Summilux-SL 50 MM F/1,4 ASPH

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just an aside occassioned by some of the posts in this thread: I'm surprised at how frequently many people appear to change their camera equipment and buy new lenses.

[Advertisement]

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

[wattsy]

Just an aside occassioned by some of the posts in this thread: I'm surprised at how frequently many people appear to change their camera equipment and buy new lenses.

 

 

Searching for the holy grail I suppose. I've done my fair share of buying new lenses over the years but, having essentially bought back the same basic kit as I had more than ten years ago, I realise what a waste of time and (especially) money it can be.

 

I also suspect that the frequency of buying new gear is also a product of the internet age. Partly a consequence of forum and blogger influence but also the speed and ease of buying and selling stuff via eBay and forum classifieds, etc.

[adamdewilde]

I have to agree with both Peter and Puts that all current Leica lenses are optically corrected to the point where only very careful lab testing will reveal differences ...... and those will be negligible from the point of view of 'normal' use.

 

....BUT ...... there are differences due to maximum lens aperture and OOF rendering, plus subtle differences in colour profile and contrast that do produce different results ........ 

 

..... and the preference in that is entirely in the eye of the beholder, not down to lab tests.  

 

The SL 50/1.4 interview indicates this is where this lens differs from the others ....... optically as well corrected as it smaller M brothers but with different OOF and DOF characteristics that will give a different signature...... in some situations 

 

It all then boils down to whether you like the look or not, whether you need AF, and whether bulk and weight concerns you. 

 

 

Ok I can try to show samples of this if you would like. 

I did not see anything special in the samples my friend sent me. I'm not HAPPY with the technical performance of the 50SL, but I'm not unhappy with it overall. 

Hopefully I can convey what I mean in the tests. 

[tom0511]

I also dont buy my lenses just based on other peoples experience, but still I am very interested to see other peoples results and read their opinion. More interested in that than marketing oriented interviews with Mr. Karbe or other Leica marketing statements.

 

i also agree most Leica lenses being great, but stil there are differences. I do use the 50APO not because it is expensive, but because I really do like what I see from it.

Could I live with the 50 Summarit? Of course I could if I have to. Its an excellent lens. Still I think there are some differences which one can see.

[LocalHero1953]

Adam, you've been promising real evidence of the lens performance since several pages back (post #227 or so), implying you have had and tested the lens. Now you offer to post samples your friend sent you. 

Evidence please, preferably as dngs.

[adamdewilde]

Adam, you've been promising real evidence of the lens performance since several pages back (post #227 or so), implying you have had and tested the lens. Now you offer to post samples your friend sent you. 

Evidence please, preferably as dngs.

 

 

Sorry for the confusion, I cannot post my friends samples, as I mentioned earlier. I based my early opinion of the lens from his samples which were not inline with my own. THOUGH I still hold firm about the digital corrections that shouldn't be on a LARGE $5000+ USD standard 50mm lens. 

 

I will be posting my own images. With my own thoughts on handling and etc. I'm dedicating tonight to writing the review. And probably tomorrow to finishing up the editing.

 

I don't dislike the lens as much now that I've used it for a few outings. BUT I realised something. I think my harsh judgement of the lens is based on four important factors.

1) I own and LOVE the 50APO in combination with the M240.

2) I'm not a fan of the SL's sensor/colors (personal preference).

3) There are definite optical red flags for the size and weight *(which I might add was one of my original gripes)

4) There are major handling issues that need to be addressed in a firmware or possibly a hardware change. 

 

I'll need a bit more time for those who care to read what I have to say.

[adamdewilde]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also dont buy my lenses just based on other peoples experience, but still I am very interested to see other peoples results and read their opinion. More interested in that than marketing oriented interviews with Mr. Karbe or other Leica marketing statements.

 

i also agree most Leica lenses being great, but stil there are differences. I do use the 50APO not because it is expensive, but because I really do like what I see from it.

