24 mm F1.4 Summilux ASPH performance wide open

[toff]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

 

I purchased this lens new a few months ago, but have not quite taken to it because of what I felt was a bit of softness wide open. This appears a bit like the "glow" of the older lenses. I have checked the focusing with a Lens Align, and found that it focuses correctly. In the first photo taken at F1.4 you will see the loss of contrast and mistiness that bothers me.

 

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!

 

At F2.0 the contrast and definition is what I would expect of a modern Leica lens.

 

 

I would like to ask the forum members who own or have shot with this lens whether this is the way the lens renders at F1.4? It would be a shame to have to close to F2.0 for a lens of this cost and size. Do you think my lens is defective, or do your lenses also behave similarly?

 

Of course I do not take only pictures of focus targets, and the third photo of a more everyday scene does not show the imperfections as obviously. Having said that, it was an everyday picture that first drew my attention to the softness that prompted me to check the lens out with a Lens Align.

 

 

Thanks in advance for your comments.

 

Chris

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Little questions if you don't mind: Did you shoot raw? If so did you use Lightroom 4.1 with Adobe Camera Raw 6.7 as raw converter?

[pico]

What was the distance to the target, and is there a clear or uv filter over the lens?

[lct]

I don't see any focus problem here.

[andyedward]

The problem is the OP's unrealistic expectations of a fast lens used wide open. To find out more, the OP should check out Erwin Puts site, where he will read about just how difficult it is to design and produce a fast lens that performs to a very high standard wide open

[adan]

Seems to me there are three questions here:

 

1. Is your individual lens up to snuff? I mostly leave that to those with more experience with the lens - but looking at Leica's own MTF chart for the 24 @ f/1.4 (top center), your posted image looks about like what I'd expect. The MTF @ f/1.4 is pretty good right at the center (>55% contrast @ 40 lppm) but drops off very fast to below 40% contrast, then climbs again for the corners of the picture.

 

In your image, this shows up as the center (focusing scale) being sharp, but a soft overlay appearing in the off-center "star" charts.

 

Normally I take MTF charts with a grain of salt, but since we are discussing "softness" and "glow," the fact that MTF charts show a combination of resolution and contrast is appropriate.

 

2. How does your lens perform in the context of other Leica f/1.4 ASPH lenses @ f/1.4? Answer - not quite as well. But that is to be expected. Large aperture lenses are challenging to design. Wide lenses are challenging to design. Combine both goals and the challenges go up exponentially.

 

I append Leica's 35 and 50 f/1.4 ASPH charts. The 35 f/1.4 ASPH has lower MTF curves than the 50 f1.4 ASPH - and the 24 is lower yet. A natural progression. If anything, the 24 f/1.4 is actually cleaner at the corners than the legendary 35 (Contrast at 5 lppm of 75 for the 24 and only 55 for the 35).

 

3. How does your lens perform in the context of other 24 f/1.4 lenses @ f/1.4? I append an MTF chart for the Canon L 24 f/1.4. The gray lines are the lens @ f/1.4 and 30 lppm - so not directly comparable. They'd equate to halfway between the two bottom pairs of lines in the Leica chart, so one can say the Leica does better at 40 lppm (higher resolution) at the very center and the corners - but the Canon may be doing better at, say, 5/10/15mm out from the center.

 

Put your subject in the center, and the Leica will do better. Put your subject off center, and the Canon may do better.

 

The Canon lens, is of course, roughly 3 times the volume of the Leica lens, taking 77mm filters where the Leica takes ~52mm filters. An important consideration in designing lenses for M bodies, both in terms of balance, and in terms of viewfinder/rangefinder blockage. So if the Leica lens is performing just as well - in a much smaller package - that is a consideration.

 

Getting back to your original theme - a 24 f/1.4 is not going to perform as well as, say, a 28 f/2, wide-open. Wider aperture, wider field of view - something has to give. Same compared against the 50 f/1.4. Four times the image area, same aperture - something has to give.

