Summilux-SL 50 MM F/1,4 ASPH

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, seriously, I wonder if the SL 50/1.4 is meant to cover a bigger sensor than 35mm full frame, and by extension whether Leica is going to release a medium format SL. The mount seems big enough to accommodate a bigger sensor.

 

Just like the Otus, this lens is not computed for a larger area. It is delivering more resolution (inside the FF format), so it will be usable with future SLs that will have twice or three times as many pixels.

[helged]

Just like the Otus, this lens is not computed for a larger area. It is delivering more resolution (inside the FF format), so it will be usable with future SLs that will have twice or three times as many pixels.

...as with the 50APO-M, I guess. It certainly outresolves the current M240 sensor. Higher-res M and SL sensors will come, but possibly not before the next iteration of the S-system is out. That being said, the current 24 mp sensors work fine for many (me included). But customers request/will request higher mp-count as this is a metrix that is frequently used to characterise/distinguish different vendors/systems. So yes, the new lenses will be 'matched' with higher mp-count one day.

[Advertisement]

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

[james.liam]

Just like the Otus, this lens is not computed for a larger area. It is delivering more resolution (inside the FF format), so it will be usable with future SLs that will have twice or three times as many pixels.

 

 

Really the same guiding philosophy behind the 50 APO and perhaps wide SEM's too.

[james.liam]

...as with the 50APO-M, I guess. It certainly outresolves the current M240 sensor. Higher-res M and SL sensors will come, but possibly not before the next iteration of the S-system is out. That being said, the current 24 mp sensors work fine for many (me included). But customers request/will request higher mp-count as this is a metrix that is frequently used to characterise/distinguish different vendors/systems. So yes, the new lenses will be 'matched' with higher mp-count one day.

 

What follows in years to come may have no relation to present-day CMOS sensors. Lloyd Chambers discusses the over-sampiing and downsizing images with native 100MP + sensors. Does make some sense for most users and would end the crazy MP race altogether, delivering highest quality as opposed to largest file size. Such stellar lenses would fit perfectly.

[Overgaard]

I noticed that Sean Reid mentioned in his SL 50/1.4 review from Photokina mentioned that the 50mm had the size it has because that's the size the lens designers felt was necessary to make the lens they wanted to make. I find that an intriguing comment in that it includes af, but mainly the actual lens design. So I'm curious to know more on those things later.

 

There's much more to be learned about the new SL prime lenses. 

 

http://www.reidreviews.com

[jip]

No, seriously, I wonder if the SL 50/1.4 is meant to cover a bigger sensor than 35mm full frame, and by extension whether Leica is going to release a medium format SL. The mount seems big enough to accommodate a bigger sensor.

 

 

Just NO. The SL lenses are not meant to cover a image sensor larger than fullframe. Also the mount is NOT big enough for a sensor that much bigger than fullframe, compare it to the Leica S mount.

Edited September 25, 2016 by jip

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7/

 

Jeff

 

This test claims the exact same resolution number at the edge at f2 for the 50Apo and 50lux aspherical. Anyone who has tested the two lenses in real life knows that this is absolutely false. The 50lux aspherical does not have a flat field of focus, so unless it was refocused for optimal performance at the edge, these results are impossible.

[LD_50]

This test claims the exact same resolution number at the edge at f2 for the 50Apo and 50lux aspherical. Anyone who has tested the two lenses in real life knows that this is absolutely false. The 50lux aspherical does not have a flat field of focus, so unless it was refocused for optimal performance at the edge, these results are impossible.

If you reference the the article it is stated:

 

"...so I’ll list the higher of the two MTF readings, along with the astigmatism (difference between sagittal and tangential MTF) at that point."

 

The Summilux shows almost double the astigmatism at f2 as the APO. This may account for the difference in performance you have apparently seen in your use of the two lenses. Also the test in the article tests the lenses on an optical bench and therefore there is no impact from a given camera being used (micro lenses, sensor cover glass, etc.).

[BerndReini]

This makes sense. I have also learned that a lot of these results are specific to one focus distance. I have a friend, who tests lenses at minimum focus distance, which is pretty irrelevant in terms of corner performance. At infinity on the other hand, corner performance becomes much more significant for landscapes etc.

[scott kirkpatrick]

This test claims the exact same resolution number at the edge at f2 for the 50Apo and 50lux aspherical. Anyone who has tested the two lenses in real life knows that this is absolutely false. The 50lux aspherical does not have a flat field of focus, so unless it was refocused for optimal performance at the edge, these results are impossible.

