50mm Summilux-SL ASPH Review

[dfarkas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey guys,

 

I just posted my in-depth review of the new 50mm Summilux-SL ASPH. Lots of sample photos in various environments with 100% crops and even a comparison to the 50 APO M and 50 Lux M ASPH. Check it out:

 

Leica Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH Review: A New Standard

 

 

As always, comments and questions welcome!

Edited March 18, 2017 by dfarkas

[phovsho]

Dear Sir

 

Thank you very much for a great and informative read. Your review addressed all the issues I have been mulling over. Living in New Zealand means I don't generally get to test before I buy, so it's great to have a perspective on these issues. I think on the basis of this review I'm going to pull the trigger - I've been looking for evidence that it performs at or better than the M50 APO. I'm willing to live with weight etc if I know I'm getting best possible results and weather sealing - I shoot a lot it inhospitable terrain.

 

And you say the SL summicrons promise to be better...

 

Best

 

Murray

Edited March 18, 2017 by phovsho

[Advertisement]

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

[Leicaiste]

Hi David,

 

Very nice review.

 

A small detail, the 24-90 doesn't maintain a consistent barrel length across the entire focus range by employing an internal focusing design.

[jrp]

Thanks for putting this up.  I pretty much agree with your findings.  The benefit additional benefit of the APO M versus this lens is edge performance, although in practice it is the rendering of the lenses that distinguishes them. 

[dfarkas]

Hi David,

 

Very nice review.

 

A small detail, the 24-90 doesn't maintain a consistent barrel length across the entire focus range by employing an internal focusing design.

 

Thanks. Good catch! 

 

Poor wording choice on my part. The 50 SL uses an internal focusing design, as do the 24-90 and 90-280. None of the three lenses change length for focus, but the 24-90 does change barrel length when zooming. 

[almoore]

As always, comments and questions welcome!

Nobody doubts that this lens will be anything less than optically excellent, but the combination of size, weight and price is insane.

 

50mm lenses have been good enough since before we were born. In practical photographic terms, what can this lens do that a $125 Canon 50mm f1.8 can't? The Canon is a touch glowy but perfectly usable wide open, good stopped down and a fraction of the bulk. I think Leica is losing its way with these bazooka-sized lenses. Didn't we used to use Leicas because they were compact and discreet?

[Alo Ako]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 Didn't we used to use Leicas because they were compact and discreet?

 

So you are a fan of the M system. That`s fine. I still use Leica because I want the best otpical quality. This is what SL is standing for.

[almoore]

I still use Leica because I want the best otpical quality...

Are there no limits to the size/weight/price premium that you're prepared to pay in the pursuit of that notional 'best optical quality'?

 

I've no doubt that this lens will resolve slightly more detail wide open than the majority of 50s, but I don't believe that this will translate into a leap forward in photographic terms.

[Alo Ako]

Are there no limits to the size/weight/price premium that you're prepared to pay in the pursuit of that notional 'best optical quality'?

 

No. For limited prices there is Canon, Nikon, Sony...

[almoore]

No. For limited prices there is Canon, Nikon, Sony...

And therein lies the explanation to Leica's current success with the SL. Bulky bling for people who believe that Japanese cameras are beneath them.

[jrp]

I think that the SL system is quite well thought out. The body and couple of AF / OIS zooms will do for almost any general photographic requirement (because the quality is there). The M lenses complement the zooms for when compactness or speed are required. The 50mm SL is a "statement" optic, like the 50mm APO. I have not understood why it is so large, but see that the Sigma and Sony/Zeiss superprimes are hardly slimline. So its use case is less clear. That said, it seems to produce clean, gentle images that are surprisingly sharp.

[LD_50]

And therein lies the explanation to Leica's current success with the SL. Bulky bling for people who believe that Japanese cameras are beneath them.

Please stop with this garbage. Why are you so invested in questioning why others choose the gear they do?

 

You'll find photographers on this forum who shoot with the SL and a number of other cameras. I shoot with Leica and a Sony. Previously it was Nikon but they still don't offer an EVF option so I've looked elsewhere.

 

As far as the 50SL goes, why does it need to offer a "major leap in photographic terms"? "In practical photographic terms" is a useless standard as it's different for everyone. That is why it's great to have choices, with no need to justify them to anyone else.

 

The 50SL is yet another 50 option for SL shooters that offers high IQ and AF. If you don't like the size, choose something else.

Edited March 18, 2017 by LD_50

[almoore]

As far as the 50SL goes, why does it need to offer a "major leap in photographic terms"? "In practical photographic terms" is a useless standard as it's different for everyone...

It needs to offer a major leap to justify its major size, major weight and major price.

 

The thread was started by a guy who sells these things and who asked for comments. He didn't specify that those comments had to be limited to praise for this gargantuan lens. The reason for referencing 'practical photographic terms' is that I can't think of any photographs that can be made by this lens that couldn't have been made with an M 50 Summilux, or, if you want AF, by a Canon, Nikon or Sony 50.

 

I like the idea of an interchangeable lens Leica EVF camera. I don't particularly mind that it's expensive, but I do mind that the lenses offered are insanely bulky.

