Summilux-SL 50 MM F/1,4 ASPH

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think you make too many assumptions about the performance of the lenses without correction, and its importance.

[thighslapper]

Leica have never stated they did not use digital correction ....... and Leica have freely admitted they do in various interviews, and it is to squeeze the last few % of possible performance. As they have pointed out, getting the last residual 5% of aberrations corrected optically doubles the price/size/complexity etc etc. As far as I recall the MTF graphs show the performance without any digital correction. 

 

Leica are only doing what virtually every other manufacturer is doing to squeeze the best performance they can out of their optics. This is a fact of life in modern photography ...... and you are going to see much more of it ..... not less. As the corrections reside in the camera firmware or the image processing software I can't see any issues with future lens systems .... as long as the camera and your computer can recognise them. 

 

If you don't want to buy a 'lens system that is so limited' you are welcome to look elsewhere. I cannot fault the 24-90 and 90-280 and am perfectly happy with them, whatever Leica has done to achieve the final image. 

[LD_50]

I'm not making any assumptions. I've viewed both corrected and non-corrected files. The importance I associate with this is an opinion, not an assumption.

 

Baked in digital correction works for the SL because it makes the corrections in real time so what you see via Live View or EVF matches the final image. The final images look great, which is why I use this setup.

 

Mounting the 24-90 on another camera, even with electronic aperture and AF control would not perform the corrections so you would be looking at the distorted image that can be seen via Rawdigger and probably other applications. The final image would look basically the same and you'd be left trying to make up for the optical design after the fact in software. This diminishes the value of the lenses in my opinion. You clearly disagree.

 

Leica could simply explain this and show the real optical performance of the lenses in the MTF files and sample images. A second version of the MTF with digital correction could be shown right next to it along with sample images. They won't do this because it is confusing from a marketing perspective, diminishes the value of the lenses (as I've noted with comparison to M, R, Nikkor F, etc) and doesn't make any real difference to the final images produced by the SL.

[LD_50]

If you don't want to buy a 'lens system that is so limited' you are welcome to look elsewhere. I cannot fault the 24-90 and 90-280 and am perfectly happy with them, whatever Leica has done to achieve the final image.

 

Now that you mention this, I believe I do remember reading that the MTFs are without correction. I will have to revisit this.

 

As far as "you are welcome to look elsewhere," I know this and have chosen to use the SL system. I remain concerned about the long term viability of this design approach. Without Leica not letting the consumer know how the lenses behave without digital correction, it's difficult to make an informed decision as to whether the lenses are worth the cost.

 

I would welcome an industry standard for this going forward because I agree it is not going away and will become more and more prevalent. As this happens it will be easier to become locked-in to a given camera system.

[IkarusJohn]

... Leica could simply explain this and show the real optical performance of the lenses in the MTF files and sample images. A second version of the MTF with digital correction could be shown right next to it along with sample images. They won't do this because it is confusing from a marketing perspective, diminishes the value of the lenses (as I've noted with comparison to M, R, Nikkor F, etc) and doesn't make any real difference to the final images produced by the SL.

 

To what end?

 

Leica designs its lenses for use with Leica cameras, and in the same way that it continues to make corrections in camera for R and M lenses, I am comfortable that all future L mount cameras will continue the corrections for the current SL lenses.

 

Excuse my comment about assumptions - can you please provide a link to the uncorrected images (I've never heard of Rawdigger, and I'm not sure I need to), and point out why they are so terrible that it should properly impact on the value and usefulness of these lenses?  I must admit, I'm still not sure why I should be bothered by the quality of uncorrected images, as the cameras designed for these lenses will always have the corrections (I assume).  Having gone down the Sony A7 rabbit hole once, it's not something I'm about to repeat.

 

Put another way, the Otus Distagon 55mm f/1.4 (by way of example) is a manual focus lens, and costs $4,000.00; the Summilux-SL 50mm costs $5,300.00 and is autofocus with weather sealing.  Granted, the Otus is made in Canon & Nikon mount, and can be used with other systems via adapter (Leica SL-Canon FE mount adapter €500 from Novoflex).  I don't know if anyone has tried the Otus on an SL - would be interested to see.  Once both lenses are available, that will be a comparison worth reading; but it will only be on the SL, as to date I'm not aware of anyone offering an adapter to use the SL lenses on either Nikon F or Canon FE mounts.