Because the tests were done on an optical bench, they are tests at infinity.  I believe this removes the flatness of field as an issue.  And, as has already pointed out, the SX 50 shows astigmatism at the edges, the APO-SC 50 does not.

 

scott

[Peter H]

 

 

I question the intrinsic qualities of a photograph that requires a lens of this size. And if it really does, I expect it might also benefit from a proper MF sensor.

 

This return to mammoth lenses feels very odd to me.

[tom0511]

I question the intrinsic qualities of a photograph that requires a lens of this size. And if it really does, I expect it might also benefit from a proper MF sensor.

 

This return to mammoth lenses feels very odd to me.

 

I have the same opinion, plus f2.0 would have been fine for me. Are these lenses like Otus etc. made for photographers or for pixel peepers and measurebators? (Even though I do admit I like and use a 50 APO).

[ramarren]

So much focus on size! 

 

As I've said before, I generally underutilize the SL24-90 because it's bulkier than I usually want to carry all day. However, yesterday I went out to make a few photos of my new car and chose to use it rather than the three-four R lenses I'd ordinarily use. I felt that the zoom would be more apropos than switching between 50 and 90 and 35 and 24 all the time. Indeed: The SL and the four lenses that would have replaced the SL24-90 would not have fit in the small bag I was using (Billingham L2).

 

In use, I didn't notice the size at all. All I really noticed was that the lens focused instantly, perfectly, whether manual or auto focus, and that the only editing the 20 exposures I made needed was some slight cropping/rotation to get the framing to be what I had in mind. The greatest post processing effort was simply to choose which ten of the twenty exposures were the ones I wanted to present in the gallery.

 

So ... it's a big lens, yes, but other qualities of its performance far outstrip that in actual use. It's neither much larger than nor heavier than the Super-Elmar-R 15mm that I'm happy to walk with for hours on end either. I am sure the same can be said of the Summilux-SL 50mm. 

Edited September 26, 2016 by ramarren

[LD_50]

I question the intrinsic qualities of a photograph that requires a lens of this size. And if it really does, I expect it might also benefit from a proper MF sensor.

This return to mammoth lenses feels very odd to me.

I believe it would be difficult to identify any "intrinsic qualities" of a photograph requiring any specific 50mm lens.

 

The size of a lens is going to be dictated by a number of parameters, including the focal length and aperture, AF motors, image stabilization, number of elements needed for correction of various aberrations, price of components, etc. This is well known and not unique to any brand.

 

Using the 50 APO as the measuring stick for lens size on a well corrected 50mm lens is fine as long as you're willing to pay the high price and do not need AF. It's almost double the cost of any comparable lenses and it's still available for sale. If Leica produced a manual focus clone and called it the 50-Summicron APO-SL I don't see how the discussion would be any different, or why anyone would be pleased with the decision, other than to avoid the M-T adapter. I think it's great Leica offers a number of choices at this focal length. Currently I'm shooting a 50 Summilux ASPH on my M240 and SL and have been considering the APO for some time. The 50 SL may change my mind if it renders similarly to the APO.

 

If you want a very well corrected 50mm lens that offers AF and you're not wanting to spend APO money, you don't have a lot of options when it comes to lens size. The Sigma Art is a bit smaller and seems to be a high performer. I enjoyed the Nikon 58 1.4G lens, though it's more of a character lens than a well corrected one.

[steppenw0lf]

Two days ago at the Photokina, I had a good look at the mockups of the four new SL lenses on the road map.

The only SL lens that seems to have a normal size is the 90/2 Summicron.

But there was no mockup of the lens hood.

 

 

Here a link to some photos of the Summilux 50 with lens hood. I assume the Summicron 90 will have a similar hood, just slightly longer. I actually hate the shape of the hood, a simple built-in round hood would have been my preference. But hopefully it is also usable without hood.

From Farkas Report: http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2016/09/leica-officially-announces-summilux-sl-50mm-f1-4-asph-for-sl-system/

From his shop (touch the images for big illustrations): http://leicastoremiami.com/products/leica-summilux-sl-50mm-f-1-4-asph

The pictures are obviously made by Leica, but only Farkas displays them. (Leica you are sometimes incomprehensible).

Edited September 26, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[IkarusJohn]

I question the intrinsic qualities of a photograph that requires a lens of this size. And if it really does, I expect it might also benefit from a proper MF sensor.

