Summilux-SL 50 MM F/1,4 ASPH

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It has been the standard because - until very recently - optical viewfinders have been the norm.

 

Did you read my comment above about the Sony A7 series?  There are various EVF-only cameras that make digital lens corrections optional, including the Sony A72, Olympus E-M1 and Fuji X-T1.

[Advertisement]

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

[jmahto]

The Lens Designer for the 50SL could talk to the designer of the Otus 55. The only missing element mentioned here is the AF. Unmentioned is the weather sealing. Both are heavy and large and expensive.

 

One is called by its maker (Leica) a "reference lens," is said to "deliver maximum optical performance", and "establishes new benchmark standards in terms of sharpness." The other is called by its maker (Zeiss) "the best standard lens in the world."

 

One likely relies on software correction of the image, the other doesn't. It will be interesting to see how the final images compare from each. If post-digital correction the 50SL images are still better than what the Otus produces, kudos to Leica. This would be all the more impressive with the internal focusing elements likely making the design constraints more challenging.

How much AF add to the size of the lens? Compare the size of T 23mm summicron vs M 28mm summicron. The former is bigger and not even FF.

 

An AF Otus is going to be hell of a lot bigger (and possibly redesigned for light moving parts for good AF performance). Unless someone else creates a smaller 50LUX with AF and similar performance (not even known yet), we should reserve the judgment.

[jmahto]

Did you read my comment above about the Sony A7 series? There are various EVF-only cameras that make digital lens corrections optional, including the Sony A72, Olympus E-M1 and Fuji X-T1.

You have a point there, however Leica can decide differently in the name of final IQ. Refer to the long discussions about limiting exposure time and not having option to remove dark frame noise reduction. "Others are doing it", doesn't apply to Leica. They seem to follow their own goal.

[LD_50]

How much AF add to the size of the lens? Compare the size of T 23mm summicron vs M 28mm summicron. The former is bigger and not even FF.

 

An AF Otus is going to be hell of a lot bigger (and possibly redesigned for light moving parts for good AF performance). Unless someone else creates a smaller 50LUX with AF and similar performance (not even known yet), we should reserve the judgment.

Surely AF changes the design. Size isn't first dictated by AF though. The T and M lenses are less comparable than something like Nikkor's F mount AF vs manual focus lenses. AF lenses are always going to be larger but not always substantially so. I would be more interested in the optical design challenges of the internal focus AF elements than the size challenges.

 

Read each manufacturers choice of words to describe the lenses (that I quoted from their websites). I expect a reference lens from Leica with maximum OPTICAL performance.

[zlatkob]

You have a point there, however Leica can decide differently in the name of final IQ. Refer to the long discussions about limiting exposure time and not having option to remove dark frame noise reduction. "Others are doing it", doesn't apply to Leica. They seem to follow their own goal.

 

Yes, I have point there, and others above.  As shown in this thread, some people seem eager to defend whatever Leica is doing, or might do, or is rumored to do, even when it goes against logic or photographic experience.  All sorts of arguments are pulled out of hats, loosely based on some vague idea that if Leica is doing something, it must be correct or best.  "Others are doing it" is usually a reason to denounce something ... until Leica starts doing the same.

[almoore]

Did you read my comment above about the Sony A7 series?  There are various EVF-only cameras that make digital lens corrections optional, including the Sony A72, Olympus E-M1 and Fuji X-T1.

Yes, I did.

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Surely AF changes the design. Size isn't first dictated by AF though. The T and M lenses are less comparable than something like Nikkor's F mount AF vs manual focus lenses. AF lenses are always going to be larger but not always substantially so. I would be more interested in the optical design challenges of the internal focus AF elements than the size challenges.

 

Read each manufacturers choice of words to describe the lenses (that I quoted from their websites). I expect a reference lens from Leica with maximum OPTICAL performance.

Highlight mine.... I really don't see Leica demanding a premium pricing for a lens which does not have adequate (not maximum since sky is the limit) performance (in the final image). If some other AF lens on SL (it is important since it is a system) achieves similar performance with much smaller price point then Leica can't sell. As simple as that. As far as I can tell, this lens is not supposed to be a collectible item where buyers might give it a pass. I am more than curious to see how it performs.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Yes, I have point there, and others above.  As shown in this thread, some people seem eager to defend whatever Leica is doing, or might do, or is rumored to do, even when it goes against logic or photographic experience.  All sorts of arguments are pulled out of hats, loosely based on some vague idea that if Leica is doing something, it must be correct or best.  "Others are doing it" is usually a reason to denounce something ... until Leica starts doing the same.

 

 

Bollocks!!