 

If the Otus, with its manual focus, is the preference, then the adapter is available.  The issue which concerns you, though, seems only applicable to the use of an SL mount lens on another system; at least, that is the only situation where the concern will become apparent.  I'm pretty sure that Leica will continue to offer corrections for all its lenses in future cameras - it has to date ...

[LD_50]

@IkarusJohn

You commented on a thread on this site where examples were shown of the uncorrected files from the 24-90.

 

There also examples from the 28mm Otus on this site, though I'm not sure about the 55.

 

I would not accept the uncorrected files from the 24-90 in a $5000 lens, leading to my point about value in comparison to lenses that are optically designed not to require digital correction.

 

I do hope Leica maintains compatibility going forward for the L mount lenses. I would prefer not to have to hope for this. R and M lenses don't need the level of correction that the 24-90 does SL they can be used on multiple mounts, and therefore justify their cost better to me.

 

All this being said, I enjoy the SL and plan on sticking with it.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You commented on a thread on this site where examples were shown of the uncorrected files from the 24-90.

 

There also examples from the 28mm Otus on this site, though I'm not sure about the 55.

 

 

Did I?

 

Clearly they didn't shock me enough to remember them.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure this resolves anything, as your primary concern is that lenses costing this much should not require digital correction; I'm not sure that they do, but the end result for me is the quality of the final image, not so much how they got there.  That difference of opinion is unlikely to be resolved.

 

At least we're both enjoying our cameras, and the results they give.

 

Cheers

John

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Mounting the 24-90 on another camera, even with electronic aperture and AF control would not perform the corrections so you would be looking at the distorted image that can be seen via Rawdigger and probably other applications. The final image would look basically the same and you'd be left trying to make up for the optical design after the fact in software. This diminishes the value of the lenses in my opinion. You clearly disagree.

 

 

Since the SL24-90 doesn't operate on ANY other camera platform besides the SL (and T??) and because Leica do not make their protocols open or public, why does it matter? There is no other camera you can attach that lens to. The camera and lens have been designed to work together not independently of each other. The next camera with the SL mount will also have the digital corrections in place. It's not like Leica are going to make an optical finder version of the camera anyway. Because of the flange depth every camera that will be able to take the 24-90 will require an EVF. Therefore corrections will be viable anyway.

 

This isn't a lens designed for a reflex viewing system, like the Otus. Nor will any future SL lenses be. So seeing the uncorrected image through the viewfinder isn't going to happen. The only way you'll see the uncorrected image is AFTER the fact. And what's the point of that? Besides pixel peeping?

 

If you were talking about a lens designed for an optical finder I *might* see a point. With an EVF camera and a lens that can't physically be mounted on to a camera with an OVF I just don't.

 

Gordon

[LD_50]

Much like we can now mount Canon and Nikon AF lenses on the SL, or Hasselblads on the S, I would prefer L mount lenses that are optically good enough that the possibility of using other camera platforms down the road remained viable. If not, I would like to see pricing that is lower than more optically corrected offerings.

 

M lenses like the new 28 Summilux offer an example where no TTL-OVF is present to dictate optical correction in place of digital. I don't believe EVF or OVF has anything to do with Leica choosing digital correction. That said, I've not tested this lens on an M to determine if Leica chose an optical design as in need of correction as the 24-90. It's not likely it would be necessary in a 28 mm prime anyway. The 50 Summilux-SL will offer a better comparison against other Leica designs.

 

We must simply agree to disagree on this.

[IkarusJohn]

Much like we can now mount Canon and Nikon AF lenses on the SL, or Hasselblads on the S, I would prefer L mount lenses that are optically good enough that the possibility of using other camera platforms down the road remained viable. If not, I would like to see pricing that is lower than more optically corrected offerings...

 

I'm not sure that, hypothetically speaking, anyone has established that even if you could mount an SL lens on another platform they would not be "optically good enough".  That is, surely, just speculation.

