Jump to content

Please convince me the SL 50/1.4 is better than summilux


leica1215

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 366
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Below, I've done some quick comparisons today between the M10 with the 50 Apo Cron and the SL with the 50 Lux-SL shot at f/2.0 using the same ISO and shutter speed. I've included crops just so that you get an idea how sharp in combination with the SL this lens is. Also, it seems because it has a larger diameter it lets more light in than the 50mm Apo Cron. I know that sounds wrong. In theory a larger lens barrel shouldn't make a difference how much light gets in. For the same focal length, 50mm in this case, the aperture is all that matters. But I've consistently observed that the 50 Lux-SL pictures are brighter for a given ISO and shutter speed. Look at pictures 9 & 10, both from the SL. They are both at ISO 400, 1/30, f/2.0 and exported out of LR with no adjustments except the LR default ones. No. 9 is with the 50 Apo Cron, No. 10 with the 50 Lux-SL. In fact, for all of these I’ve only adjusted WB mostly on the SL images and tweaked exposure a bit to match. The first picture in a set is from the M10 with the Apo, the second from the SL with the Lux-SL. One can tell by the file names which is which.

 

 

I would guess the M10 and SL are display differing sensitivities at the same rated ISO to explain what you're seeing.

 

To confirm simply shoot the M lens on the SL with the same exposure settings as the SL lens.

 

Also you could test both lenses at something like f8 to confirm you're not simply seeing less vignetting with the SL lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess the M10 and SL are display differing sensitivities at the same rated ISO to explain what you're seeing.

 

To confirm simply shoot the M lens on the SL with the same exposure settings as the SL lens.

 

Also you could test both lenses at something like f8 to confirm you're not simply seeing less vignetting with the SL lens.

 

Will try both at f8 to check. But just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, picture No. 9 is the M lens on the SL at ISO 400, 1/30, f2. Picture No. 10 is the Lux-SL with the same settings. The EXIF Data is included and the files can be downloaded. 11 and 12 are center crops of 9 and 10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more from today comparing the M10 with the Apo Cron and the SL with the Lux-SL. These are at different shutter speeds though. The first three are from the M10 the last five from the SL (see files names). Low res versions for people with cell phones on slow networks in this link: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-mxqLrW/

Hi Chaemono!

I saw image 1 vs 3 and feel that combo M10 & M Apo 50 is sharper than SL 601 & SL 50 Lux!

Have an nice day!

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not agree at all. I regard both as about equal. (in "sharpness" or rather contrast)

Good that it is scientifically clear that "sharpness" is no objective criterion for quality (just a matter of the "sharpening" algorithm applied).

The main difference between the two images is that the aperture blades of the Apo50 form a nice circle (because it is wide open, so formed by the lens barrel), while in the SL 50 they form a polygon. Which makes out of focus highlights look slightly "worse". In my eyes just an extremely tiny difference.

The SL 50 seems to produce "cooler" colors - again just the slightest difference. 

 

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't tell much differences, but price apo vs sl50 and weight is rather obvious, I went leica store couple days ago, they told me that the slowness of the sl50 most likely not going to change by software upgrade, factory told that is due to the 1.4 aperture in order to get precise focus it just take extra seconds to get in focus.... I also learn the the S lens focus speed is even slower than 24-90 about same speed like the sl50, so I guess for the pro market maybe the speed of Af is not prime concern.... now a bit confused what AF can benefit when shooting, especially the add on weight

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not agree at all. I regard both as about equal. (in "sharpness" or rather contrast)

Good that it is scientifically clear that "sharpness" is no objective criterion for quality (just a matter of the "sharpening" algorithm applied).

The main difference between the two images is that the aperture blades of the Apo50 form a nice circle (because it is wide open, so formed by the lens barrel), while in the SL 50 they form a polygon. Which makes out of focus highlights look slightly "worse". In my eyes just an extremely tiny difference.

