Summilux-SL 50 MM F/1,4 ASPH

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is a bit of confusion here. The Summicron APO was not designed with  final digital corrections in mind. It was designed as a maximally optically corrected lens. Any lens corrections in LR are not made by Leica, they are postprocessing tools implemented by Adobe (possibly Leica was involved, I don't know). Nor were they taken into consideration when calculating the lens.

 

However lenses like the SL ones and the Q lens are specifically designed with some of the aberrations to be corrected digitally to obtain a better correction overall. The reason is that optical corrections will always generate aberrations of a higher order. If one can correct optically and create higher order aberrations that can be corrected digitally the overall result will be better.

That means that the residual aberrations without the digital correction fall short of the standard the lens was designed to. It is simply not built to be used that way, as opposed to maximally optically corrected lenses.

 

The upshot is that to get a "lesser" result for aesthetic reasons - which is of course perfectly legitimate- it will  require manipulation of the image, not of the lens, or the choice for another lens.

To give an example ad absurdum: If I can get the result that I desire by unscrewing one element of a lens, that does not imply that the lens maker should facilitate the unscrewing.

[Chaemono]

There is a bit of confusion here. The Summicron APO was not designed with the final digital corrections in mind. It was designed as a maximally optically corrected lens. Any lens corrections in LR are not made by Leica, they are postprocessing tools implemented by Adobe (possibly Leica was involved, I don't know). Nor were they taken into consideration when calculating the lens.

 

However lenses like the SL ones and the Q lens are specifically designed with some of the aberrations to be corrected digitally to obtain a better correction overall. The reason is that optical corrections will always generate aberrations of a higher order. If one can correct optically and create higher order aberrations that can be corrected digitally the overall result will be better.

That means that the residual aberrations without the digital correction fall short of the standard the lens was designed to. It is simply not built to be used that way, as opposed to maximally optically corrected lenses.

 

The upshot is that to get a "lesser" result for aesthetic reasons - which is of course perfectly legitimate- it will  require manipulation of the image, not of the lens, or the choice for another lens.

To give an example ad absurdum: If I can get the result that I desire by unscrewing one element of a lens, that does not imply that the lens maker should facilitate the unscrewing.

 

 

Ok, thank you very much. Excellent explanation. Now, I understand why both, you and zlatkob, made sense to me based on my experience. So, one has to distinguish between lenses designed as maximally optically corrected lenses and those specifically designed with some of the aberrations to be corrected digitally to obtain a better correction overall. Just wanted to reiterate that as it is the best thing I've read so far in this thread and it resolves an apparent conflict that I couldn't make sense of. Thanks, again.

[Peter Branch]

It seems to me people are talking about two different issues with respect to digital correction.

 

Those who prefer to have the original, "distorted", image can just as easily dial in positive or negative distortion using virtually any editing software.

That introducing negative distortion, particularly to wide angle shots which include people, can "improve" the image is very well known.

Nothing stops people doing this with a "corrected" image if that is what they want.

 

The other types of "error" include many chromatic aberations.  Are people really saying that they prefer to leave these uncorrected?

 

One of the claimed advantages of the "Digital Correction" approach is that the lens can, more easily and less expensively, be designed to have a very flat image field.

That has all sorts of benefits including such things as AF accuracy and speed.

[jrp]

"Any lens corrections in LR are not made by Leica, they are postprocessing tools implemented by Adobe (possibly Leica was involved, I don't know). Nor were they taken into consideration when calculating the lens."

 

I don't think that that is correct. The SL DNG file contains correction settings generated by Leica that Adobe respects. It is hard to bypass them in Lightroom, easier in Capture One. The correction is not measured by Adobe.

[Chaemono]

"Any lens corrections in LR are not made by Leica, they are postprocessing tools implemented by Adobe (possibly Leica was involved, I don't know). Nor were they taken into consideration when calculating the lens."

 

I don't think that that is correct. The SL DNG file contains correction settings generated by Leica that Adobe respects. It is hard to bypass them in Lightroom, easier in Capture One. The correction is not measured by Adobe.

 

You are quoting Jaap's comment that was referring to the 50 Apo Cron or any lens designed as a maximally optically corrected lens for that matter and are making it sound like he was referring to the SL lenses. He would fully agree on the SL DNG files and clearly said so. You have misread his comments, I think.

