy Sean Reid and live like a hermit for a month or so to do it ......and then post 20 pages of mind-numbing example images, mostly of fruit & veg or mildly inbred folk attending farmers markets and fairs...... 

 

If I discover anything startling I will certainly post examples. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no chart pictures and I do not always follow MTF charts to make purchase decisions but I have the 50 Summilux SL.  I used to have the 50 Summilux M, and I still have the 50 APO.  My purely subjective opinion is the 50 SL is superb and likely comes close to or matches the APO, which I considered the sharpest lens I have ever owned. I have made no aberration or color matching or scientific tests or measurements, just what I see.

 

Does this mean I will abandon the APO to the lure of AF?  No.  First, I still have an M-P and my M lenses therefore do double duty.  Second, the APO works beautifully on my SL.  Manual focus is easy with magnification and/or peaking.  Third, the SL Summilux is very large and heavy.    I do not regret getting the Summilux SL and I will use it where I absolutely need or want AF but if you ask me which one I am more likely still to have in a few years time, it would be the APO.  Maybe that is because I am used to manual lenses and used to the size of M lenses.  It is wishful thinking to say that SL lenses should be the same size as M lenses, but smaller and lighter, even if f/2 or even f/2.8 would nevertheless be something to welcome.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no chart pictures and I do not always follow MTF charts to make purchase decisions but I have the 50 Summilux SL.  I used to have the 50 Summilux M, and I still have the 50 APO.  My purely subjective opinion is the 50 SL is superb and likely comes close to or matches the APO, which I considered the sharpest lens I have ever owned. I have made no aberration or color matching or scientific tests or measurements, just what I see.

 

Does this mean I will abandon the APO to the lure of AF?  No.  First, I still have an M-P and my M lenses therefore do double duty.  Second, the APO works beautifully on my SL.  Manual focus is easy with magnification and/or peaking.  Third, the SL Summilux is very large and heavy.    I do not regret getting the Summilux SL and I will use it where I absolutely need or want AF but if you ask me which one I am more likely still to have in a few years time, it would be the APO.  Maybe that is because I am used to manual lenses and used to the size of M lenses.  It is wishful thinking to say that SL lenses should be the same size as M lenses, but smaller and lighter, even if f/2 or even f/2.8 would nevertheless be something to welcome.

Hi AlanJW!

Thanks for your sharing!

I am still happy with SL 24-90/f2.8-4 ASPH and M 50 Apo f2 with SL 601, not look further SL Lux 50 f1.4. I may wait and see SL Apo 90 for portrait or get Nocti f0.95 for special bokeh!

Have a nice day!

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

..... yes but is that generated optically or in firmware correction ? ...... I suspect mostly the latter......

I don't know and I don't particularly care. The end result is cleaner. Imaging-resource.com has some uncorrected images from the 24-90mm. They show a a fair amount of CA, but it seems to be cleaned up automatically to my satisfaction at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no chart pictures and I do not always follow MTF charts to make purchase decisions but I have the 50 Summilux SL. I used to have the 50 Summilux M, and I still have the 50 APO. My purely subjective opinion is the 50 SL is superb and likely comes close to or matches the APO, which I considered the sharpest lens I have ever owned. I have made no aberration or color matching or scientific tests or measurements, just what I see.

.

It seems the Apo still edge better or equal to SL 50/1.4, how is the focusing with SL? Can you get pinpoint sharp picture with focus peaking? I will feel that focus peaking only get rough idea , no clear indication of in focus, cos the red out lined the subject can't get very solid all around the subject.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the Apo still edge better or equal to SL 50/1.4, how is the focusing with SL? Can you get pinpoint sharp picture with focus peaking? I will feel that focus peaking only get rough idea , no clear indication of in focus, cos the red out lined the subject can't get very solid all around the subject.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you use the magnifier, it is quite easy to focus, especially at f/2 but even to smaller openings. A few weeks ago I was asked to shoot a birthday party (for a 70 year old) and I decided that the 24-90 was just too intimidating in a setting like that (I did not yet have the SL 50). I used the 50 APO and it was no problem. I was mostly at f/2 and 2.8 with auto ISO and did between 100 and 150 frames. I'd say that 2 or 3 were way off in focus, and another 3 or 4 somewhat off but usable, and the rest were fine (technically at least). I just magnified on the eyes. The light was crappy, with incandescent and fluorescents too, so I had far more white balance issues than focus issues.

 

My experience is that manual focus with focus peaking and magnify on the SL gives me a success rate about the same or better as using the ovf in my M-P. That is a long way of saying yes, I can get pinpoint sharp with the SL. In fact I now use the SL more than the M-P. I find the SL easier and faster. My eyes are nowhere near perfect, with 70+ years of wear and tear, compounded by several surgeries so maybe I am not "typical". But I was surprised at how quickly one could adapt from OVF/RF to EVF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 ..... yes but is that generated optically or in firmware correction ? ...... I suspect mostly the latter.

 

Couldn't care less. The M50 'lux also has corrections baked into the raw file on digital M and SL cameras. I have raw files from the SL50 and an order in. Personally I'd gladly sell my M 'lux if I needed the funds to get the SL version. Yep. It's big and heavy but I needed exactly two shots in the Leica store to realise that this was a better lens for me, in every way.

 

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just came to my mind: If you look for a reason not to buy this lens (SL 1.4/50) and save some money, then look at the first report about it. It is "amazing" - and even more interesting that somebody is willing to show these disastrous results !  http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/

Warning: Definitely do not look at the photos Thighslapper "threatened" to publish here when he gets his lens in a few days !  :)  :D  It might melt your resistance away like snow in spring.

 

None of the images I took show any of the issues Adam saw with a pre production version of the lens. I suspect his results are an anomaly, not the norm.

 

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't care less. The M50 'lux also has corrections baked into the raw file on digital M and SL cameras. I have raw files from the SL50 and an order in. Personally I'd gladly sell my M 'lux if I needed the funds to get the SL version. Yep. It's big and heavy but I needed exactly two shots in the Leica store to realise that this was a better lens for me, in every way.

 

Gordon

 I agree ...... and this is another old chestnut that has grumbled along ....... it's what is recorded on the SD card that counts, not how Leica arrive at the result. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A factor that the eternal discussion of the inevitable losses of software correction seems to miss is that chromatic errors (LCA) can be corrected at the same time as distortion is undone by mapping the captured light intensities back to where they should have come from.  The result should be sharper than before the correction is done, with any errors that the remapping contributes falling at spatial frequencies above the Nyquist frequency (the pixel to pixel spacing) where they will not be visible if small.

 

scott

  • Like 3
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...