[phovsho]

So if that's your point - simply that it's bulky - why did you need to take a personal jab at folks who have or are considering buying this lens? You state that they/us/we/me are only buying this system because of a "bling" factor and because "Japanese cameras are beneath" them/us/me.

[LD_50]

If you mind the size, buy something else. I shoot a Summilux-M instead of the SL.

 

I don't care if you praise or criticize the lens. What is odd is the attempt to classify the users of the gear rather than the gear itself.

 

Also, your standard that you "can't think of any photographs" that the 50 SL can make that another lens cannot is applicable to all like focal length and aperture lenses. It's a standard only meaningful to the individual. In other words, one person may want the wide open center sharpness, lack of CA, weather sealing while another may not care about those things and would prefer to spend $50 on a used Nikon 50 f1.8. Neither is wrong or should be criticized.

 

You seem to ignore the price to be paid (in weight, size, and usually price) for the diminishing returns available in optical performance. Price is also affected by economy of scale, build quality, branding, etc.

[almoore]

So if that's your point - simply that it's bulky - why did you need to take a personal jab at folks who have or are considering buying this lens? You state that they/us/we/me are only buying this system because of a "bling" factor and because "Japanese cameras are beneath" them/us/me.

Read back through the thread and all will become clear. I was responding to the guy who dismissively said that for 'limited prices there is Canon, Nikon, Sony...'

 

Ultimately, if you're happy with big bloated lenses, then I'm happy, because the success of the SL helps to keep Leica afloat. I just hope that they don't move away from the elegance of the M.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I don't think that's going to happen. It could be argued that the SL allows the M to stay "elegant". Hence the newer smaller M10 as an alternative to the larger SL system.

 

As for the SL50. It's not a lens for everybody. And if you're happy with an alternative then great. There are many. Some are perfectly happy with a EF50mm 1.8II. I'm not and I understand I'll need to pay though the nose for what you see as a modest improvement. It's just not modest to me. It's glaring.

 

like the way it draws. I have a few 50's from different manufacturers on different systems. I like the SL50 the best. Simple as that. Rendering and blur are as important to me as all out sharpness and *for me* the SL 50 delivers. Would I like it smaller, lighter, cheaper with less digital corrections and faster AF? Absolutely! But not if I got a different lens performance. Certainly you may find it "ludicrous" as you state, but others have different criteria and needs. Others weigh up the positives and drawbacks to see whether the net benefit is something that works for them.

 

Let me ask you this. Why do you use the M? Any Canon is capable of similar results as you can strap on the $125.00 50mm. Or Fuji? Same size. Cheaper. Lighter. It really doesn't matter. Well, not to any one else but you. You choose the gear you want to use based on criteria that matters to you. And no one should be able to tell you gear you have is *silly* because they're not you deciding what works for you. The rest of decide what works for us. When all I could afford was the EF50mm 1.8mk2 I was happy with it. But now I don't want harsh background blur. I don't want Pentagonal out of focus highlights. I don't want sharpness limited to the middle 60% of the frame. I don't want "perfectly acceptable" because it's no longer perfectly acceptable to me. I don't care whether any one else can see the differences. I can and I've worked stupidly hard to be able to buy any 50mm I want. And after testing and weighing up the pros and cons this is the lens I want. Simple as that.

 

Gordon

[almoore]

Let me ask you this. Why do you use the M? Any Canon is capable of similar results....I don't want sharpness limited to the middle 60% of the frame. I don't want "perfectly acceptable" because it's no longer perfectly acceptable to me...

I use the M because I like the form factor and viewfinder. If Canon made a similar rangefinder camera then I'm sure I'd consider it as an alternative, but they don't. I was never tempted by Leica Rs because Canon and Nikon offered more affordable and more reliable SLR alternatives.

 

I've not seen a 35mm format image that - for me - is made or broke by the rendering of the lens that made it. If it's interesting enough it'll survive a few aberrations here and there. I don't find it problematic combining images made with Leica cameras with those made with Canons, the printing or processing is more significant in making a series seem coherent. Different formats make for different looks, different lens brands not so much.

[Chaemono]

Are there no limits to the size/weight/price premium that you're prepared to pay in the pursuit of that notional 'best optical quality'?

 

I've no doubt that this lens will resolve slightly more detail wide open than the majority of 50s, but I don't believe that this will translate into a leap forward in photographic terms.

I unterstand that there is a lot of pushback to Leica's claims as many suspect that the main motive is to justify their insane pricing. I went out and took some test shots with the TL35, itself very expensive for a crop sensor lens, and the SL50 using the SL. I'm not done going through all the images yet and will hopefully finish everything by tomorrow but I uploaded these four just to show that the SL50 has virtually no purple fringing. These are full resolution and can be downloaded. Perhaps one can take the time to look at the front fenders of the hood of the purple Mercedes. Most lenses would show tons of purple fringing wide open there. Even the M50Apo would show some. The SL50 is virtually purple fringing free. It's not just about resolving "slightly more detail."

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-m8cbnV/ 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Chaemono

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jrp]

The 50mm blurs the background more than the 35mm (as you might expect). Otherwise the rendering is beautiful in both cases.