 

I'm as harsh on Leica as anyone. You can read my posts on the SL firmware. I won't show you the letter I wrote to Leica Australia a month after getting my SL. Suffice to say it wasn't flattering of the camera and involved a potential return. Your argument that those disagreeing with you are Leica shills is ludicrous and somewhat insulting to a bunch of people who, while they do love their cameras, are more than capable of making an informed decision that differs from yours. The vast majority participating in this thread appear to me to be decent, intelligent and open minded individuals who like to discuss and sometimes argue civilly over cameras. It seems to me you're a little put out that, despite your arguments, a few people still choose a different view from yours. And quite frankly, you have yet to convince me that you know more about optics or lens design than anyone else on this thread.

 

However, as someone who's been shooting professionally for over two decades, I've had more than my fair share of 50mm lenses. Some good. Some not so good. I know what I like and don't like. I've had many lenses with no digital corrections and more than a few with. I've had flawed lenses I loved and perfect ones that bored me. And after initially being adamantly against digital corrections I've changed my opinion based on tens of thousands of photos that I've taken. I've made my own comparisons and have my own opinions. I've seen the with and without comparisons and downloaded the appropriate software. And just like any design perimeter sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Software corrections are neither Saint or Devil.

 

I shoot architecture and real estate for a living. I can tell you definitively that software corrections have changed the way I shoot for the better. Since my SL is my main working camera I want highly corrected lenses whether it be hardware or software. I don't care about a head in a corner of a photo because I'd never shoot that way, even when I shoot a wedding. I do care that these lenses are free of CA and have nice colour and no distortion because that means I don't have to waste my time fixing it in post. And frankly, as long as I get the results I want, I don't care how they are achieved. And neither do my clients.

 

Which is pretty much not what you want. That doesn't mean my ideas are "based on some vague idea that if Leica is doing something it must be correct or the best". I'm the guy putting his 50mm 'lux up for sale because I prefer the Voigtlander.

 

You don't have to like this lens or digital corrections or Leica or puppies or whatever. Your opinion on digital corrections is as valid as mine. What I do not appreciate, is when you write off someone else opinion and reasonable arguments as fanboyism. No one here read your opinion and called you a Leica hater, did they? The simple reality is that different people have different needs and expectations from their gear. Digital corrections might adversely affect your images but not mine. I don't stand in your shoes and you don't stand in mine. I think we're entitled to a different opinion without the name calling.

 

Since neither you or I have used a production lens, neither of us are in a position to make a definitive assessment on whether Leica's software corrections are good or bad in this case, yet. But since Leica has some of the finest lens designers on the planet which you and I are definitely not, I will defer to the position that they know what they are doing until I see the lens and decide otherwise.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Surely AF changes the design. Size isn't first dictated by AF though.

 

You're spot on the AF changes the design. The main issue is that in a manual focus lens the focusing group can be as big and as heavy as you want and the focus cams can be very tight with tiny tolerances. Unfortunately that doesn't work with AF lenses. The motors are tiny with very little torque and need to move the focus group as fast and accurately as possible. So generally that means smaller, lighter and more plastic. And then you need to account for that in the design of other groups that try to get around the problems a small AF group create, optically. Sometimes it's just got to be easier to use digital corrections than what might end up being an optical solution that adds its own issues.

 

People keep mentioning the Otus. But to make the Otus AF would be a complete redesign of every optical component. It's not like we could just strap a motor to the AF group and head to the pub.

 

Gordon

[jaapv]

The lens designer has the "right" to do anything.  But it's not a question of rights.  It's a question of good design.  Good design is photographer-centered, giving control to the photographer over key elements of photographic expression.  I've explained the occasional but real problem of digital corrections over and over again.  It's the classic problem of a perfectly rectilinear lens distorting the shapes of objects (people) toward the corners.  Why deny this?  It's just a fact.

 

The analogy to a user-removable element fails totally because digital corrections are different.  It's no more relevant than someone else's analogy to ABS brakes in an auto.  I'm not going to struggle to address misplaced analogies when we can accurately talk about the *exact* thing we are talking about:  digital corrections.

 

I'm not inventing some bizarre new onus on lens designers.  Nor is this a personal specification.  User-selectable digital corrections have been the standard thus far, at least among professional cameras.  The lack of user control over digital corrections is the surprising new exception, not the standard.  I suspect it has been the standard because (most) designers recognize that the user should retain this control when there is no one-size-fits-all perfect digital correction.

And that is the rub: digital corrections are not different, they are integral. The design of the lens is a combination of both digital and optical corrections. The digital part is not just an extra to finetune the lens. The optical part of the design is made with some aberrations deliberately shifted into the digital part in order to correct other aberrations better. If there were no digital corrections the optical corrections would have been designed differently.