Could I live with the 50 Summarit? Of course I could if I have to. Its an excellent lens. Still I think there are some differences which one can see.

 

Yeah, I really hate that I EVER bought the 50APO.. BUT the reason is funny. After using the 50APO for over two years now, no other lens compares. Anything else I try is just not as good in every aspect. That little thing is a joy.

 

I actually loved it from the prototype I tested ages before anyone knew the lens was coming out. I also at the time gave Leica feedback on the ghosting/veiling flare issue. But they never took note. And none of the other reviews that used the lens after me ever mentioned it to Leica or put it in their review (Ming or etc).  

[MarkP]

John,

 

The word from Leica is that the 50mm SL Summilux is the best 50mm Summilux made to date.  

 

Rick

 

 

What else would one expect them to say?

That its the second or third best 50 Summilux ever made?

[MarkP]

although there is a genuine Leica store opening in Sydney by the end of the year

 

 

Can you expand on this Gordon? I hadn't heard anything.

[adamdewilde]

Just booked my next vacation. 10 day street photo workshop (via Leica Acadamie) in India next march.

 

I'll have to make my camera purchases by dumb and intuition in the meantime, although there is a genuine Leica store opening in Sydney by the end of the year. Maybe I'll have better luck.

 

Thought I might stop over in an Asian city that's good for Leica stuff on the way to my workshop. Tokyo or Singapore maybe?

 

Gordon

 

 

 

Singapore sales staff are REALLY friendly and helpful for sure. A+ If you want a friendly helpful staff that will let you play without hassle. And with 5 dedicated Leica stores you'll get to touch everything. BUT HK is where the good prices are. I wouldn't say avoid Japan, but they have the highest prices, and the least accessible gear for testing. Besides the whole lost in translation thing if you're not a Japanese speaker. 

 

The Ginza store does GREAT service work (even have the M240 machines for calibration). And they have tons of books to look at while your gear is being serviced. I haven't had an issue with Ginza servicing, I'd prefer them to Germany. Though Leica never lets me send anything there I can only show up in person which is a bit of a hassle for everyone. 

[almoore]

I actually loved it from the prototype I tested ages before anyone knew the lens was coming out. I also at the time gave Leica feedback on the ghosting/veiling flare issue. But they never took note.

 

Can you tell us why Leica supply you with prototype lenses for testing if they're not interested in your subsequent findings/feedback?

[Jeff S]

Just an aside occassioned by some of the posts in this thread: I'm surprised at how frequently many people appear to change their camera equipment and buy new lenses.

 

Surprised at GAS on the Leica forum?  Read a few thousand other threads, too.

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

Can you tell us why Leica supply you with prototype lenses for testing if they're not interested in your subsequent findings/feedback?

Even if this implausible tale is true, what we're being told is not really that interesting or helpful - more about the teller than the subject. I'm quite happy to live on in my apparently deluded state.

 

On electronic corrections (this chap isn't the first to complain about in camera corrections), let's look at this a bit further. In the much vaunted days of film, we put up with lens imperfections as they weren't as apparent. In the digital age, those imperfections were described as "character". Curiously, we found that lenses which worked well on digital Ms didn't work so well on other cameras (the 28 Summicron on the A7r was a clear example). Many Leica M wides were found to be fabulous on M cameras, but not so much on other digitals. We were told that native lenses were best used on the cameras they were designed for.

 

Leica, it seemed, had designed its sensors and microlenses to deal with the challenges of its lenses designed for film, and good on them.

 

New Leica lenses, designed for digital, seemed to reduce these issues (28 Summilux), largely so they would perform well on the improved sensor in the SL. The Q comes along (a camera with a fixed lens optimised with the sensor), and someone digs into the dng file and finds digital corrections. Shock horror, hold the press! Never mind it's not possible to separate the lens from the sensor, and the processed dng is fantastic!