 

Erwin Puts says (take it as you will) that the difficulty of designing a given focal length goes up as the square of the increase in aperture. So the 24 f/1.4 is 2x2x2 = 8 times as tricky to design as the 24 f/3.8. If reward follows effort, the 24 f/1.4 would cost 8x as much as the 24 f/3.8 for comparable performance (= $21,000).

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!

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Noctilux suffers from the same problem.... particularly close up.

 

For distant subjects the softness tends to diminish but is still there......

 

I suspect this is a design characteristic of most Leica extreme wide aperture lenses and is unavoidable as not all of the potential aberrations at this point can be eliminated.

 

It's something you have to accept and use creatively to your advantage when the situation allows....

[lct]

The 24/1.4 asph is indeed softer than the other Summilux asph lenses at full aperture but sharpening appears to be at least partially the culprit here. Looks like ACR or other raw converter if any did not apply any sharpening at all, hence my questions.

[sarav]

Hello,

 

I don't see anything wrong with your shots. I own the lens from the very beginning and I've loved since then. It has a marvellous unique fingerprint that reminds to leica old lenses but together with the strong characteristics of the modern ones (backlight, sharp, right colors). Contrast cannot be at the same level of an elmarit but that is obvious. It is not a clinical item for surgery, it is a piece of art for taking pictures. Forget test shots and have fun with your new lens. It permits 24h/day shooting. Day, night, in, out...no differences, it'll perform everytime in a wonderful way.

 

Sara.

[toff]

Little questions if you don't mind: Did you shoot raw? If so did you use Lightroom 4.1 with Adobe Camera Raw 6.7 as raw converter?

 

Yes, most recent version of Lightroom 4 with default settings of sharpening.

[toff]

What was the distance to the target, and is there a clear or uv filter over the lens?

 

This was actually a central 100% crop. The shooting distance was about 5 feet with both camera and target on tripods and shutter on timed release. Shutter speed was 1/1000.

 

Yes, a B+W Series 7 UV filter was in front of the lens.

[toff]

Hello,

 

I don't see anything wrong with your shots. I own the lens from the very beginning and I've loved since then. It has a marvellous unique fingerprint that reminds to leica old lenses but together with the strong characteristics of the modern ones (backlight, sharp, right colors). Contrast cannot be at the same level of an elmarit but that is obvious. It is not a clinical item for surgery, it is a piece of art for taking pictures. Forget test shots and have fun with your new lens. It permits 24h/day shooting. Day, night, in, out...no differences, it'll perform everytime in a wonderful way.

 

Sara.

 

Thanks all for your comments. I was expecting more from this lens at F1.4 but it appears from the feedback that this expectation might be unrealistic.

 

I am just surprised at the remarkable improvement in contrast and clarity from F1.4 to F2.0. I will have to accept this as normal for this type of lens though if everyone says that's how it performs.

[toff]

Seems to me there are three questions here:

 

1. Is your individual lens up to snuff? I mostly leave that to those with more experience with the lens - but looking at Leica's own MTF chart for the 24 @ f/1.4 (top center), your posted image looks about like what I'd expect. The MTF @ f/1.4 is pretty good right at the center (>55% contrast @ 40 lppm) but drops off very fast to below 40% contrast, then climbs again for the corners of the picture.

 

In your image, this shows up as the center (focusing scale) being sharp, but a soft overlay appearing in the off-center "star" charts.

 

Normally I take MTF charts with a grain of salt, but since we are discussing "softness" and "glow," the fact that MTF charts show a combination of resolution and contrast is appropriate.

 

2. How does your lens perform in the context of other Leica f/1.4 ASPH lenses @ f/1.4? Answer - not quite as well. But that is to be expected. Large aperture lenses are challenging to design. Wide lenses are challenging to design. Combine both goals and the challenges go up exponentially.