 

That "standard" you are inventing refers to lenses that have not been designed holistically. Those are lenses that are corrected  optically as well as the designer could and then digital corrections are added to finetune the result.

 

This reflects the difference in approach to lens design by European and Japanese designers, which has been commented on regularly before.  Japanese makers tend to feed the desired  specifications into the computer and have the human designer work on the result of the calculations, Europeans tend to have the lens designer make the initial design and then let the computer do the calculating.

 

What you are saying basically is: "I want Leica's approach to be identical to Sony's approach". Well, it isn't.

[zlatkob]

Bollocks!!

 

I'm as harsh on Leica as anyone. You can read my posts on the SL firmware. I won't show you the letter I wrote to Leica Australia a month after getting my SL. Suffice to say it wasn't flattering of the camera and involved a potential return. Your argument that those disagreeing with you are Leica shills is ludicrous and somewhat insulting to a bunch of people who, while they do love their cameras, are more than capable of making an informed decision that differs from yours. The vast majority participating in this thread appear to me to be decent, intelligent and open minded individuals who like to discuss and sometimes argue civilly over cameras. It seems to me you're a little put out that, despite your arguments, a few people still choose a different view from yours. And quite frankly, you have yet to convince me that you know more about optics or lens design than anyone else on this thread.

 

However, as someone who's been shooting professionally for over two decades, I've had more than my fair share of 50mm lenses. Some good. Some not so good. I know what I like and don't like. I've had many lenses with no digital corrections and more than a few with. I've had flawed lenses I loved and perfect ones that bored me. And after initially being adamantly against digital corrections I've changed my opinion based on tens of thousands of photos that I've taken. I've made my own comparisons and have my own opinions. I've seen the with and without comparisons and downloaded the appropriate software. And just like any design perimeter sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Software corrections are neither Saint or Devil.

 

I shoot architecture and real estate for a living. I can tell you definitively that software corrections have changed the way I shoot for the better. Since my SL is my main working camera I want highly corrected lenses whether it be hardware or software. I don't care about a head in a corner of a photo because I'd never shoot that way, even when I shoot a wedding. I do care that these lenses are free of CA and have nice colour and no distortion because that means I don't have to waste my time fixing it in post. And frankly, as long as I get the results I want, I don't care how they are achieved. And neither do my clients.

 

Which is pretty much not what you want. That doesn't mean my ideas are "based on some vague idea that if Leica is doing something it must be correct or the best". I'm the guy putting his 50mm 'lux up for sale because I prefer the Voigtlander.

 

You don't have to like this lens or digital corrections or Leica or puppies or whatever. Your opinion on digital corrections is as valid as mine. What I do not appreciate, is when you write off someone else opinion and reasonable arguments as fanboyism. No one here read your opinion and called you a Leica hater, did they? The simple reality is that different people have different needs and expectations from their gear. Digital corrections might adversely affect your images but not mine. I don't stand in your shoes and you don't stand in mine. I think we're entitled to a different opinion without the name calling.

 

Since neither you or I have used a production lens, neither of us are in a position to make a definitive assessment on whether Leica's software corrections are good or bad in this case, yet. But since Leica has some of the finest lens designers on the planet which you and I are definitely not, I will defer to the position that they know what they are doing until I see the lens and decide otherwise.

 

Gordon

 

You are arguing against an argument that I never made.  Did I say I do not want digital corrections?  No, I did not.  I wrote above "For an architectural subject, correction is likely to look better."  I also wrote above, "I do think that lens designers should use every tool at their disposal."  I agree with having and using digital corrections.  I agree with designing with digital corrections in mind.  I am not against digital corrections.  For architectural photography, I totally support your having digital corrections.  I want them too.

 

What I disagree with is having digital corrections baked-in to the Raw file, so that they cannot be removed by the photographer.  Especially for a 50mm lens —a focal length very likely to be used for portraits.  You acknowledge that digital corrections might adversely affect some images.  But you don't support photographers who want the option to not have digital corrections baked-in to the Raw file?  How about a little support back?

 

When I write about people defending whatever Leica is doing, I'm talking about the stream of rationalizations for why a photographer should not even have the option to remove digital corrections from the Raw file.  So we see photographers taking an anti-photographer position on behalf of a corporation.  Why?  Among the rationalizations we've heard so far (paraphrasing here):   that digital stretching of people's heads doesn't happen or can't be seen or is just a bizarre concern; that digital stretching of people's heads obviously does happen so just accept it by adding digital distortions; that if you saw the correction in the EVF it's fine to never be able to remove it; that digital corrections are so tightly integral that they can't be undone; that Leica philosophy is such simplicity that automation of lens corrections must trump manual control; that the option to remove digital corrections is standard only because of optical viewfinders; that undoing digital corrections is just like removing a lens element; that I'm asking for lenses designed to personal specifications; that a potential workaround via 3rd party software somehow excuses the removal of photographers' standard control; etc.

