50 Comparison: APO-Summicron trounces Zeiss Otus

[paulsydaus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When the Otus was announced, I downloaded and compared the official MTF graphs for both lenses from Zeiss and Leica. This is what I concluded.

1. The performance of the Otus is marginally better at f/2. Of course the Otus has a stop advantage over the Leica.

2. At f/5.6 the two lenses are comparably the same.

3. The Zeiss has more field curvature and distortion than the Leica.

 

These are the two pinnacles of current lens design. But what amazes me is how the Leica essentially matches the performance of the Otus for 1/3 the weight and volume of the Zeiss. That's huge! I know the Zeiss has an extra stop, but if you want the best of the best and don't need f/1.4, the APO Summicron gives all that in a tiny package compared to the huge and heavy Otus. That to me is the real story of these two lenses and why the Leica is well worth the premium over the Otus...

 

A test and article from Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals has appeared. Testing with the Imagemaster Optical Bench reveals the Leica APO-Summicron trounces the Zeiss Otus. The Summilux also beats it, fairing exceptionally well.

 

The other wonder of the bunch is the Sigma ART, especially so at the price. Beating the Otus and Summilux at f2.

 

Find Roger's very well presented article here - LensRentals.com - Comparing Rangefinder and SLR 50mm Lenses. (Version 0.7)

[semi-ambivalent]

When the Otus was announced, I downloaded and compared the official MTF graphs for both lenses from Zeiss and Leica. This is what I concluded.

1. The performance of the Otus is marginally better at f/2. Of course the Otus has a stop advantage over the Leica.

2. At f/5.6 the two lenses are comparably the same.

3. The Zeiss has more field curvature and distortion than the Leica.

 

These are the two pinnacles of current lens design. But what amazes me is how the Leica essentially matches the performance of the Otus for 1/3 the weight and volume of the Zeiss. That's huge! I know the Zeiss has an extra stop, but if you want the best of the best and don't need f/1.4, the APO Summicron gives all that in a tiny package compared to the huge and heavy Otus. That to me is the real story of these two lenses and why the Leica is well worth the premium over the Otus...

 

There are many reasons (some psychological) that cause people to tolerate the size of current DSLRs. I'm not saying they buy them because of their size, although some might, but because the size stops being an impediment to their purchase.

 

That said there are probably insurmountable optical laws and mechanical limitations that determine minimum lens sizes. Leica, e.g., is lucky it doesn't have that mirror to worry about, but it will be something to see how they manage to AF a 50 'lux if they decide to get into that market space.

 

You're absolutely right about the Otus' size, it's huge, and if it wasn't that DSLRs have certain abilities people want or need, in an RF-only world it would be a failure. Looking at my history of Auto Nikkor-S 50/1.4 down to a 50 H.C. and then a big jump to a 50 V4 'cron I could never bring myself to again carry around that sort of mass just to take pictures. But that's just my case. Whatever the value of more pixels, sensors will be getting more of them because they can. At some point the other manufacturers will all face their own Otus moment, even if only for market viability. Zeiss gets what Leica did, and hasn't sat on their hands.

 

Of course, if the world's machinery of cheap credit changes course, all bets are off.

 

s-a

[alan.y]

I hope Sigma starts making full frame RF or mirrorless lenses.

[3D-Kraft.com]

As for the strange performance of Summilux 50 on the Sony A7R, I'm pretty much convinced that it is due to the thick glass cover in front of its sensor that induces astigmatism and field curvature (which is much greater than that of the lens). I downloaded the images taken by Ron Scheffler and they clearly show that Summilux on the Leica M9 is still sharp wide open at the edges, while on A7R you have the smearing effect, which is very similar to what can be seen at the linked 'Most adorable 50s' test also done on A7R, even though Mr. Scheffler did the test for infinity focus, while the other one is for close range.

 

Now, coming to the MTF curves and the optical bench test. Here confusion could come from the different way of displaying the results. Observe that Leica supplies MTF with respect to distance measured from the center in millimeters, while Roger Cicala's graphs provide angle off axis from 0 to 20 degrees along the 'x axis'. 20 degrees roughly corresponds to 18 mm from center, which means horizontal image edge in 36mm x 24mm rectangle. Now, if you check the MTF curves published by Leica for Summilux 50 ASPH, actually the big drop in the MTF curves happen between 17 mm and 21 mm, the latter corresponding to the image corners. But if you cut the curves at 18mm, then you would see that optical performance of the Summilux is still outstanding there. That's why I would dare to say that most probably things are about right in Roger Cicala's tests, if you mean image edges and not corners, the Summilux still bears the competition quite well against the APO Summicron.

 

I can not speak for the M9 (and if you compare A7R results, you have to downsample the A7r image to the same resolution) but I saw the same weaknesses of the Summilux on the M 240. Perhaps it was also a matter of my particular copy but if you look at Roger Cicalas charts, you see that half way between center and border the Summilux has nearly the highest astigmatism values of all the lenses in Roger's test. I think in real world situations (e.g. in the comparison shoots with the model, where the eye was placed and focused in that area), this astigmatism is significantly more noticable than the figures of Rogers optical bench test might indicate.

[Reds]

I'll take a barrel of salt with that..... trounce: defeat utterly, resounding win etc. I don't think so.

