Summilux-SL 50 MM F/1,4 ASPH

[adamdewilde]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

 

My point was that in some instances the EVF/Camera glitches out and you see the optical framing, and then later the image isn't what you thought. I know this to be true because it has happened to me several times now in critical framing situations with the 24-90.

 

Just something to be aware of I guess.

[Advertisement]

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

[adamdewilde]

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.

 

 

To tell you the truth, I don't know how you would classify what the distortion type is. If it bothers my images it bothers me. IN this instance I couldn't tell you if the 50SL distortion would bother my images.. I would have to buy and use the lens for a while to figure if it's a problem for me or not.

 

As of now, I'm more concern with the AF. If that gets fixed in firmware I'll buy the lens. Simply because as one poster above said.. Right now the 50SL will be the best lens for the SL, since it was built for the SL. He is exactly right. Simply because I bought the SL for the AF. If I didn't want AF I would just use my 50APO and be done with it. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

That's helpful. His reviews show web-sized shots with commentary.  Not for pixel-peeping, good for color, interesting thoughts on functional issues.  I hope to hear what to make of the murmurs that AF is slow, and how the firmware evolution that usually occurs late in the development process has helped/changed things.

 

scott

 

BTW, the Q and the SL zooms have quite significant barrel distortion at the wide end of the zooms, a little pincushion distortion at the normal to tele ends of the zooms.  You can skip the correction if you know where to find the control in your rendering software.  For barrel distortion, this sometimes makes objects in the corners look more pleasing, although straight lines call attention to the need for correction.  I have not found the effect of correction on corner sharpness to be a big deal.  

[IkarusJohn]

To tell you the truth, I don't know how you would classify what the distortion type is. If it bothers my images it bothers me. IN this instance I couldn't tell you if the 50SL distortion would bother my images.. I would have to buy and use the lens for a while to figure if it's a problem for me or not.

 

As of now, I'm more concern with the AF. If that gets fixed in firmware I'll buy the lens. Simply because as one poster above said.. Right now the 50SL will be the best lens for the SL, since it was built for the SL. He is exactly right. Simply because I bought the SL for the AF. If I didn't want AF I would just use my 50APO and be done with it.

 

Agreed.

[pop]

To tell you the truth, I don't know how you would classify what the distortion type is.

 

Look at the image of a straigt line which runs in parallel and close to an edge of the image. If the line bends towards the center of the image, you have a cushion. If it bends away from the center, you have a barrel type distortion. If it's there, it's not hard to spot. As you say, in some pictures it's irrelevant, in others it's a killer.

[IkarusJohn]

Yep, tell tale ...

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

They should not. The corrections are an integral part of lens design.

[pop]

Why hasn't anyone yet commented on the material and the curvature of the third glass element, counting from the front?

 

Just kidding.

[jrp]

I have no objection to lens corrections.  Indeed we are at the stage now when image correction / creation at a whole different level is the order of the day:

 

Look at the new iPhone's ability to blow out the background using a pair of lenses.  Such innovations will only become more pervasive and a natural evolution of digitalization.  The iPhone has a more powerful processor than some Macs.

 

Algorithmic photo enhancement / creation driven by machine learning is also coming down the pipeline.   https://www.dpreview.com/news/4148428764/adobe-and-uc-berkeley-demonstrate-image-editing-tool-powered-by-machine-learning

[zlatkob]

They should not. The corrections are an integral part of lens design.

 

Yes, perhaps, on a cheap camera with a poor lens.  But on a high-end camera with high quality lenses, digital corrections are not integral.  Rather, they are a kind of further refinement of something that is already excellent.  Unfortunately, digital corrections can also introduce a kind sterile perfection that may be unwanted in some professional work.  The uncorrected drawing of a high quality lens may in some cases be preferable, especially in photos of humans.  For photographers who do portraits (or other people photos) professionally, it is not unusual to compare an image with and without digital corrections, and to choose wether or not to apply the corrections, depending on the subject matter and the goals for the specific photo.  So, rather than corrections being integral to the design of a lens, I feel that that control over the expression of the image is integral to professional work.  Today, that work commonly includes the decision whether or not to apply digital corrections.