[jaapv]

"Any lens corrections in LR are not made by Leica, they are postprocessing tools implemented by Adobe (possibly Leica was involved, I don't know). Nor were they taken into consideration when calculating the lens."

 

I don't think that that is correct. The SL DNG file contains correction settings generated by Leica that Adobe respects. It is hard to bypass them in Lightroom, easier in Capture One. The correction is not measured by Adobe.

As above. This remark refers to the 50 APO, as opposed to the SL lenses (in the same post)

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't understand. Does your photo editing software turn off its normal functions when it encounters an image made by this lens? What keeps you from applying every kind of distortion to the image you find suitable?

 

To answer your question, let's do a thought experiment.  Imagine making a photo of a ball with a 50mm lens that has mild barrel distortion.  If you place the ball near the edge of the frame, it will appear slightly elongated, but it will still look fairly round.  Now apply digital correction to remove the barrel distortion.  What happens to the ball near the edge of the frame?  It becomes even more elongated, looking less round and more oval.  Moreover, the digital correction cuts off some of the image, so after correction the ball may be right at the edge of the frame or even cut off by it.  Now take the resulting image and apply digital barrel distortion to it, not by undoing the initial correction, but by applying the digital correction over the fully corrected image.  The ball that started near the edge of the frame may now be even further cut off due to the digital distortion.  

 

Finally, to complete the thought experiment, imagine that the subject is a person's head instead of a ball.  After the digital correction, the person's head became more egg-shaped, less the way you perceive it reality.  Not a happy result.  So you decide to apply some digital barrel distortion and the head is restored to a rounder state, but is now pushed out further to the edge of the frame, perhaps cut off.  So the edges of your image will be twice degraded and twice trimmed just to achieve something like what the lens would have achieved optically, without any digital manipulation in the first place.  

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Or you could do what photographers have been doing forever. Shoot a bit wider or take a couple of steps back. Keep the ball away from the edge of the frame and crop a bit in post or print.

 

Round balls. Easy.

 

Gordon

[pop]

To answer your question, let's do a thought experiment.  Imagine making a photo of a ball with a 50mm lens that has mild barrel distortion. ...

Let's further imagine that the barrel correction was built into the camera and that both the EVF and the screen show the corrected image.

[zlatkob]

Or you could do what photographers have been doing forever. Shoot a bit wider or take a couple of steps back. Keep the ball away from the edge of the frame and crop a bit in post or print.

 

Round balls. Easy.

 

Gordon

 

Gordon, this is different.  Photographers have not been having to over-write baked-in digital corrections forever.  And you know that you don't always have the option to take steps back.  Or sometimes you take steps back, but you've lost the moment.  Even in the present digital era, high-end cameras have offered a workflow without compulsory digital corrections.  The point is about having to apply a workaround simulation because a camera designer eliminated a basic control in software.  And the point is not just about barrel distortion, but about any digital correction (e.g. vignetting) that you may or may not want to correct, depending on the particular image.  I imagine you would want to make your own decisions about digital corrections.  You know as well as anyone that a fully corrected lens stretches subjects near the edges in a way that can look unpleasant and unnatural; so you may decide that's not your preferred "default look" for pictures of people.

 

Let's further imagine that the barrel correction was built into the camera and that both the EVF and the screen show the corrected image.

 

That's the same experiment, except that it starts at step 2 instead of step 1.   Step 2 is where you take that digitally corrected image and apply some digital distortion.  It's a roundabout way of getting back to an uncorrected image, except that it's a simulation of what the lens already did but not 100% accurate.  In the end, the image has been needlessly trimmed and stretched twice.  A camera should be photographer-centered — giving control to the photographer.  

[IkarusJohn]

Rather than imaging the faults in a lens which no one has yet, we wait till it's available before we condemn it?

 

Or do you imagine, in your wisdom, that you've imagined something Leica hasn't thought of, in a lens that was conceived, designed, tested and developed to be the best 50mm that can be made? I don't for the life of me know, nor care if they have. But I expect, if you can imagine it, Leica may have considered it ...

 

Best we wait till we have the lens, eh?

[AlanYWM]

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AmwgoAeey0JegnpgX0Q7mzgePfJp

 

Just a random shot with the SL 50mm f1.4. First time posting image so I hope the link works. The shot was taken wide open.

[zlatkob]

Rather than imaging the faults in a lens which no one has yet, we wait till it's available before we condemn it?

