Images a little soft out of the SL using M lenses

nscali · January 15, 2016

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

I know this topic has been touched on briefly on another post but I though I would try to get more feedback on it.

My feeling is that when I use M lenses, and in my case I am particularly talking about the Summilux 35 and APO Summicron 50, the final images appear to be a little 'soft'.

When I say 'soft' I mean that compared to the result on the M240, they just seem to be a tad softer across the frame. I am not saying that they are not in focus, it just seems that the images need a lot more work in post to bring them out. If I use the lenses on the M240 and even the A7R mark 2, they seem to have a bit more 'bite' across the frame and I use less sharpening in Lightroom.

The SL still has more pop to the images compared to the A7R mark 2, but it is just this nagging feeling I have. When you focus in the viewfinder of the SL the sharpness is there, but when the file is written and you preview it back, there just appears to be this slight softness to the image. When I use the 24-90 I don't get the same issue. Also, it is not an issue of Aperture. The effect is there wether wide open or stopped down.

Sorry for the long winded post but it is difficult to explain. Let me stress, the images are not bad, or out of focus, it just seems they come out slightly softer. I was wondering if anyone else has experienced this.

Many thanks.

Nicky

January 15, 2016

Hi nscali,

Take a look here Images a little soft out of the SL using M lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!

ramarren · January 16, 2016

I've only used my M lenses on the SL for testing so far, and comparison to the R and SL lenses.

I also ran the tests with the M-P typ 240.

In my tests, I see virtually no differences in the output of the Elmar-M 24/3.8 ASPH, Summilux 35/1.4 v2, or Summarit-M 75/2.4 regardless of which body I use.

Jared · January 16, 2016

I haven't yet spent much time with my 35mm 'Lux FLE on the SL, but I have done a fair amount of shooting with the 50 APO and my experience is that the lens works just as well with the SL as it does with the M(240). I don't notice any additional softness, and I actually find I need to do less post processing with the SL files (thought that's mostly a combination of the more accurate metering than "classic" mode in the M(240) and what I feel is a more accurate color profile for the SL in Lightroom). I just haven't had an issue.

Nicky, are your comments based on field use or some bench testing you have done? It sounds like you're talking about real world use not tests you've run. Obviously, it's the real-world use that really matters, but it can make it a little harder to narrow down the root cause. For example, are the images where you've noticed the issue hand held or tripod mounted? Perhaps your technique is better with the M--you've likely had a lot more practice with it. Maybe you hold that camera more steadily. Maybe you are just better with the rangefinder at getting accurate focus rather than the focus aids on the SL. Maybe you are right and it's really a camera/lens issue. Hard to know without controlling the variables a bit better. I can say that my experience does not match yours, at least with the 50 APO. Again, I have taken only a few shots with my 35 on the SL so I wouldn't want to comment there.

- Jared

digitalfx · January 16, 2016

I love the M lenses on the SL, I rarely use the zoom. No issues with mine either, images look as good as the M240

Jared · January 16, 2016

Maybe this will reassure you a bit, Nicky? Or at least let you start looking for causes other than just the M lenses not being a good match for the SL...

Here is a quick picture I took for you this evening in my living room. I took this same picture with the 35mm Summilux-M FLE, the 50mm APO-Summicron-M, and the 24-90mm Vario-Elmarit set to both 35mm and 50mm. I shot the two M lenses on the M(240) and on the SL. I shot the Vario-Elmarit just on the SL, of course. All six photographs were taken with the camera mounted on a tripod. All six photographs were at base ISO, 50 on the SL and 200 on the M. The 35mm shots are all at f/2.8 (or just above for the Vario). The 50mm shots were all at f/4 (or just below for the Vario). That means the Vario was shot wide open, and the M lenses were shot one or two stops closed down. Diffraction is not an issue at these apertures. The framing for all six shots was approximately the same, but not quite identical. It's as close as I could get with a casual test.

The only corrections applied in Lightroom were to turn off all sharpening, set the white balance to "auto" in all of them, slightly reduce red and orange saturation for the M(240) shots--my standard--manually remove vignetting so that they were fairly evenly illuminated, and then tweak the "levels" so the brightness in the frame was about the same for all of them. You'll notice some glare and odd reflections from the SF 58 flash which was used to illuminate the image, but that shouldn't matter for the purpose of this illustration. The flash was bounced off the ceiling to soften the lighting a bit.

Here is the full image shrunk down for web display...