[pop]

Yes, perhaps, on a cheap camera with a poor lens.  But on a high-end camera with high quality lenses, digital corrections are not integral.  Rather, they are a kind of further refinement of something that is already excellent.  Unfortunately, digital corrections can also introduce a kind sterile perfection that may be unwanted in some professional work.  The uncorrected drawing of a high quality lens may in some cases be preferable, especially in photos of humans.  For photographers who do portraits (or other people photos) professionally, it is not unusual to compare an image with and without digital corrections, and to choose wether or not to apply the corrections, depending on the subject matter and the goals for the specific photo.  So, rather than corrections being integral to the design of a lens, I feel that that control over the expression of the image is integral to professional work.  Today, that work commonly includes the decision whether or not to apply digital corrections.

So you want to apply a transformation to a portrait which distorts it in barrel or moustache shape?

[Peter H]

I really don't understand the notion of "sterile perfection" as used in this thread.

 

How can perfection in a lens (assuming for the sake of discussion that such a thing were possible) be sterile? What can it all mean?

[IkarusJohn]

I really don't understand the notion of "sterile perfection" as used in this thread.

How can perfection in a lens (assuming for the sake of discussion that such a thing were possible) be sterile? What can it all mean?

No idea - I find the concept of "perfection" a bit odd.

[almoore]

Yes, perhaps, on a cheap camera with a poor lens.  But on a high-end camera with high quality lenses, digital corrections are not integral.  Rather, they are a kind of further refinement of something that is already excellent. 

 

I think the situation is changing in that EVF cameras allow the corrected image to be shown at the point of composition, unlike optical viewfinder cameras.

 

When I'm processing Canon files, unless there's something like a sea horizon, I generally choose not to engage geometric correction. However, on most Canon lenses the distortion, whilst visible, is fairly modest. The degree of distortion in most lenses built purely for EVF cameras is so radical that framing would be problematic if they could be mounted on an SLR.

 

Times change and we shouldn't be surprised that lens designers now use every tool at their disposal.

[thighslapper]

I really don't understand the notion of "sterile perfection" as used in this thread.

 

How can perfection in a lens (assuming for the sake of discussion that such a thing were possible) be sterile? What can it all mean?

I agree ..... and find zlatkob's view ..... which is very commonly expressed here on the forum about both cameras and lenses ...... somewhat perplexing for my simple mind ....

 

I thought the whole point of the technological advances in photography were to produce an image that reflects what the camera is pointed at as accurately as possible.

 

In traditional film photography you wanted the negative as good as possible....... or have I been deluded for the last 50 years...... ?

 

Processing is what produces the look you want ....... and whilst it is easy to 'de-clarify', 'desaturate' and 'unsharpen' an image with impunity you cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. 

 

One of the initial criticisms of the Monochrom was that the files were 'flat' ...... but like optimally exposed negatives they were perfect for processing in a multitude of ways. 

[jaapv]

Yes, perhaps, on a cheap camera with a poor lens.  But on a high-end camera with high quality lenses, digital corrections are not integral.  Rather, they are a kind of further refinement of something that is already excellent.  Unfortunately, digital corrections can also introduce a kind sterile perfection that may be unwanted in some professional work.  The uncorrected drawing of a high quality lens may in some cases be preferable, especially in photos of humans.  For photographers who do portraits (or other people photos) professionally, it is not unusual to compare an image with and without digital corrections, and to choose wether or not to apply the corrections, depending on the subject matter and the goals for the specific photo.  So, rather than corrections being integral to the design of a lens, I feel that that control over the expression of the image is integral to professional work.  Today, that work commonly includes the decision whether or not to apply digital corrections.

 

Sorry, this just means you do not understand the way these lenses are designed. The optical design is made in such a way that the residual aberrations - and even the most superb lens has residual aberrations- are presented in a form that lends itself to digital finetuning. Thus it is nonsense to "remove" the digital part of the lens correction, as you are left with a suboptimal lens. If you wish for a lower quality just buy a lesser lens.  Or go the traditional way and mount a vaseline-smeared UV filter.