This return to mammoth lenses feels very odd to me.

I don't understand how the intrinsic qualities of a photograph has anything to do with lens size. Lens selection for me is first focal length, then character and speed (the last two usually linked).

 

To be honest, where lens size is a virtue, I'll use an M lens. That's the amazing thing about the SL. I can use any M mount lens with an adapter with no loss in quality.

 

For me, lens size is all about haptics - the zooms are huge. Comfortable in the hand, but huge. If the size is going to be an issue, an M lens is undoubtedly a better option, but it rarely has anything to do with the photograph.

 

Do you mean tight spaces or more intimate social environments where a large camera system makes you look like a papparazzi? In that case, I agree - an M camera and lens is far less intrusive. Not sure what this has to do with the new SL 50?

[IkarusJohn]

On a related topic, I dropped into the Leica store in Washington DC on Friday afternoon (SL and 24-90 slung over my shoulder).  A very nice and helpful reception, as always.

 

They didn't have the Summilux-SL 50 for me to try, but they did have a WATE.  Oh boy, what a lovely little lens, but at $5,200 it's a pricey little beast.  Having said that, I expect the new 16-35 SL zoom will be priced in the same range.  The smaller 16-18-21 WATE could be a useful alternative. I'm not sure that AF at the wide end is really all that useful.  It would have been nice if the new SL zoom had been a bit wider, more like the Nikkor 14-24 AF-S 2.8 ED lens (a snip at a shade under $2,000).

 

At this stage, with 15-21-28-35-50(2)-75-90 covered with M lenses, and 180-360(with Extender) with an R lens, I'm going to watch what happens with the SL lenses with reasonably remote interest.  The SL is nicely balanced with the Noctilux on it, and I don't miss the purple fringing!  After three weeks in the US with the SL and two zooms, I'm more than happy with the set up (though my shoulders thank me for coming home and not carrying the SL and two zooms).

 

I'm sure the new Summilux-SL 50 will be as fantastic as Leica intends it to be, and it will be no larger than needed.  It just won't be as small as the Noctilux/Summilux/Summicron made for the M mount (they're all APO, right?); why would it be?  Size was never a driving issue for the SL series.  Is it too big?  I doubt it.

 

Cheers

John

Edited September 26, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[meerec]

It's a monster of a lens if you ask me, for a 50mm prime. Thanks for the links to real size images, I was able to overlay my SL on the image to see it "in flash" and I can't imagine lugging it. I think the upcoming summicron 75 will be the lens that will balance nicer on the SL.

 

 

Here a link to some photos of the Summilux 50 with lens hood. I assume the Summicron 90 will have a similar hood, just slightly longer. I actually hate the shape of the hood, a simple built-in round hood would have been my preference. But hopefully it is also usable without hood.

From Farkas Report: http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2016/09/leica-officially-announces-summilux-sl-50mm-f1-4-asph-for-sl-system/

From his shop (touch the images for big illustrations): http://leicastoremiami.com/products/leica-summilux-sl-50mm-f-1-4-asph

The pictures are obviously made by Leica, but only Farkas displays them. (Leica you are sometimes incomprehensible).

[Jeff S]

Forgetting about AF, one needs an SL (or S) lens for 'full' weather sealing, so M or R lenses are excluded for folks like me looking for optimal weather protection.

 

Leica clearly is distinguishing the lens size/IQ equation between the M and the SL, the former offering best IQ in a small(ish) package, the latter without size constraints (relatively).

 

The SL 50 Summilux is sure to be a fine lens, but it's not much smaller than the zoom.  I could live with it, but it's not my ideal, preferring a smaller lens even if speed were compromised.  But that's the option given.  So, all it means for me is that I'll compare it to other options, so far potentially including the X1D or GFX system, depending on hand-on experience.  Of course lens offerings are only one assessment criterion.

 

Choices are good....as usual with multiple pros and cons....and differing user needs and preferences.

 

Jeff

Edited September 26, 2016 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[sortvitt]

It's a hefty lens, no doubt. I wrote it off as too big (just as I did with the two SL zooms) until I tried it during the weekend. Once mounted the size seem less of an issue. Quite similar to handling the S system in terms of weight and size. Certainly not something you grab on the way out to shoot street, for that I would still use M. The SL system has turned out to be the most promising of the Leica offerings in my opinion.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

Link to DNG of Raffles doorman here.