 

They're all fantastic lenses, to go out and actually use. I don't have a 50 APO to compare it with, but the Otus is superb and I really like the way Zeiss glass draws and deals with colour.

[NightSun]

I can not speak for the M9 (and if you compare A7R results, you have to downsample the A7r image to the same resolution) but I saw the same weaknesses of the Summilux on the M 240. Perhaps it was also a matter of my particular copy but if you look at Roger Cicalas charts, you see that half way between center and border the Summilux has nearly the highest astigmatism values of all the lenses in Roger's test. I think in real world situations (e.g. in the comparison shoots with the model, where the eye was placed and focused in that area), this astigmatism is significantly more noticable than the figures of Rogers optical bench test might indicate.

 

Thanks for the additional notes, I only checked the model shots now. Yes, at her eyes, the image taken by Summilux 50 at f1.4 does not really look sharp at all. However, I'm not really sure that this is all due to astigmatism, since regarding midframe performance, Summilux also exhibits field curvature - and this is reflected in the middle dip in the MTF curves. So I'm wondering if, on top of some astigmatism, the lack of sharpness also comes from a focusing error, which could be caused by using the 'focus and recompose' technique, be it through RF or EVF. That is, you first put the model's eyes in the center, achieve focus, and when you recompose the image, your focus shifts a bit due to the field curvature. Otherwise, I would suspect that this specific lens might be an outlier sample.

 

I would be curious, what other forum members do think? (I don't own a Summilux 50 ASPH, so maybe my expectations are too high.). Here's the model shot this discussion is about (courtesy of 3D-Kraft, the link provided on his test page):

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hhackbarth/11666303016/sizes/o/

[NJH]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Its always worth considering what is sufficient to cause moire on our sensors. The ability of lens X to resolve finer detail than what lens Y can which may already cause moire just means that the extra performance of lens X is pointless (lens Y was already out resolving the sensor and image processing chain).

[Jekon18]

On 6/7/2014 at 9:37 AM, Paul J said:

A test and article from Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals has appeared. Testing with the Imagemaster Optical Bench reveals the Leica APO-Summicron trounces the Zeiss Otus. The Summilux also beats it, fairing exceptionally well.

 

The other wonder of the bunch is the Sigma ART, especially so at the price. Beating the Otus and Summilux at f2.

 

Find Roger's very well presented article here - LensRentals.com - Comparing Rangefinder and SLR 50mm Lenses. (Version 0.7)

Almost 10 years now and I have owned and/or shoot on the Leica apo Summicron, Leica Summilux and the Zeiss Otus 55mm and 100mm. 
i still own the Leica Apo and the Zeiss Otus…

I can say this article is LIES / fake news etc.

1) so you want to tell me, that the Summilux is sharper than the Zeiss Otus wide open at f1.4? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

2) There is NO DIFFERENCE in sharpness between the Leica apo and Zeiss Otus 55. I own both and have used both on film and digital. The Zeiss has field curvatures etc but that’s all. 
3) The Sigma Art 50mm ist not sharper than the Zeiss either. My portrait photographer friend confirmed after borrowing my Otus 55 and comparing to his Sigma. 
 

funny how people would just read and believe anything. Summilux sharper than Zeiss Otus… NOT in 1000 years. 

[RexGig0]

The article in question, and this discussion thread, are, well, how many years old, by now? 😉

My take: That which is measurable on scientific-level testing equipment is not always discernible in images what we capture. The optical corrections which the Leica design team prioritizes may not be the same optical correction choices made by the Zeiss design team. The shooter may see either as being “sharper.”

Personally, I will use my Zeiss Otus when it suits me, my Summilux-M 50mm ASPH when it suits the purpose, my Cosina Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar when it suits the purpose, and my APO Summicron-M 75mm ASPH when it is most suitable. (My Otus happens to be 85mm, which is why I mentioned the APO 75 ASPH.) All are wonderfully good.

I have not used a Leica APO Summicron 50mm ASPH. At a moment in time, when I could have stretched my budget to acquire one of several, on the pre-owned market, from reputable sellers, I made a completely different choice, a “character” lens, in a different focal length, and, to have a 50 that would perform well, in conditions that could induce flare or ghosting, added the Cosina Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar.

Edited to add: I am not any kind of expert. My photographic training/experience was in evidentiary/forensic/crime scene photography, which emphasized optically and technically correct images, with the images captured in field/street conditions, and in hospital environments. (Not laboratory work.) After retirement, I bought my (pre-owned) Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, my new M10, and my Zeiss Otus 85mm on the same day, with money that I did not spend on a long-planned, top-tier Nikon “super telephoto.”

Edited January 17, 2024 by RexGig0

[aires35iii]

Hello Sirs,

We have the chance to have among us persons who can compare these nice lenses. So, could you please give us your feelings ?

I did not find relevant commarison between the Otus 55 and the summilux Asph, except of course the very precise one from Erwin Puts and a nice one made by 3d-kraft. On the latter I personnaly found the Summilux more pleasant thanks to his punchy, contrastier results. What I find in the advantage to the Otus is his bokeh rendering, especially for the foreground, which is very rare.

Mr RexGig0, which are the "purposes" you wrote for each of these lenses ? Which are the ones you like much ?

Mr Jeckon18, which one do you prefer, which are your conclusions and advices ?

Edited January 26, 2024 by aires35iii