The SL 50 seems to produce "cooler" colors - again just the slightest difference.

 

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/

Hi Steppenw0lf!

Yes, combo SL 601 & SL 50 Lux looks "cooler" color, not pure Leica render (IOM). It is my concern.

I have SL 601, SL 24-90/ ASPH, M Apo 50 and M 75 Lux v3. I may to get more M10 to couple with M Apo 50. And I will keep SL 601 to play with SL 24-90/ASPH and M 75 lux.

Have a nice day!

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall .... someone was after some portrait shots .......here are a couple from last week ....... I have more but they are jumbled up with 90-280/24-90 photos and will need sifting though.

 

The lens is unflatteringly sharp even at 1.4 (with my default sharpening, which is probably too much for portraiture but gives you an idea of the detail the lens is capable of resolving)

 

I wouldn't use this lens at 1/f speeds ...... 1/80 is the minimum to ensure no camera shake ...... and that's with someone who can get consistently in focus images at sub 1/30 speeds with 50's on the M. I eventually set it permanently to 1/2f

 

Also, although AF is accurate and reasonably fast, combined with f1.4 this combo is quite intolerant of subject movement. I used f1.4 almost exclusively both to test the lens and as weather and light was awful (storm Doris plus the heating in this cavernous old Hall was broken), but otherwise I would stick to f2.8. 

 

All my best shots on the day were with the 90-280........ OIS almost negates the advantage of f1.4 and the longer focal lengths give the same subject isolation.  I am increasingly unsure as to the place of the SL 50/1.4 in my pile of Leica lenses ...... the 50/2 asph and Noctilux 0.95 offer similar results and almost as easily. If AF on this lens was as lightning fast and accurate as the 90-280 I might think differently.

 

Images at iso 50 and 1/80 and 1/100 ....... crop is 100%

 

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

It is excellent within it's limitations ...... if you are using 50's manually with no problem then I can't see there will be much of an issue. 

 

All the problems I noticed were with head and shoulder shots at 1.4 and other pesky photographers telling Mariam to move ..... aggravated by my tendency to lock focus and recompose rather than nudging the focus point about..... lots of nearly but not quite shots. 

 

To be honest close up portraiture at f1.4 is asking for trouble unless you can nail the subjects ears to the wall. 

 

Like every lens/camera combo there are some issues where you need to modify your habits to compensate ...... and to be honest I haven't used this lens enough to get the hang of it and work out what I can and can't get away with. 

 

Both the zooms are very forgiving lenses in comparison, which is probably why this lens seems a bit disappointing ....... but there again my initial hit rate with the Nocti 0.95 on the M was abysmal till I tuned in to its peculiarities. 

 

ps. one thing I did notice is the very delicate unobtrusive background rendering  ....... very different to shots taken by others on the same day, and one thing that may persuade me to persist with it .....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Minerva.  A comparison of the wide open Noctilux and the wide open 50mm SL Summilux.  The latter is a bit sharper (as expected) and the background is a bit more blown out with the former.  Not a scientific test (hand held, etc) but the exposures are the same, but only a bit of the same sharpening, clarity and vibrance added.

 

32970363952_c890d0bdd8_k.jpg20170225-164147_L1080947.jpg

 

32999703731_2f6b26eb08_k.jpg20170225-163803_L1080941.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm following experiences with the 50SL with interest, as a likely customer for the 90 Summicron SL. I would use it for portraiture; of course the 90-280 gives nearly the same maximum aperture, and perhaps a more practical one, and it has OIS, but a smaller/lighter portrait lens is attractive.

 

But I am concerned about the slow AF in the 50SL - if repeated in the 90SL that would reduce my interest considerably. I don't mind manual focus with the M240 and 90 Summicron-M; I have my coping mechanisms such as swaying forward and back if I actually want a razor thin focus zone. But I don't want to wait while exactly the right fleeting expression appears and then disappears while AF is catching up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...