24 mm F1.4 Summilux ASPH performance wide open

[toff]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Hi lct,

 

That's what I thought too. The sharpness looked like it was from an older lens design. BTW I've now had a look at my LR 4.1 settings, and Sharpening=25, Radius=1.0, Detail=25. Masking=0, which I believe are the default LR levels.

 

To clarify what I meant by 100%crop, I am including the uncropped full image.

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[toff]

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.

 

Hi algrove,

 

Yes, camera is ok with other lenses. Actually the focus is correct on this lens. What I am disturbed by is the perceptible "softness" at F1.4.

[toff]

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.

 

I ran the same files through C1 (6.4.2). Default level of sharpening again: Sharpening 130, Radius 0.8, Threshold 1.0.

 

First pic is at 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!

 

The next picture is at F2.0:

 

The results look very similar to the LR4.1 output. The RAW convertor is not a major factor here. I'm hoping for more 24 Summilux ASPH owners to provide their input.

 

Thanks.

[jaapv]

Please put sharpening @ 0. It is too much capture sharpening for an M8 anyway...

Sharpening in raw conversion does not sharpen anything, it just enhances contrast transitions.

[lct]

Would be more visible with larger files i guess but C1 (right) does a better job apparently.

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!

[pico]

I applied my own sharpening technique. It is sharper now, however what is not corrected is flare-like behavior in the brightest highlights of the target. (The sky in the background is not as bright because in general, objects out-of-focus will be darker than those in-focus.)

 

Regardless, it still strikes me as excellent performance at the center of the field unless one is doing reconnaissance work.

 

Remove the filter and see how it compares?

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Looks exactly like my Noctilux 0.95 wide open under 2-3 metres ........

 

Same laws of optics and the resultant aberrations pertain.....

 

.....one thing I would say about sharpening 'soft' wide open images with these type of lenses is that you can rack up the sharpening to max without the usual artifacts being an issue ..... the depth of field is usually so shallow that the sharpening is only applied extremely selectively and doesn't influence the rest of the image in any noticeable way..,...

[luigi bertolotti]

Looking at the whole image my first idea is that this lens is very good even wide open and (looking at the crops) really outstanding at f2 : we are dealing of a 24... I didn't make such detailed tests with my Elmarit 24 asph (and I haven't a FF... just a M8...) but I wouldn't be surprised if it would NOT perform at 2,8 like the Summilux at 2.

In the crop (and only in it), the center does show that sort of "flare effect" which has been ALWAYS present in wide open WAs (I remember to have seen it, for instance, in crops from the Summicron 28) and didn't need 100% crops to be seen on Summilux 35 preasph or Elmarit 28 1st.

[Kapro]

I bought Summilux 24/1,4 recently and sold Elmarit 24/2,8 to my friend two days ago. What was my surprise and disappointment when we compared the shots shot with both lenses at 2,8. Elmarit was much much sharper with better contrast than Summilux. Shots taken with Summilux appeared mushy, less contrasty, having narrower DoF @2,8 and unsharp. I was afraid that something was wrong with my lux so I called a friend having brand new Summilux 24mm as well. Performance of his lux was exactly the same as of mine.

After than we made a series of shots using tripod with all three lenses from wide open to 5,6. At 5,6 Summilux performed finally little bit better than Elmarit. Shots were taken with M9.

Since I don't use digital cameras at all, I made the series of the same test shots with MP on Tri-X as well as couple of "street photography" shots at 1,4; 2,0; 2,8; 4,0. Test shots of a same scene were done with Elmarit 24/2,8, two Summiluxes 24/1,4, summicron 28/2,0, Summilux 35/1,4 and Summilux 50/1,4. I'm going to develop the two films today and will post our (3 guys) opinion at the end of next week since I'm quite busy in my business in coming days.

[budrichard]

"What was my surprise and disappointment when we compared the shots shot with both lenses at 2,8. Elmarit was much much sharper with better contrast than Summilux. "

 

Which 24mm Elmerit are you Posting about, non-ASPH or ASPH?

Why were you surprised?

Usually a larger objective and consequently smaller(numerically)

F Stop yields poorer performance than a smaller objective lens and larger F Stop even at the same aperature. You didn;t pay for superior performance at 2.8 but the ability to use F 1.4.

Increased cost is also no guarantee of better performance.

I have had the 21mm f2.8 Elmerit ASPH for many years now and if Kodachrome were still available I would have the 21mm LUX but since no K, I don't require the 21 LUX and the 21 2.8 ASPH does just fine.-Dick

[Kapro]

Which 24mm Elmerit are you Posting about, non-ASPH or ASPH?