 

Move onto the SL, and much like the digital Ms, the camera does corrections (I thought that was what the coding was about) Bugger me, this is the Crime of the Century! Leica makes the SL lenses for use on the SL, and it does not license the L mount to anyone else. Even if the SL lenses are close to perfection (which the 50 Summilux-SL is touted to be), the argument seems to be that there should be no corrections or improvements in the only camera designed for that lenses.

 

Meanwhile, back on the ranch, my SL gives fantastic images, which give onsiderable pleasure, using the native SL zooms and M and R mount lenses - more rewarding than stroking my ego or getting angst ridden about minimal problems in front of a computer. But then, my particular interest is the process of taking the picture, and seeing if the final image matches what I was planning when I took the picture.

[LD_50]

I think the push back against digital correction is valid for several reasons. I do not care that the 24-90 (the only L-mount lens I own at this time) is digitally corrected in terms of final image quality, but I do care for these reasons:

 

1- The lens is priced as high, or higher than lenses that do not require the same type of digital correction. The final result gives the impression you're paying for metal and glass designed, manufactured, and assembled to provide that final result. That's not completely true with the SL lenses. If you were to adapt a Zeiss Otus to the SL, you would see fantastic image performance. If you were to adapt an SL lens to any other non-Leica camera (or perhaps Leicas in the future if software support goes away), you would not. Imagine the problem we'd have if the R or M lenses did not actually provide the image quality we expect and it was handled with software. Their value would be significantly lower. The adaptability and legacy support is part of what makes certain lenses hold their value (M, R, Nikon F-mount, etc).

 

I don't believe the Q is a very good analogy because like was said it's a permanently married lens and sensor. There is no perceived or expected value outside of that combination.

 

2- Leica doesn't advertise the digital correction when they talk about the lens performance or when they publish the MTF charts. If they did, the price would probably be looked at more closely and they would have some explaining to do.

----

 

I shoot and enjoy an SL with the 24-90, likely will purchase the 90-280 in a few months, and will also take a hard look at the 50 Summilux. I do believe the prices should be lower, but we can all vote with sales volume to impact this. If I had been unaware of the digital correction and found out later that I'd paid for perceived optical quality that wasn't quite there, I would have been very unhappy.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Can you expand on this Gordon? I hadn't heard anything.

 

Via Leica Rumors.... There is an add in Seek for an Assistant Manager at the new Leica Store opening in the QVB building. The add was placed by Leica Australia.

 

Digi direct have not been told about it by Leica but are aware of it from several customers.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Just an aside occassioned by some of the posts in this thread: I'm surprised at how frequently many people appear to change their camera equipment and buy new lenses.

 

In my case it's because I can.

 

I find the technology and development in photography really interesting. Apart from actual photography which is both my job and my hobby, I also like playing with different cameras to see what different brands are capable of. Compared to other *hobbies* like racing cars or owning a boat, buying and selling cameras so I can play with them is cheap entertainment, relatively. Instead of fighting GAS, I embrace it.

 

I don't expect buying gear to improve my photography. In fact I firmly believe to get the best from a camera or lens, I need to use it for a while to learn how it sees and exploit what it does best.

 

If we had a really good rental system here I'd probably be their best customer. Since we don't I just buy and sell. Sometimes I do find a gem that stays in the fold. And I don't keep any camera that isn't working and in use. I'm not a collector.

 

The problem is that there are so many interesting cameras out there at the moment. It's hard to decide what to play with next.

 

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

I think the push back against digital correction is valid for several reasons. I do not care that the 24-90 (the only L-mount lens I own at this time) is digitally corrected in terms of final image quality, but I do care for these reasons:

 

1- The lens is priced as high, or higher than lenses that do not require the same type of digital correction. The final result gives the impression you're paying for metal and glass designed, manufactured, and assembled to provide that final result. That's not completely true with the SL lenses. If you were to adapt a Zeiss Otus to the SL, you would see fantastic image performance. If you were to adapt an SL lens to any other non-Leica camera (or perhaps Leicas in the future if software support goes away), you would not. Imagine the problem we'd have if the R or M lenses did not actually provide the image quality we expect and it was handled with software. Their value would be significantly lower. The adaptability and legacy support is part of what makes certain lenses hold their value (M, R, Nikon F-mount, etc).

