Leica SL Image Thread ...post your examples here ....

[HeinzX]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe a little bit unusual - a photo under polarized light with the SL - if you are

interested you will find a little bit more und item others in this forum.

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!

Edited March 20, 2017 by HeinzX

[geetee1972]

0125 by Greg Turner, on Flickr

[dancook]

Photo taken with Leica Q.. but it's still on topic

 

Leica SL with 50mm 1.4 SL Summilux by dancook1982, on Flickr

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Photo taken with Leica Q.. but it's still on topic

 

Leica SL with 50mm 1.4 SL Summilux by dancook1982, on Flickr

Dan so you now have all three leica SL lenses. How do you find the 50mm so far. I'm going to try a few of my S lenses on my SL when I get home

[dancook]

Dan so you now have all three leica SL lenses. How do you find the 50mm so far. I'm going to try a few of my S lenses on my SL when I get home

I don't have the 24-90, just the 50mm and 90-280mm.

 

The 50mm IQ wise is great, in single point focus mode it has some trouble focusing on the face - in field mode it's much better, but AF on moving stuff can be hit and very miss.. needs some more experimentation.

[ropo54]

Couch potatoes;  35 1.4 fle

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!

[geetee1972]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

in single point focus mode it has some trouble focusing on the face - in field mode it's much better, but AF on moving stuff can be hit and very miss.. needs some more experimentation.

 

So what you're saying is that the only real advantage this lens has to justify its monstrous premium over the manual focus M version of the same lens, or huge increase your form factor over the 50mm APO doesn't actually work very well? So really, why would you buy this rather than the 50mm APO, which is a fifth the size and weight or the 50 M Summilux which is both that and a third the price?

[dancook]

So what you're saying is that the only real advantage this lens has to justify its monstrous premium over the manual focus M version of the same lens, or huge increase your form factor over the 50mm APO doesn't actually work very well? So really, why would you buy this rather than the 50mm APO, which is a fifth the size and weight or the 50 M Summilux which is both that and a third the price?

It has weather sealing too

 

I'm also finding C-AF to do pretty well to negate the AF slowness, as it gets the lens in the ballpark area of focus pretty quickly.

Edited March 21, 2017 by dancook

[phovsho]

I understand it to be the equal or better of the M 50 APO IQ wise, but is cheaper. It is weather sealed and has an AF (which may not be perfect but most say it's still more than adequate). It has MF. Sounds like a few good reasons to me.

[phovsho]

Oh, and it's 1.4 not 2.0

[geetee1972]

 

I understand it to be the equal or better of the M 50 APO IQ wise

 

It's incredibly marginal and the only way you're going to tell the difference is if you're printing commercial images A1 or larger and if you're doing that, you're not shooting 35mm FF, you're shooting MF. It being weather sealed is a strong feature but for this lens to justify its existence, the AF really needed to justify the price premium over the manual focus versions, all of which are more than good enough for anything that an SL user will be employing it for.

 

 

Oh, and it's 1.4 not 2.0

 

The f-stop these days is far less relevant given the ISO performance of modern digital; f/2 or f/1.4 is neither here nor there.

 

Again, I just can't wrap my head around what Leica have done with this product; what is its point, what does it get you other than a marginal improvement in convenience over the manual lenses when there is also the 24-90 that offers great AF performance? Why would you have this lens and the 24-90 when the latter with the tiny and still brilliant manual focus 50mm primes is cheaper and lighter?

[teiki arii]

 

It's incredibly marginal and the only way you're going to tell the difference is if you're printing commercial images A1 or larger and if you're doing that, you're not shooting 35mm FF, you're shooting MF. It being weather sealed is a strong feature but for this lens to justify its existence, the AF really needed to justify the price premium over the manual focus versions, all of which are more than good enough for anything that an SL user will be employing it for. 

The real problem is the SL as for now with its 24Mp sensor and the price... Let's see with the next generation... 

 

 

The f-stop these days is far less relevant given the ISO performance of modern digital; f/2 or f/1.4 is neither here nor there. Again, I just can't wrap my head around what Leica have done with this product; what is its point, what does it get you other than a marginal improvement.. 

Some people like shooting at f:1.4 in stead of f:2 and even at f:1.2. I agree it's not easy to manual focus at such apertures but DOF can be a motivation to do so. And DOF is even noticeable between f:1.2 and f:1.4..

 

 

 Again, I just can't wrap my head around what Leica have done with this product; what is its point, what does it get you other than a marginal improvement

It's not a marginal improvement as I am concerned, but I'm not sure you can notice it with a 24Mp sensor on A1 enlargements because it can't be at 300ppp and unnoticeable IMHO between the two lenses because of that..

