adan Posted September 7, 2011 Share #1 Posted September 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I ran across a chance to try out these two lenses side-by-side, on M9 and 5D2. First up - size comparison (keep in mind that mounted in front of an SLR mirror, the Canon is effectively a half-inch longer): 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/161309-35-summilux-asph-vs-canon-35-f14-l/?do=findComment&comment=1787437'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 7, 2011 Posted September 7, 2011 Hi adan, Take a look here 35 Summilux ASPH vs. Canon 35 f/1.4 L. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share #2 Posted September 7, 2011 Next - full-frames of the test shots, and a sample of bokeh @ f/1.4: 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/161309-35-summilux-asph-vs-canon-35-f14-l/?do=findComment&comment=1787439'>More sharing options...
adan Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted September 7, 2011 Next - center and corner crops indoors at f/1.4 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/161309-35-summilux-asph-vs-canon-35-f14-l/?do=findComment&comment=1787441'>More sharing options...
adan Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share #4 Posted September 7, 2011 Last - outdoors at f/6.8, center and corner (BTW - no sharpening or CA corrections applied to any of the crops) 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/161309-35-summilux-asph-vs-canon-35-f14-l/?do=findComment&comment=1787444'>More sharing options...
Marty Posted September 7, 2011 Share #5 Posted September 7, 2011 Thanks for that. Nice crazy comparison. The size alone reminds me why I dumped DSLRs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 7, 2011 Share #6 Posted September 7, 2011 The 35 Summilux ASPH is a superlative lens - possibly the only lens you need but, before all the Leica fanatics get going, let's not forget that some great photography has been done with those Canon L primes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share #7 Posted September 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) True - never mistake "image quality" for "quality images." But neither Leica nor Canon can help with the second - all they can provide is the first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted September 7, 2011 Share #8 Posted September 7, 2011 I own both, and both are great in their own way - though I do love the unique 3D look that the Lux imparts. I think though the biggest difference is shown in frame three - the one in the camera store. This reveals a massive difference between the two - you'll notice a very lifelike drawing of Canon products, whereas Leica products are very thin - in fact entirely without presence. Many will find also that with the Lux, effective exposure time for initial frames can be up to 365 days longer, compared to the Canon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoshawnuff Posted September 7, 2011 Share #9 Posted September 7, 2011 an interesting rough comparison. Someone who didn't know about camera equipment would think the first photo was showing a modern lens compared to some antique or a lens you would give to a child. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SangNguyen Posted September 7, 2011 Share #10 Posted September 7, 2011 Thanks for the serious comparison. The 35 summilux asph is the only carried lens if I have to choose. Andy, you got a great work! Sang Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 7, 2011 Share #11 Posted September 7, 2011 Interesting Andy thanks. I wonder if we are quite fair when we overlook sharpening in those comparos though. In real life, we (at least i) do sharpen both AA and sans AA filter files and differences tend to vanish a lot then. At least between M8.2 and 5D1 + R lenses AFAIC. Not that bad for a 10MP crop cam BTW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 7, 2011 Share #12 Posted September 7, 2011 Thanks Andy, Surprising how well the Leica fares in the crops - the level of noise from the 5d is not surprising, given the size of the crop. The colour rendition difference is interesting. I don't like the greenish hue that comes up on my monitor in the Summilux shot inside the store. What did you do with white balance? Were both set on Auto WB, or were manual readings taken for both. I guess all we're seeing in that full frame comparison is the sensor performance. The colour balance is something you would deal with in post processing. This reinforces in my mind that, given an image using either lens (from either camera for that matter) in isolation, I'd be very happy. Side by side, the Summilux gives better detail, but I guess without having the AA filter of the 5D, the Leica image requires a little more port processing work. Very interesting - I intend to buy that lens when I can find one. Cheers John PS - Would some one post the MTF charts for each lens at 1.4? I'm still struggling to read these charts, but it would be very interesting to see what the charts show against these image comparisons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 7, 2011 Share #13 Posted September 7, 2011 I sold my 35 1.4L very soon after acquiring a 35 Lux ASPH. Try shooting in backlit situations with those lenses if you want to see even clearer differences. That's not to say the 35 1.4L (or it's Nikon equivalent) is not a good lens. It is. But the 35 Lux ASPH really is superb. It's the "lens cap" on my M9 and M6 these days, and even on the M8 it was fabulous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 7, 2011 Share #14 Posted September 7, 2011 Problem with MTF curves, according to Erwin Puts they cannot be compared across diferent brands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 7, 2011 Share #15 Posted September 7, 2011 Problem with MTF curves, according to Erwin Puts they cannot be compared across diferent brands. I don't get that. While their value is questioned, I thought they were an attempt at an objective measure. To be honest, I don't really know what I'm looking at with MTF curves, and I don't feeling I'm missing much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted September 7, 2011 Share #16 Posted September 7, 2011 I don't get that. While their value is questioned, I thought they were an attempt at an objective measure. They are, but if they are objective measurements of different things, they can be hard to compare The problem is that some companies publish calculated MTFs and some publish MTFs measured on real lenses. I think Canon and Nikon are in the former group and Leica and Zeiss are in the latter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 8, 2011 Author Share #17 Posted September 8, 2011 diglloyd - Understanding optics - Understanding Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) My problem with MTF measurements is that they are a function of both resolution and contrast - and since I can usually add more contrast if it is missing (but cannot add more resolution if it is missing), I'm interested in raw resolution by itself. Example being the Summilux corner image @ f/1.4 above (baby on a Canon LCD). It is very low contrast (white wall a dull yellow-gray) but the edges are sharp. This would translate to a very low MTF for the corners (which is how most charts, including Leica's, show it) - where a lens with less resolution but more macro-contrast would score higher. In the all-film era, if one was shooting slides for projection, or negs for "straight" prints, with little recourse for post-processing, MTF as the standard made some sense (although I still preferred the old separate contrast and resolution tables). But today, it is pretty trivial to restore contrast locally. Below, I've fixed the contrast of the Summilux to let the resolution show its stuff (and for fairness, done my best to knock down the CA in the Canon image and equalize both for good contrast and color balance). Based soley on the MTF charts I've seen - the 35 Summilux ASPH is one of Leica's worst lenses. Based on real-world resolution, it is one of the best. I'll take the real world. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/161309-35-summilux-asph-vs-canon-35-f14-l/?do=findComment&comment=1787790'>More sharing options...
adan Posted September 8, 2011 Author Share #18 Posted September 8, 2011 FWIW, here are Photodo's MTF charts for these two lenses - as measured from actual lenses by a Hasselblad employee using the company equipment in his spare time a decade or so ago, so at least a consistent methodology. Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Images Leica Summilux-M Asph.35mm f/1.4 Images Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uroman Posted September 8, 2011 Share #19 Posted September 8, 2011 MTF curves may not matter for real world image shooting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted September 8, 2011 Share #20 Posted September 8, 2011 Thanks Andy - looking at the MTF, I'm none the wiser. Your images provide a far more useful comparison. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.