 

Or do you imagine, in your wisdom, that you've imagined something Leica hasn't thought of, in a lens that was conceived, designed, tested and developed to be the best 50mm that can be made? I don't for the life of me know, nor care if they have. But I expect, if you can imagine it, Leica may have considered it ...

 

Best we wait till we have the lens, eh?

 

I didn't condemn this lens.  It is likely to be a great lens.  I'm just arguing against the idea of baked-in digital corrections that cannot be turned off by the photographer.  I'm not even sure why the topic came up in this thread.

[IkarusJohn]

I didn't condemn this lens. It is likely to be a great lens. I'm just arguing against the idea of baked-in digital corrections that cannot be turned off by the photographer. I'm not even sure why the topic came up in this thread.

Because of the assumption that because there are in camera corrections for this lens, apparently baked into the DNG, Leica's claim that it is a reference lens is an empty piece of marketing for an overpriced lens.

[mmradman]

It see

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AmwgoAeey0JegnpgX0Q7mzgePfJp

 

Just a random shot with the SL 50mm f1.4. First time posting image so I hope the link works. The shot was taken wide open.

Thanks for posting.

It seems it is reference lens for "onion rings", check two OOF highlight blobs behind the Billingham bag.

If so much correction is built in the image processing they could have ironed out that little aspherical anomaly.

[zlatkob]

Because of the assumption that because there are in camera corrections for this lens, apparently baked into the DNG, Leica's claim that it is a reference lens is an empty piece of marketing for an overpriced lens.

 

I disagree with the concept of digital corrections baked into the DNG (if they are).  That defeats one of the purposes of a Raw file, removing an important user control (albeit leaving a less-preferred workaround).  Other than that, I have no comment on the lens or its marketing or its price.  I'd be very curious to read Adam's review if he posts it.

[IkarusJohn]

I disagree with the concept of digital corrections baked into the DNG (if they are).  That defeats one of the purposes of a Raw file, removing an important user control (albeit leaving a less-preferred workaround).  Other than that, I have no comment on the lens or its marketing or its price.  I'd be very curious to read Adam's review if he posts it.

Yes, that's why it's being discussed.

[jaapv]

Gordon, this is different.  Photographers have not been having to over-write baked-in digital corrections forever.  And you know that you don't always have the option to take steps back.  Or sometimes you take steps back, but you've lost the moment.  Even in the present digital era, high-end cameras have offered a workflow without compulsory digital corrections.  The point is about having to apply a workaround simulation because a camera designer eliminated a basic control in software.  And the point is not just about barrel distortion, but about any digital correction (e.g. vignetting) that you may or may not want to correct, depending on the particular image.  I imagine you would want to make your own decisions about digital corrections.  You know as well as anyone that a fully corrected lens stretches subjects near the edges in a way that can look unpleasant and unnatural; so you may decide that's not your preferred "default look" for pictures of people.

 

 

That's the same experiment, except that it starts at step 2 instead of step 1.   Step 2 is where you take that digitally corrected image and apply some digital distortion.  It's a roundabout way of getting back to an uncorrected image, except that it's a simulation of what the lens already did but not 100% accurate.  In the end, the image has been needlessly trimmed and stretched twice.  A camera should be photographer-centered — giving control to the photographer.  

You are still making the error of separating the digital corrections from the optical ones. The optical corrections have been made with the digital corrections in mind. One cannot exist without the other. Lens corrections are not a user control and certainly not a basic one.

[adamdewilde]

Sorry I'm later then I thought I would be with this.. And sorry it's not a more in-depth review. I'm really in a rush to get everything done before I fly off tomorrow. And I landed one unexpected job that took way more time then it was worth TBH...

 

Anyway for what it's worth.. And I'll try to answer specific questions if you have any once I've settled down after flying off.

 

http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

"Any lens corrections in LR are not made by Leica, they are postprocessing tools implemented by Adobe (possibly Leica was involved, I don't know). Nor were they taken into consideration when calculating the lens."

 

I don't think that that is correct. The SL DNG file contains correction settings generated by Leica that Adobe respects. It is hard to bypass them in Lightroom, easier in Capture One. The correction is not measured by Adobe.

 

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing. No digital corrections for M lenses are applied by default in LR when the SL DNGs are opened even though it says that the integrated lens profile is applied. One has to enable profile corrections for the images to change and, as Jaap stated, I'm not even sure if these are Leica corrections that are then applied in LR as it finds the lens profiles. This is different for SL DNGs created with native SL lenses.