[adamdewilde]

Leica have never stated they did not use digital correction ....... and Leica have freely admitted they do in various interviews, and it is to squeeze the last few % of possible performance. As they have pointed out, getting the last residual 5% of aberrations corrected optically doubles the price/size/complexity etc etc. As far as I recall the MTF graphs show the performance without any digital correction. 

 

Leica are only doing what virtually every other manufacturer is doing to squeeze the best performance they can out of their optics. This is a fact of life in modern photography ...... and you are going to see much more of it ..... not less. As the corrections reside in the camera firmware or the image processing software I can't see any issues with future lens systems .... as long as the camera and your computer can recognise them. 

 

If you don't want to buy a 'lens system that is so limited' you are welcome to look elsewhere. I cannot fault the 24-90 and 90-280 and am perfectly happy with them, whatever Leica has done to achieve the final image. 

 

 

In the case of the 24-90.. They stretched out the sides and corners to make the lens circle big enough to cover full frame on the wide end. In the case of the 50SL they corrected barrel distortion and applied a sharpening algorithm to the corners. From my limited testing this is what I could tell.

 

Does it bother me, YES. Because in some cases heads get distorted in unpredictable ways and it ruins the image. In other instances the camera glitches out and you see one framing and you end up with another when you get home. And before yo say this isn't a big deal. Trust me when you're working and you need exact framing it can be. And if this wasn't Leica doing the digital corrections, more then half of you would be against them.

 

Not to mention price/size/marketing/adaptability down the road. The Chairman stood up on stage and said the SL was a no-compromise system. I think they compromised with the 2.8-4 aspect. I think they compromised with the digital corrections. I think they compromised with the AF tech they put into the camera. And I think they compromised on the 50SL. How can you shoot your mouth off about having the best lens ever built when it's not by definition the best lens ever built. Virtual corrections do not count.

 

If you're the best photoshop artist in the world you can make anything look good. Doesn't mean the nifty fifty is the best lens.

 

A joke (to be clear) because I don't want to get banned: Wouldn't you feel cheated if you bought a mail order bride and they told you "oh she doesn't look like the photo because we used digital corrections on the profile pictures, sorry read the fine print" 

 

 

FYI I'm actually going to buy the 50SL if I don't sell my SL+Zoom before it launches. Simply because a prime would suit my needs better.

 

 

 

ONE MORE POINT: I will on someone above's request add some DNG files. Not because I want to PROVE that I was using the lens I said I was using. BUT because I NEVER shoot brick wall shots, so I have no idea if the DNGs are even worth a damn. So instead of processing them and putting up 100% corner crops and doing all that work. I'm just going to host a download link to 9-12 DNG files from various distances of a tiled wall that I TRIED to get as square as possible with. I mean this shits not easy. The wall might not have even been flat for all I know. SO do with the DNG files what you will. 

 

I'm hoping to finish this tonight so I can put it up. As otherwise it won't be done till Monday night since I have a wedding Saturday all day and a Family shoot Sunday.

[adamdewilde]

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.

 

 

Do you work for Leica?

You want to insinuate I'm a liar for what purpose?

 

For the people who know me, they know I had the 50APO way before anyone else even knew about it. In fact I actually think the lens Ming tested with was the same lens that I had used, literally the same hunk of metal and glass. It was sent to a reviewer after I gave it up. And he's the closest actual reviewer to me that I know of. And I sat on my images for months before his review came out. Not because I was bogged down by an NDA, but just because I wanted to be helpful to Leica, and have them fix issues I found with the lens before it was released to market. BUT because nobody else who tested the lens told them it had issues.. They released it and guess what, it had to be recalled for a fix.

 

How I got it isn't any of your business, unless you work for Leica, and if you do contact me through official channels and we can talk. I know Leica has my email address, all they need to do is ask the CEO for it

 

Why this has anything to do with the 50LUX-SL... Hmmm because there are issues that I've already told Leica need to be addressed. If they listen or not, if they can do anything about the issues at this point or not.. Well that's up to them. I don't work for them, and I'm not an engineer of any type. 

 

 

BTW, I don't review things for Leica.. Leica doesn't give me anything save for the S-007 to play with. So I am not under any NDA, which means I can say what ever the hell I want.. I can be honest.  