 

I don't believe the Q is a very good analogy because like was said it's a permanently married lens and sensor. There is no perceived or expected value outside of that combination.

 

2- Leica doesn't advertise the digital correction when they talk about the lens performance or when they publish the MTF charts. If they did, the price would probably be looked at more closely and they would have some explaining to do.

----

 

I shoot and enjoy an SL with the 24-90, likely will purchase the 90-280 in a few months, and will also take a hard look at the 50 Summilux. I do believe the prices should be lower, but we can all vote with sales volume to impact this. If I had been unaware of the digital correction and found out later that I'd paid for perceived optical quality that wasn't quite there, I would have been very unhappy.

 

 

Perhaps, but then all images are "digitally corrected" by software in all digital cameras to some degree and Leica provides digital corrections for all lenses, including all R and M lenses after a certain year.  Then we have all carried out changes to all images when processing the film and printing, and in post processing on a computer - I see no advantage in a "digitally perfect" image straight from the lens.  It doesn't exist.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

When digital correction became a thing, I was against it. I thought it was lazy.

 

After using it more and more, especially for the real estate and architecture work I do I've seen that it's just another tool that I can take advantage of. And I struggle to see the *loss of image quality* that people talk about. It's probably real but the benefits outweigh the negatives, for me.

 

I'd still prefer a lens with optical corrections over digital corrections but it's no longer a big issue for me.

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Peter Branch]

O dear! The old argument about digital correction.  My Adobe CS6 software informs me that the files from the SL have "baked in" profiles for Chromatic defects and distortion when using the 24-90.

 

The result is no discernable distortion at any focal length with the 24-90 and no detectable chromatic aberrations; and this is alleged to be a bad thing!

 

If this performance were achieved at the expense of other IQ problems then may be there would be an issue - but the IQ is exceptionally good - so what is the problem?

 

"Digital Correction" was first publically proposed by Eastman Kodak in a report published some 30 years ago.

The claim was that the overall performance of a "System" could be significantly improved if lens designs could be freed from various constraints, such as minimising distortion, if the resulting "defects" could be digitally corrected.

It's taken a long time but I for one am delighted by the optical performance of the "SL System".

[LD_50]

O dear! The old argument about digital correction.  My Adobe CS6 software informs me that the files from the SL have "baked in" profiles for Chromatic defects and distortion when using the 24-90.

 

The result is no discernable distortion at any focal length with the 24-90 and no detectable chromatic aberrations; and this is alleged to be a bad thing!

 

If this performance were achieved at the expense of other IQ problems then may be there would be an issue - but the IQ is exceptionally good - so what is the problem?

 

"Digital Correction" was first publically proposed by Eastman Kodak in a report published some 30 years ago.

The claim was that the overall performance of a "System" could be significantly improved if lens designs could be freed from various constraints, such as minimising distortion, if the resulting "defects" could be digitally corrected.

It's taken a long time but I for one am delighted by the optical performance of the "SL System".

I didn't allege it's a bad thing to digitally correct. The price (priced as high as lenses that do not require similar correction) and the lack of communication from Leica to the consumer are bad things.

 

Again - if Leica stated that these lenses require digital correction (and this is very different than the available profiles for M and R lenses) I don't believe there would be any issue. It would be up to Leica's marketing team to sell the lenses with their real optical performance published. I am concerned about buying into a lens system that is so limited. Part of the value of Nikon F and Leica M for me has been adaptability and this will be lost with digital correction requirements in newer lens systems.