[Peter Branch]

............go the traditional way and mount a vaseline-smeared UV filter.

 

Just make sure it isn't one of the new "UVa II" filters - they're much too expensive to be maltreated.

[Chaemono]

Sorry, this just means you do not understand the way these lenses are designed. The optical design is made in such a way that the residual aberrations - and even the most superb lens has residual aberrations- are presented in a form that lends itself to digital finetuning. Thus it is nonsense to "remove" the digital part of the lens correction, as you are left with a suboptimal lens. If you wish for a lower quality just buy a lesser lens.  Or go the traditional way and mount a vaseline-smeared UV filter.

 

It's funny how two people appearing to disagree can both be right. I fully agree on the 24-90 SL zoom. With earlier versions of the SL firmware one was able to deselect the digital corrections in LR. Now they are baked into the DNG files, I guess, and, actually, I'm glad I don't see the uncorrected image anymore as the distortions were quite annoying at certain ranges. And, yes, I know the digital corrections are there and I don't care what the price is in terms of resolution one pays for that as I don't pixel peep and as this is otherwise such an outstanding lens across the range.

 

With the 50 Apo Cron, however, that's a different matter. Here I fully agree with zlatkob. One has to actively select the lens profile correction in LR for this lens and most of the time I leave it off, especially, when there are humans in the picture. I went out to shoot with this lens today and there is one particular shot of a biker where I checked the image with and without the digital corrections applied. The corrections made his head appear somewhat bloated to my eyes. So, I chose the version without them. So zlatkob is right. With this lens one should be given the choice. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[zlatkob]

I think the situation is changing in that EVF cameras allow the corrected image to be shown at the point of composition, unlike optical viewfinder cameras.

 

When I'm processing Canon files, unless there's something like a sea horizon, I generally choose not to engage geometric correction. However, on most Canon lenses the distortion, whilst visible, is fairly modest. The degree of distortion in most lenses built purely for EVF cameras is so radical that framing would be problematic if they could be mounted on an SLR.

 

Times change and we shouldn't be surprised that lens designers now use every tool at their disposal.

I do think that lens designers should use every tool at their disposal.  I'm not arguing against that.  My point is that the photographer should have the final decision on how the image should be expressed, either with or without digital corrections.  What I'm reading in this thread are some photographers saying that they should not have control over their image.  That is perplexing to me.  Why would you want to give up control?

 

Let me explain again why I want to control the image, as some people seem to be missing my point.  While processing my photos from various cameras, I have noticed that I sometimes prefer to apply Lightroom's digital corrections and sometimes I don't, preferring the uncorrected image. And sometimes I choose something else, a partial correction or even an added distortion.  These options and decisions are a part of processing today.  But what I decide to do depends entirely on the specific image and how I want to express it.  It varies from image to image to image.  Why would I want to give up that control?

 

While the goal of technological advances in photography may be to produce an image that reflects what the camera is pointed at as accurately as possible, that doesn't happen to be my personal goal for every single image that I make.  Sometimes my goal is to make an image that is more pleasing to my eye than an image that is 100% accurate.  For a particular image, I may prefer 98% accuracy, or whatever.

 

What is the problem with sterile perfection?  Generally there is no problem with it, particularly for photos without people in them.  But when you look at photos with people in them, there are times when a 100% corrected image looks worse.  I believe Adam mentioned something like this above when he wrote, "in some cases heads get distorted in unpredictable ways and it ruins the image".  Whether something is distortion or correction is in the eye of the beholder.  A correction may look like a distortion, and vice versa.  It has to do with individual perception.  For people who haven't seen this in their own photos, my words likely won't be very convincing.  But for some photographers it may be a practical concern.  Beyond that, I just think that control of the image (vs. lack of control) is the better philosophical position.

[pop]

.... What I'm reading in this thread are some photographers saying that they should not have control over their image.  That is perplexing to me. ...

 

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?

 

What I don't understand, either, is why there is so much discussion about the DNG format of a lens that is about to be introduced into the market in a few month's time. I think the discussion about this particular aspect should wait until the product is on the shelves, rather than discussing about a beta version.