[ramarren]

... Again, I just can't wrap my head around what Leica have done with this product; what is its point, what does it get you other than a marginal improvement in convenience over the manual lenses when there is also the 24-90 that offers great AF performance? Why would you have this lens and the 24-90 when the latter with the tiny and still brilliant manual focus 50mm primes is cheaper and lighter?

 

 

What is so difficult to understand? They've produced a 50mm f/1.4 lens that is state of the art on performance and that is designed to take advantage of everything the SL offers: AF, all exposure modes, etc etc. The APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2  and Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 are not made for the SL, and many people don't have one of them already that they can simply use with an adapter. They want a 50mm lens made for the SL. 

[teiki arii]

What is so difficult to understand? They've produced a 50mm f/1.4 lens that is state of the art on performance and that is designed to take advantage of everything the SL offers: AF, all exposure modes, etc etc. The APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2  and Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 are not made for the SL, and many people don't have one of them already that they can simply use with an adapter. They want a 50mm lens made for the SL. 

Yes, you are right. Why to choose an old lens whereas new one is the state of the art. Nevertheless, "Vintage" ones are also very good and some have a singular character. I think about Walter Mandler rendering for example. And others who kept Leica-R lenses like me are very happy with an other brand camera like the much cheaper Pentax K-1 with 36Mp, very good Isovariance, SR IBIS, etc...

[geetee1972]

What is so difficult to understand? They've produced a 50mm f/1.4 lens that is state of the art on performance and that is designed to take advantage of everything the SL offers: AF, all exposure modes, etc etc. The APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2  and Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 are not made for the SL, and many people don't have one of them already that they can simply use with an adapter. They want a 50mm lens made for the SL. 

 

Because it costs twice as much as a 1.4 M which would be understandable if the AF performance was really good, but it sounds like it isn't, it sounds like it's poor, which sort of negates why they made it in the first place. It might also make sense if the IQ gain was was a whole order of magnitude greater. But it's not, it's marginal as demonstrated by the fact that everyone keeps banging on about MF(?) charts and graphs rather than sticking two like for like images side by side and everyone going 'wow', the improvement is self evident. It's not self evident. Sometimes some of the images even look pretty ropey. I've got better from my 20 year old film Hasselblad with $600 lens. If you have to refer to charts to prove your point, your point is pointless. It also doesn't tell you what you really need to know, which is simply to just look at the image and see for yourself.

 

For this lens to make sense, it had to have excellent AF performance as well as weather sealing otherwise it's a vanity project, it is, as you say, a lens simply because people want to buy an SL lens. The lens is pointless for anything other than vanity as is the f-stop (of course this isn't true if what you want to do is photograph things just for the sake of photographing lovely creamy bokeh but no one with any taste or professional need does that do they).

 

 

If you actually need a higher quality image for commercial work then you're not going to shooting 24mp 35mm FF, you're going to be looking to MF digital.

[dancook]

Why draw assumptions based on what others have said, people's views are subjective.

 

Excuse the video, it's difficult to film - but you should be able to see the green focus and the speed at which it finds focus. Near instantaneous when focusing on the closer side, and a little less on the right.

 

 

It's faster than I would be with a manual focus lens, and using C-AF moving down the piano it seems faster still.

Edited March 21, 2017 by dancook

[phovsho]

geetee1972

 

Just so I understand and get get the full benefit of your wisdom.

 

You are saying that there is no real place for 1.4 anymore because ISO makes fast lenses redundant. So in that case you are probably equally questioning of the m series of lenses, including the noctilux and Simmulux - you would advise the standard Summicron?

 

Presumably you would advise against the M apo 50 as well, since you suggest at a mere 24 mp you can't tell the difference in terms of IQ? Of course the APO 50 is also (way) more expensive than the SL50 and M50/1.4.

 

I guess I'm going to have to sell all my lenses, because the same arguments can be made across other focal lengths and I generally have the fastest lenses, where slower lenses are available. I should buy summicrons given the current state of ISO technology, but when the next generation of cameras arrive with even better ISO then I should get elmarits? As you say, the 1.4 stop is "pointless".

 

We should ignore the fact that the advances in lense design over recent years means that it's never been a better time to shoot fast lenses? That statement isn't intended to take anything away from older lenses, which have there own character and drawing characteristics, it just that the new lenses are credited with less distortion etc.

 

I also need your help with artistic interpretation because indeed some very fine photographers do use tight DOF to isolate their subject, and are concerned with bokeh. It isn't the only approach, but it clearly differs from your approach. Does that make it wrong? What is wrong with people having choices, say that 1.4 gives you that 2.0 doesn't?

 

May I ask if you own the SL? M? S? What do you shoot? I only ask because you have suggested that anyone who owns an SL-50 (and presumably a Nocti? 50 Apo?) does so for vanity reasons. Nice to know if you say that from the position of someone who throws stones from inside or outside of the glasshouse.

