Summilux-SL 50 MM F/1,4 ASPH

[ZHNL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It probably is at Photokina. You asked if you could mount the 50 on your SL and all of a sudden you excused yourself as you had to go pee. You ran into the next bathroom, pulled out your cellphone, found a white wall, and snapped it. Of course, I could be wrong...Please, don't block me.

And cheap joke? personal attack?

 

Do you actually have a clue what we are talking about?

[Chaemono]

Do you actually have a clue what we are talking about?

 

No

[FlashGordonPhotography]

So, the correction is baked in DNG. Did S glasses also have correction baked in DNG? What has been corrected in DNG? does it transparent to User? 

 

Is that also means all those Impressive DATA sheet Leica published are after digital correction? Like those Vignette? Distortion number? How about those MTF? are they apply sharpening in edge? Can we have a little more detail on this?  

 

I hope it is not the case and If it is, Leica need mention that in their Data sheet: All the graph shown in here are after digital correction. 

 

Again, it is not about fussy for 'small' thing, it is about honest to Customer as a premium manufacture to justify cost, size and' redefined Standard' Statement.

 

Sorry, I sound harsh but that is what I feel after reading comment here and hearing this nonsense.  

 

S lenses are used primarily on a camera with an optical finder. So, for me, it matters if I see different things through the finder versus the image in post. For the SL you see the corrected image in the viewfinder so I'm less sensitive to digital corrections.

 

In addition SL lenses have such a short flange depth compared to S lenses that I accept they may require more digital correction than S lenses.

 

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

And cheap joke? personal attack?

 

Do you actually have a clue what we are talking about?

And that isn't a personal attack?

 

Apparently, Leica's MTF charts are made "pre" digital correction; though I'm not sure how true this is, as I had understood the MTF charts are theoretical - they're calculated, rather than actually physically measured. Is anyone able to confirm this?

 

As I see it, the next stage will be that a "review" based on "tests" will be released, confirming the preconception that Leica has "cheated" with this lens, and others (based on the apparently flawed sensor). A whole conspiracy will then develop, resulting in perceived wisdom that the 50 Summilux is not very good, or even fatally flawed, before it is even released. Conspiracy theorists and those with a burgeoning need to be respected, and to be the first to identify Leica's dirty little secret will feel affirmed.

 

Meanwhile, a perfectly good lens will get panned, and unreasonably so. This has happened before.

 

So, what is the issue (without wanting to flog a horse which is beyond dead)? Leica is extremely unlikely to say anything about this lens beyond marketing speak, what it is intended to be used for and to tell people to just get out and shoot with it. I sorely doubt they will engage in any discussion over what digital corrections are actually made (though both Peter Karbe and Stefan Daniel are remarkably open, when asked). They will point out, not unreasonably, that the lens is designed to be used with the SL and its quality should be immediately apparent from the results - for those (me included) who cannot or will not take pictures to demonstrate this, they will provide excellent pictures for all to see, and Jono will make his DNG files available for those who wish to play.

 

Next, though, someone will get hold of the lens, take some pictures and strip out the digital corrections and show what the optical output of the lens actually is, to hushed tones of "shock-horror". Who knows whether those corrections will be extreme, or the pre-digital correction output really horrible. At the end of all that, the 50 Summilux will still be a lens designed to be used with the SL, and the output with digital corrections will be better than anything I can do in post processing.

 

I rather suspect that the output from the 50 Summilux mounted on the SL will be better than any other 50mm lens mounted on the SL. Why? Because Leica will be well aware that industry experts like Ken Rockwelll, Digilloyd and others will be pixel peeping and looking for some issue to be the first to identify. They do know this.

 

It will still take pictures, I'm sure; and it will still be too expensive and too big for me to add to what I have already. I'm sure it will take better pictures on the SL than my Noctilux, but then the Noctilux has aberrations ...

[ZHNL]

S lenses are used primarily on a camera with an optical finder. So, for me, it matters if I see different things through the finder versus the image in post. For the SL you see the corrected image in the viewfinder so I'm less sensitive to digital corrections.