[jaapv]

All this talk about digital lens corrections is ignoring the basics of lens design... It is all about correcting one aberration and then correcting the resultant one(s) etc. Modern lens design will collect the residual aberrations in a digitally correctable form after the best possible optical design is obtained. Thus the lens is designed to be corrected in the software resulting in a better lens. The idea: "Whoops we have some messy design faults let's fudge them away in the computer " is simply nonsensical.

What is happening is that the optical designers have one more tool on the road to perfection.

[pop]

I am slightly amused when people strongly object to one kind of correction that can easily be applied by simply using a computer algorithm, yet they accept all manners of corrections which greatly add to the number of lenses, the weight of the lens, the complexity of the construction and, hence, to the cost of the whole assembly without ever attaining an image with zero artefacts.

[sillbeers15]

Mankind has come a long way in Image creation since the early days of drawing / painting to chemical process imaging and now digital imaging.

Camera lens designer has been correcting optical images through lens profile, coating and material used and now include digital correction after images are formed through digital processes.

Unless the optical instrument is used scientifically to determine non contact measurement or profile determination, there is no straight answer to as in if images should or should not be digitally enhanced.

For recording and artistic expression use as the digital camera is intended and designed for consumers and some professionals task and leisure. There is just no real scale to determine what is right from wrong. 

More importantly, if customers will empty their wallets to camera and lens makers determine who the winner or and 'right thing to do' can eventually be.

[jaapv]

The corrections applied digitally are not image enhancement. They are digital corrections of residual lens aberrations which could not be corrected optically.

[zlatkob]

On a high end camera, the user should always have the option to choose to turn digital correction on or off.  The camera is a tool and it should work like one — giving control to the user.  Sometimes digital correction looks good, and sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes an uncorrected image looks better.  It depends on the lens and the particular image.  The user's personal preference should govern.

[Peter H]

On a high end camera, the user should always have the option to choose to turn digital correction on or off. The camera is a tool and it should work like one — giving control to the user. Sometimes digital correction looks good, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes an uncorrected image looks better. It depends on the lens and the particular image. The user's personal preference should govern.

How about purely optical corrections? Maybe some images look better without them too.

 

No lens is perfect and is full of compromises. We all know this and repeat it often. If one set of compromises doesn't suit you, choose a different lens that suits you better. Defining perfection is really such an exercise in subjectivity that it becomes nothing more than vanity if taken to the extremes that occasionally appear here.

[IkarusJohn]

Do you work for Leica?

You want to insinuate I'm a liar for what purpose?

 

For the people who know me, they know I had the 50APO way before anyone else even knew about it. In fact I actually think the lens Ming tested with was the same lens that I had used, literally the same hunk of metal and glass. It was sent to a reviewer after I gave it up. And he's the closest actual reviewer to me that I know of. And I sat on my images for months before his review came out. Not because I was bogged down by an NDA, but just because I wanted to be helpful to Leica, and have them fix issues I found with the lens before it was released to market. BUT because nobody else who tested the lens told them it had issues.. They released it and guess what, it had to be recalled for a fix.

 

How I got it isn't any of your business, unless you work for Leica, and if you do contact me through official channels and we can talk. I know Leica has my email address, all they need to do is ask the CEO for it

 

Why this has anything to do with the 50LUX-SL... Hmmm because there are issues that I've already told Leica need to be addressed. If they listen or not, if they can do anything about the issues at this point or not.. Well that's up to them. I don't work for them, and I'm not an engineer of any type.

 

 

BTW, I don't review things for Leica.. Leica doesn't give me anything save for the S-007 to play with. So I am not under any NDA, which means I can say what ever the hell I want.. I can be honest.

 

Calling you a liar? No, I don't know enough about you to do that. Do I believe you? No, not really. Do I care? Not particularly. You see, everything you post is about you, and it just isn't that interesting.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[scott kirkpatrick]

Calling you a liar? No, I don't know enough about you to do that. Do I believe you? No, not really. Do I care? Not particularly. You see, everything you post is about you, and it just isn't that interesting.

+1, but I doubt that it will have any effect on a recently-fed troll.  However, keeping him monologuing until the sun's rays strike is supposed to work wonders.