Edited March 21, 2017 by phovsho

[IkarusJohn]

Hmm, so sell the 21, 28, 50 & 75 Summiluxes and the Noctilux, and instead buy the 21 SEM, 28 Elmarit, 50 & 75 Summarits?

 

Smaller, lighter, cheaper, and I get rid of all those useless expensive lenses that are ... vanity?  Took me a while to get those together.  Or, if I want another 50 to use with my SL, I should get a $7,800.00 APO Summicron instead of the cheaper, made for SL $5,300 50 Summilux-SL?

 

I guess the point is, if I wanted another 50 to use with my SL (I don't know, AF, weather sealing or just to have a lens which is made for the camera), I shouldn't get it because it resolves more than I need?  The people here who use the lens and whose opinion I value (that is not a slight, Greg - I like your photos) say that the AF is slower than the two zooms (as a pure matter of the amount of glass that needs to be moved), but it is fast enough and the results are stunning.  I haven't seen the lens, but that's what they say.

 

Certainly the photos give you the option of very crisp rendition, shallow depth of field and good bokeh (certainly as good as the APO 50 Summicron, if not the Noctilux and the 50 Summilux-M).  So what is wrong with this lens again?  I have no problem with its being able to out resolve the sensor, if that is your concern.  I rather like that with my lenses, as it generally means when I need to replace the camera, I don't need to replace the lenses.

 

PS - 50 Summilux-M ASPH is $3,800 ($4,000 in silver chrome and $4,400 in black chrome).  the 50 APO Summicron is over twice as much as the 50 Summilux-M, the SL version "only" $1,500 more than the standard M version ($900 more than the lovely black chrome version).

Edited March 21, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[geetee1972]

 

You are saying that there is no real place for 1.4 anymore because ISO makes fast lenses redundant. So in that case you are probably equally questioning of the m series of lenses, including the noctilux and Simmulux - you would advise the standard Summicron?

 

f/1.4 has two uses. It enables you to shoot subjects that are relatively far off, say 3.5m+ in very low light or it enables you to shoot subjects that are close to you and really blow out the background. If you're shooting portraits then anything other than dead on will result in half the face being out of focus so in reality, most people shooting portraits with a fast 50 will be stopping down to at least f/2. That leaves far off subjects in low light to justify the large aperture but that can be better solved with higher ISO capability.

 

I regret buying the Summilux over the Summicron. I bought the former because I lusted after the large aperture but in reality, from an aesthetic perspective, I never use it.

 

Don't even get me started on the Noctilux. That is about the most ridiculous proposition ever.

 

 

Presumably you would advise against the M apo 50 as well, since you suggest at a mere 24 mp you can't tell the difference in terms of IQ? Of course the APO 50 is also (way) more expensive than the SL50 and M50/1.4.

 

I would buy the 50 APO over the 50SL every day of the week because it's small and therefore less intimidating for the kind of photography I like. I can manual focus just fine and for me size is important. I can also zone focus with the 50 APO; you can't do that with the 50SL as a) it;s focus by wire (so I suspect it will rest to infinity whenever the camera is turned off and on - would be interesting to confirm this as I confess I don't know for sure) and there is no DOF scale. But the 50APO is still ludicrously expensive and while I have looked and wondered, really, it would be a stupid vanity purchase on my part. If I 'needed' that IQ, or indeed if I wanted it, I would be looking to add a digital back to my Hasselbald film camera (which by the way, kills my Leica/50 M Summilux on IQ every time).

 

 

I also need your help with artistic interpretation because indeed some very fine photographers do use tight DOF to isolate their subject, and are concerned with bokeh. It isn't the only approach, but it clearly differs from your approach. Does that make it wrong? What is wrong with people having choices, say that 1.4 gives you that 2.0 doesn't?

 

Yes this is true. This is a great example and one of my favourite photographers:

 

 

But, and this is really important, this isn't 35mm FF, it's not MF, it's not even digital. It's 4x5 film and that kills everything else in terms of IQ. My issue with super shallow DoF is that far too many people use it as a substitute for talent (myself included).

 

 

May I ask if you own the SL? M? S? What do you shoot? I only ask because you have suggested that anyone who owns an SL-50 (and presumably a Nocti? 50 Apo?) does so for vanity reasons. Nice to know if you say that from the position of someone who throws stones from inside or outside of the glasshouse.

 

I have the SL and the 50-Lux. My work is distinctly average but is open for all to see - http://www.tearsinrain.co.uk (that link is in my profile. I do not believe in glass houses and will take all criticisms not just with good grace but with relish. I genuinely want my work to be critiqued.

Edited March 21, 2017 by geetee1972

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ropo54]

24-90 

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!