 

In addition SL lenses have such a short flange depth compared to S lenses that I accept they may require more digital correction than S lenses.

 

Gordon

I was not trying to say S glass are superior but really I am actually asking if S lenses data sheet graph with or without correction? Since Leica didn't mentioned those in their Data sheet in both case. I have to assume they got the same treatment. 

 

So, Am I right to assume SL glass datasheet information were with digital correction? To what extend? Does anybody know?

[LD_50]

I was not trying to say S glass are superior but really I am actually asking if S lenses data sheet graph with or without correction? Since Leica didn't mentioned those in their Data sheet in both case. I have to assume they got the same treatment. 

 

So, Am I right to assume SL glass datasheet information were with digital correction? To what extend? Does anybody know?

While the S lenses may have some baked in correction (I have no idea as I have only briefly used the S-006), it would not be anywhere near as dramatic as the 24-90. This is known because what you see through the OVF in the S is uncorrected. In other words you would see the distortion, vignetting, etc through the OVF on the S. If the resulting image looked different, you'd know corrections were made. In the SL, the EVF shows the corrected image so you don't know what has been done with software unless you open in a program that will show the uncorrected file.

 

I believe this is what FlashGordonPhotography was stating in his first paragraph.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I ask this from complete ignorance, but wouldn't the original flaws in a lens have to be truly horrendous for there to be a noticeable difference between what you see through an optical viewfinder and the recorded image? Leaving aside the discovery that the Q actually records a larger image than what is provided in the DNG (as I recall, SLR cameras provide details of the percentage of the final image shown in the viewfinder), surely the digital corrections are reasonably subtle - i.e., you need to go looking for them?

 

I haven't followed the issue of digital corrections on the 24-90, as I'm very happy with the output. How obvious is the difference between the optical, uncorrected, output of that lens, compared to the very fine image which the SL provides?

[ZHNL]

And that isn't a personal attack?

 

 

No, just an intention to bring back to topic. It is not about Adamdewilde or anybody else. It is about this lens. 

 

Maybe my expectation is too high for a 50mm Leica Lens designed as for today.

 

It is no point to talk about this lens performance yet and It is no point to defend the lens as well.  The only reason I am visiting back this thread is because of Digital correction talk and potentially we will see the first review of this mystery lens.

 

Of course a few things I learned today that even Data sheet graph have digital correction baked.  A question: How about long time rival Zeiss: are they also baked digital correction in their data sheet (mainly loxia and batis)

[jmahto]

......

Apparently, Leica's MTF charts are made "pre" digital correction; though I'm not sure how true this is, as I had understood the MTF charts are theoretical - they're calculated, rather than actually physically measured. Is anyone able to confirm this?

....

I had read that Leica calculates MTF whereas Zeiss ones are measured. I went back and checked the MTF data. It only has MTF (which doesn't get affected by digital correction) and It doesn't have diagram for distortion, vignetting etc. (which are corrected digitally). So I don't understand the fuss.

[LD_50]

The only examples I remember from this site are in this linked thread. There are some other sites online that have posted about this as well but I don't have links to them.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/255186-24-90mm-focus-shift-diglloyd/page-10

 

In the included example from Capture One, distortion and vignetting would be the noticeable differences when comparing the OVF image and final. The only way to avoid this in the OVF would be to potentially have a less than 100% view and just ignore the distortion.

 

I viewed a few examples myself before buying the SL but I've not kept any of them. It's not something that has any affect on my results at this point, and hopefully never will.

[IkarusJohn]

To be honest, I have little faith in the MTF graphs - Leica seems a little ... sloppy about them. It would be great if they were actually accurately measured, rather than a vague piece of marketing. As I recall, the MTF graph on one recent lens (the 28 Summilux, maybe) was just cut and pasted from another lens. Not much use.