[pop]

...

What I disagree with is having digital corrections baked-in to the Raw file, so that they cannot be removed by the photographer.  Especially for a 50mm lens —a focal length very likely to be used for portraits.  You acknowledge that digital corrections might adversely affect some images.  But you don't support photographers who want the option to not have digital corrections baked-in to the Raw file?  How about a little support back?

...

 

Your argument would require the residual optical distortions to be favourable to the picture. If it was the case that any seemingly random distortion was needed for the perfection of the image, you'd be out of luck a large number of times.

[zlatkob]

Your argument would require the residual optical distortions to be favourable to the picture. If it was the case that any seemingly random distortion was needed for the perfection of the image, you'd be out of luck a large number of times.

 

No, that's not required.  It's not about getting lucky and having distortions somehow magically create perfection.  Mild barrel distortion preserves some of the roundness of round objects near the edge of the frame.  If you have a photo that includes people near the edge of the frame, it can look more pleasing with the mild barrel distortion retained rather than fully corrected.  (If you've photographed people with a wide-angle lens, you already know this because it's obvious.  It is less obvious with a 50mm though still there.)  The decision on whether or how much to correct and what looks pleasing is subjective, depending on personal preference for a specific image — an argument for user control.  

[pop]

.... The decision on whether or how much to correct and what looks pleasing is subjective, depending on personal preference for a specific image — an argument for user control.  

The same applies, of course, to blur or coma or color fringes or any other lens aberration that comes to mind.

[scott kirkpatrick]

The statement "What I disagree with is having digital corrections baked-in to the Raw file, so that they cannot be removed by the photographer" reflects a misunderstanding.  The corrections can be increased, decreased, or ignored entirely during the processing of the Raw file, if they are encoded in a .DNG file, which takes a standard approach.  Other manufacturers' proprietary formats often do not allow the software any such discretion, however.

 

scott 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

You are arguing against an argument that I never made.]

No. You started moving from the discussion proper to opinions of the people involved in the discussion. that's what I was arguing against.

 

Gordon

[jaapv]

 

What I disagree with is having digital corrections baked-in to the Raw file, so that they cannot be removed by the photographer.  Especially for a 50mm lens —a focal length very likely to be used for portraits.  You acknowledge that digital corrections might adversely affect some images.  But you don't support photographers who want the option to not have digital corrections baked-in to the Raw file?  How about a little support back?

Puzzled here. Why can't they be removed by the photographer? They are sure to be in a sidecar file, not "baked in"; they can be ignored, maybe not so easily in Lightroom, but the world is larger than Adobe.. So: not baked in, but like currants you can pull out of the cake.

[LD_50]

People keep mentioning the Otus. But to make the Otus AF would be a complete redesign of every optical component. It's not like we could just strap a motor to the AF group and head to the pub.

 

Gordon

The Otus is mentioned because of the comparable size, weight, and cost. Also Leica's description of the 50SL:

 

a "reference lens," said to "deliver maximum optical performance", and "establishes new benchmark standards in terms of sharpness."

 

The bit about maximum OPTICAL performance implies the lens design is not held back by the AF elements or any other barriers that would necessitate software corrections of the image.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[thighslapper]

........ and the trade off they have made to achieve greater sharpness, almost full correction of chromatic and other aberrations, plus fast AF is some barrel distortion - which is corrected in firmware with allegedly no perceptible loss of image quality.  If you read up on optics you will find that optical correction of barrel distortion tends to reduce resolving power and sharpness. 

 

There is  no contradiction in their statement.

 

How you feel about all this depends entirely on what elements of 'optical performance' you value you most highly and how nit-picking you are about what you feel is acceptable in achieving it. 

[LD_50]

........ and the trade off they have made to achieve greater sharpness, almost full correction of chromatic and other aberrations, plus fast AF is some barrel distortion - which is corrected in firmware with allegedly no perceptible loss of image quality. If you read up on optics you will find that optical correction of barrel distortion tends to reduce resolving power and sharpness.

 

There is no contradiction in their statement.

 

How you feel about all this depends entirely on what elements of 'optical performance' you value you most highly and how nit-picking you are about what you feel is acceptable in achieving it.

I expect Otus level results optically, not digitally based upon Leica's published statements about the lens. I will wait and see if that's the case.

 

If we end up with Otus level results with the software corrections applied, I'll be okay with that as well.

 

I would prefer Leica change their description (quoted previously) about optical performance to include the digital correction component.