 

I append Leica's 35 and 50 f/1.4 ASPH charts. The 35 f/1.4 ASPH has lower MTF curves than the 50 f1.4 ASPH - and the 24 is lower yet. A natural progression. If anything, the 24 f/1.4 is actually cleaner at the corners than the legendary 35 (Contrast at 5 lppm of 75 for the 24 and only 55 for the 35).

 

3. How does your lens perform in the context of other 24 f/1.4 lenses @ f/1.4? I append an MTF chart for the Canon L 24 f/1.4. The gray lines are the lens @ f/1.4 and 30 lppm - so not directly comparable. They'd equate to halfway between the two bottom pairs of lines in the Leica chart, so one can say the Leica does better at 40 lppm (higher resolution) at the very center and the corners - but the Canon may be doing better at, say, 5/10/15mm out from the center.

 

Put your subject in the center, and the Leica will do better. Put your subject off center, and the Canon may do better.

 

The Canon lens, is of course, roughly 3 times the volume of the Leica lens, taking 77mm filters where the Leica takes ~52mm filters. An important consideration in designing lenses for M bodies, both in terms of balance, and in terms of viewfinder/rangefinder blockage. So if the Leica lens is performing just as well - in a much smaller package - that is a consideration.

 

Getting back to your original theme - a 24 f/1.4 is not going to perform as well as, say, a 28 f/2, wide-open. Wider aperture, wider field of view - something has to give. Same compared against the 50 f/1.4. Four times the image area, same aperture - something has to give.

 

Erwin Puts says (take it as you will) that the difficulty of designing a given focal length goes up as the square of the increase in aperture. So the 24 f/1.4 is 2x2x2 = 8 times as tricky to design as the 24 f/3.8. If reward follows effort, the 24 f/1.4 would cost 8x as much as the 24 f/3.8 for comparable performance (= $21,000).

 

Andy,

 

Thanks for your charts. That was insightful.

[pico]

This was actually a central 100% crop. The shooting distance was about 5 feet with both camera and target on tripods and shutter on timed release. Shutter speed was 1/1000.

 

Yes, a B+W Series 7 UV filter was in front of the lens.

 

If by 100% crop you mean actual pixels, then it performed quite well. Focusing at 5 feet means that it was not 21mm but a longer focal length, but still within reasonable bounds. Focus was right-on, which is wonderful.

 

And the most controversial which I am prepared to suffer: fast lenses used wide-open should not have a filter placed in front of the lens. Let the flames begin

[algrove]

If by 100% crop you mean actual pixels, then it performed quite well. Focusing at 5 feet means that it was not 21mm but a longer focal length, but still within reasonable bounds. Focus was right-on, which is wonderful.

 

And the most controversial which I am prepared to suffer: fast lenses used wide-open should not have a filter placed in front of the lens. Let the flames begin

 

Are you suggesting at say f8 or f11 it is OK to have the filter in place?

 

OP Is your camera OK with your others lenses. I had mine check at Leica NJ and it came back way better after nearly a year of travel use.

[lct]

Yes, most recent version of Lightroom 4 with default settings of sharpening.

I would check the actual values of default sharpening in your LR sample or i would try another raw converter. When applying a mere 20% sharpening in Fred Miranda's Intellisharpen to your f/1.4 pic above, i got something more acceptable yet:

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!

[jaapv]

Yes, most recent version of Lightroom 4 with default settings of sharpening.

Which default setting? They are user-defined. I might add that sharpening is a subject that merits study on itself.

If one wants to compare lenses at pixel level the sharpening should be turned off.

[lct]

Which is never done at default settings by definition.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

If by default you mean installed preset, yes, Of course it is easy to save a default zero setting.

[lct]

Sure and i wonder if the OP has not a problem there. Hard to believe that LR applied the least sharpening to the OP's f/1.4 pic above. I have no experience with the Summilux 24/1.4 and i know that it is not the sharpest lens at f/1.4 but the softness we're viewing here doesn't look normal from an asph lens to me. At default sharpening settings, i would bet that C1 does much better.