 

Why were you surprised?

You didn;t pay for superior performance at 2.8 but the ability to use F 1.4.

 

Aspherical

 

Based on a experience with Sumillux 35/1,4 and 50/1,4 I expected at least similar performance @ 2,8 with optional 1,4 as Elmarit 2,8 Asph., not much worse...

I sold quite a lot of lenses I hadn't used for a long time including 21/2,8 Asph,two M7's and decided to buy quite expensive 24/1,4. My fault. I get rid of excellent Elmarit 2,8 Asph and sold it to my friend for 1500€. I have to buy it back somewhere definitely for more money...or I'll try Elmar 3,8 and will see if it works for me.

I'm a little bit pessimistic now but I have to wait until I see the results from developed films enlarged on the paper. I don't expect any magic bullet but hope I'll be less disappointed.

Clever man learns from mistakes of others, fool from his owns..

 

Yes, you are right. More expensive stuff doesn't have to be better.

[01af]

... and decided to buy quite expensive 24/1.4. My fault. I get rid of excellent Elmarit 24/2.8 Asph and sold it to my friend for 1500 €.

Yeah ... never sell a good lens before you positively know you actually like the newer lens better. Very old lesson that for some reason everybody has to learn the hard way ...

 

But then—in your case, there's hope. There's a thread somewhere here in the forum from someone who bought a Summilux-M 21 mm Asph recently, and had to go through three samples, no less, before he finally got one that performed the way it was supposed to. Maybe you just got a lemon, too.

 

 

I'm a little bit pessimistic now but I have to wait until I see the results from developed films enlarged on the paper. I don't expect any magic bullet but hope I'll be less disappointed. [...] More expensive stuff doesn't have to be better.

According to Leica's own data sheets, at f/2.8 the 24 mm Summilux has a slightly uneven performance for fine detail. At the frame's very center and the frame's corners, it should be as good as the 24 mm Elmarit or even slightly better; in the field, somewhat (i. e. visibly) worse. That's normal. Coarse detail should be rendered equally well across the frame with both lenses, except in the corners where the Summilux again should be better.

 

At f/5.6, both lenses should perform mostly equally well across the frame.

 

At f/1.4 the Summilux is clearly softer than the Elmarit at f/2.8.

 

So—if your Summilux performs significantly worse than that then have it adjusted, fixed, or replaced. But don't expect the Summilux to outperform the Elmarit. Especially at f/2.8, the Elmarit is the better lens overall (except in the corners). For landscape and architecture, the Elmarit-M and Elmar-M 24 mm Asph lenses are better than the Summilux. For reportage, low-light, and expressionistic art, the Summilux-M 24 mm Asph is better. But don't over-estimate these differences; they mostly are rather subtle. Even when one lens might be 'better' for a given application, it does not mean the other was unusable.

[Kapro]

Maybe you just got a lemon, too.

I'm so lucky man in my whole life that if there is one lemon out of 1000 there's 99,99% probability I'll buy it. That 0,01% is just joke of a destiny..

Now seriously, I read that case. As I mentioned my friend's one week old Lux 24 performs exactly the same way as my does. There is very little and negligible backfocus of mine comparing to his.

 

 

I bought Summilux 35/1,4 and 50/1,4 after I had borrowed one from my friend. I decided to buy them on the base of result seen on the paper. Both lenses were magic mojo. I decided to get rid of all lenses and to end up with 24,35 and 50 summiluxes. No, 24 I didn't test. I relied on extraordinariness od 35 and 50

 

According to Leica's own data sheets, at f/2.8 the 24 mm Summilux has a slightly uneven performance for fine detail. At the frame's very center and the frame's corners, it should be as good as the 24 mm Elmarit or even slightly better; in the field, somewhat (i. e. visibly) worse. That's normal. Coarse detail should be rendered equally well across the frame with both lenses, except in the corners where the Summilux again should be better.

Should be....that's true. Should be...

 

 

At f/5.6, both lenses should perform mostly equally well across the frame.

Exactly my experience mentioned in my first post.

 

For reportage, low-light, and expressionistic art, the Summilux-M 24 mm Asph is better

Since for all kinds of photography but reportage I use middle and mostly large format there is some small chance I'll be impressed by overall look of photographs taken with Lux 24. Question is whether my awaited positive impression won't be caused by height of bill for Summilux 24...