 

I am very interested in the performance of this lens, when it is finally released, used on the SL. I really couldn't give a toss if there are corrections in the lens, baked into the DNG in the camera, or in the lens profile in LightRoom. That's they way it is intended to be used. Till then, I see no reason to knock or defend it - as I've said before, it's just ego stroking noise.

[Jeff S]

I guess I'm fortunate that I only care about print results.  There are so many factors in the chain from shot to final print (and then to display)...including me.... that I couldn't care less about all the technical minutiae at every single step along the way.

 

Does anyone know of an optically 'bad' Leica lens produced in the last 10 years?  Does anyone know of an otherwise fantastic picture (or print) that was ruined by a Leica lens?  

 

Jeff

[thighslapper]

for f*cks sake..... this is getting ridiculous ...... EVERY SINGLE STEP in the pathway from the subject to the final printed or displayed image is corrected, manipulated and changed in digital photography. 

 

that's the whole bl**dy point of it. 

 

Neither Leica nor any other manufacturer is obligated to reveal what they have done to achieve optimum image quality ...... and in fact there are good commercial reasons for not  trumpeting it.

 

All this talk of Leica being misleading, duplicitous and opaque is complete hogwash. 

 

If others feel 'cheated' they are more than welcome to spend their money elsewhere.

 

This thread is developing intractable 'Brexit' characteristics with a number of very vocal and argumentative posters on opposite sides of the fence who will never agree and just get more irascible as time passes.

 

I can see the 'Man in Malawi' or the guy on 'Airstrip 1' closing it down it things get any worse .....

[jmahto]

It is indeed getting ridiculous. Some manufacturers don't even give MTF or provide less information in MTF. For example, Canon provides only two data point for lpm in its MTF charts whereas Leica provides 4.

 

Should I complain to Leica where is MTF for more than 40 lpm? Where this obsession for MTF comes from when you can't even compare MTF of two different manufacturers?

[Chaemono]

And that isn't a personal attack?

He was just trying to come to adamdewilde's defense hoping to get him to post a review of the 50 Lux-SL with images like in here http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/leica-s-typ-007-s-007/

so that the thread gets back to topic.

 

@ZHNL I hope adamdewilde took notice that you are his friend.

[ZHNL]

Not provide and provid one with digital correction are different thing. 24-90 don't have vignette and distortion diagram?? cool!

 

This indeed become f**k ridicules. All Leica lens are good enough to not ruel images so are any other manufactures lens in past 10 years.

 

What is Gear forum for? Sad!

[ZHNL]

He was just trying to come to adamdewilde's defense hoping to get him to post a review of the 50 Lux-SL with images like in here http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/leica-s-typ-007-s-007/

so that the thread gets back to topic.

 

@ZHNL I hope adamdewilde took notice that you are his friend.

Sorry to disappoint you, never met him. I am just do things like a men should do.

You keep going.

[pop]

I ask this from complete ignorance, but wouldn't the original flaws in a lens have to be truly horrendous for there to be a noticeable difference between what you see through an optical viewfinder and the recorded image? Leaving aside the discovery that the Q actually records a larger image than what is provided in the DNG (as I recall, SLR cameras provide details of the percentage of the final image shown in the viewfinder), surely the digital corrections are reasonably subtle - i.e., you need to go looking for them?

 

I haven't followed the issue of digital corrections on the 24-90, as I'm very happy with the output. How obvious is the difference between the optical, uncorrected, output of that lens, compared to the very fine image which the SL provides?

I've seen an uncorrected image out of a camera which requires that correction, most likely a Leica Q. The image  was visibly distorted, but I don't remember whether it was a barrel or cushion type of distortion. Other aberrations were not visible.

 

I'm sorry about the vague answer; I did not take note of the particulars of the thread, as I am not ATM interested in buying a new camera.

[JeffWright]

Are you quite sure you're qualified to do a review of a lens worth reading?

 

 

Actually, his reviews aren't bad. www.jupitersnake.com.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jmahto]

Actually, his reviews aren't bad. www.jupitersnake.com.

It doesn't hurt to add blog link in his posts.