AlexP Posted March 13, 2017 Share #261 Posted March 13, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have sigma 50 art as well but AF not working at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 Hi AlexP, Take a look here Please convince me the SL 50/1.4 is better than summilux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
leica1215 Posted March 13, 2017 Author Share #262 Posted March 13, 2017 Simpler, quicker, and usually cheaper going direct to Wetzlar ... I have send my black paint lens to Leica Wetzlar recently, their response is fast and service time window for turn around is about 3 month which is consider good, but the technician at repair facility is not okay, my black paint come back with ding on it ( no scratches though) I guess they some how use clamp to remove parts and clamp too hard left ding on it, I didn't bother to claim anything, just sold it at no loss.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowBelly Posted March 13, 2017 Share #263 Posted March 13, 2017 1/2 a stop. And after 5 copies of the 50L I decided I couldn't live with the focus shift and moved to Leica. Sorry. Not a fan. Focus shift from 1.4 till f5.6. Buckets of CA wide open. Corners are mush till f8. Maybe the Nikon 58mm might be interesting? Or the Sigma Art in EF mount? Gordon I have the 58mm 1.2 ais noct, 50 0.95 noctilux plus both sl 50mm and 50mm M Asph. I'm really enjoying using the 58mm noct on the SL it's far better on focusing and seems to shine in all other aspects on the Leica as compared to the 800e. I was not enjoying it much with Nikon as focusing never felt right! I've never used the new 58mm Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica1215 Posted March 13, 2017 Author Share #264 Posted March 13, 2017 I took 2 pictures from SL 50 and 24-90 for comparison, I am not pro, so parameter might not be as good as others, both shot at handheld, speed 100, iso 400, can you tell which is which? for me I really think they are so close from what I see. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267776-please-convince-me-the-sl-5014-is-better-than-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=3232528'>More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted March 13, 2017 Share #265 Posted March 13, 2017 I never found the canon 50/1.2 that fast on my 5diii. Do you feel its faster than the 50sl on the sl? Rendering is quite different imo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexP Posted March 13, 2017 Share #266 Posted March 13, 2017 I never found the canon 50/1.2 that fast on my 5diii. Do you feel its faster than the 50sl on the sl? Rendering is quite different imo yes. It is faster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexP Posted March 13, 2017 Share #267 Posted March 13, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I took 2 pictures from SL 50 and 24-90 for comparison, I am not pro, so parameter might not be as good as others, both shot at handheld, speed 100, iso 400, can you tell which is which? for me I really think they are so close from what I see. bottom is 24-90? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 13, 2017 Share #268 Posted March 13, 2017 I took 2 pictures from SL 50 and 24-90 for comparison, I am not pro, so parameter might not be as good as others, both shot at handheld, speed 100, iso 400, can you tell which is which? for me I really think they are so close from what I see. No, the bottom one is the Summilux 50 SL. the raised lettering on the red dot is resolved a bit better. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted March 14, 2017 Share #269 Posted March 14, 2017 No, the bottom one is the Summilux 50 SL. the raised lettering on the red dot is resolved a bit better. scott But the bottom picture is more in focus - see the word "SOFORT". Such comparisons are notoriously difficult to set up and the results are usually highly suspect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica1215 Posted March 14, 2017 Author Share #270 Posted March 14, 2017 yes Peter, especially when I am just not pro in this respect at all, these two pictures are almost 200% crop, anyway, the focus point is the red dot, and sure..... the second one is using the 50SL, it is a bit sharper than 24-90 but at almost 200% crop. and color rendering is identical to my eyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted March 14, 2017 Share #271 Posted March 14, 2017 For my taste the 24-90 is a very good lens and I am happy to use it at all f-stops and all focal lengths. The point of the 50/1.4 for me is more the f1.4-f3.5 range. If yo shoot the same scene at ISO 1600 or 6400 you might see more differences, or ISO 6400 vs 25000. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted March 14, 2017 Share #272 Posted March 14, 2017 yes Peter, especially when I am just not pro in this respect at all, these two pictures are almost 200% crop, anyway, the focus point is the red dot, and sure..... the second one is using the 50SL, it is a bit sharper than 24-90 but at almost 200% crop. and color rendering is identical to my eyes. Yes, but how does the zoom do at f1.4? (see someone had to do it? ) With lenses like the 50SL 'lux you're paying to push into just another few % of optical improvement or a small difference in the way a lens draws or a difference in DOF. Sometimes, depending on lots of factors, you won't see it. Sometimes you will. It's up to the user as to whether the extra 5% of speed and IQ improvements are worth it over the zoom. And there are many times when the zoom is the better choice. Some people will appreciate the subtle differences in rendering between the zoom and the 'lux. Some people will appreciate the shallower DOF or faster speed. Some people just like primes. The rest get to save 5 grand. Gordon Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted March 14, 2017 Share #273 Posted March 14, 2017 The ISO advantage for low light photography is significant to me, lower iso means a higher dynamic range, better colours and cleaner image. Or even being in a range where I can still freeze movement in dim light scenarios without worrying about too low shutter speeds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted March 14, 2017 Share #274 Posted March 14, 2017 Also on the SL Lux vs Leica-M Lux I often use shutter priority with auto ISO, I like to use the minimum shutter I can get away with for each shot (constant switch between action and stationary) to keep the ISO low - and then if I step outside, or face a window - instead of racing into the 1/8000th shutter speeds.. the aperture will change to balance the exposure instead. You cannot do this with the manual lenses on the SL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted March 16, 2017 Share #275 Posted March 16, 2017 It may be that the 50SL is sharper, at the same aperture, than the zoom, though the MTF figures suggest otherwise - but the pictures as published are as much about the focusing accuracy of the system as they are of either lens. In terms of distortion etc. it's impossible to say because of the very capable software manipulation of the sensor data which is built into the SL. It follows that the test can at best be described as a comparison of two systems with the only difference being the lens. To conduct a meaningful test, assuming controlled lighting etc., the way to do it is to have a means of accurately moving the camera by small increments over a reasonable range. A series of images is then taken with the camera moved about the indicated focus point. At about 1.5 metre subject distance, certainly nothing less, a range of plus and minus 10cm in 1 cm steps should be sufficient. The camera must be locked in manual focus with OIS set to off. Exposure is best controlled by using a studio flash. Obviously the focal length setting of the zoom must not be changed - easily done by mistake! It's vital to have some indication in the image of the test conditions such as lens and position of the camera relative to the assumed focus point. The DNGs must be processed identically regarding sharpening etc. and care taken to preserve the resolution by being very careful about any settings for the crop tool. Using the visually sharpest image from each series it might be instructive to see if applying a small amount of sharpening improves the visual appearance. Processing them for posting on the forum is whole other subject. Good luck - the result would be of interest to many forum members - but the fact remains that the 24-90 lens is going to be hard to better within its aperture range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 16, 2017 Share #276 Posted March 16, 2017 Since several months I am convinced the SL 50 is the best lens. Since several months I wait for the lens ... In the meantime I used the Summicron - it is a wonderful lens, but it is has no AF ... I had enough. Tried instead the cheapest of the cheapest EOS lenses. The adaptor is expensive, but ... Maybe it is not as sharp wide open. But I have it now, yes, really now. And modern primes are quite perfect, from any brand. Hard to believe, but I have a small, rather fast AF lens. And I like the results. See here if you think quality is unacceptable. https://www.flickr.com/groups/ef50stm/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted March 17, 2017 Share #277 Posted March 17, 2017 Further to my previous post there is a useful method of determining which of several images of an Identical subject is the sharpest. It's a bit tedious but it works. Convert the Tiff files derived from the DNGs to 8bit and then save as a Jpeg with the highest quality setting, i.e. normally 12. Examine the size of the resulting files with File Explorer, or similar. The Image which generates the largest file is the sharpest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 17, 2017 Share #278 Posted March 17, 2017 Further to my previous post there is a useful method of determining which of several images of an Identical subject is the sharpest. It's a bit tedious but it works. Convert the Tiff files derived from the DNGs to 8bit and then save as a Jpeg with the highest quality setting, i.e. normally 12. Examine the size of the resulting files with File Explorer, or similar. The Image which generates the largest file is the sharpest. Jpegs get bigger when there is more detail, whether or not the detail is real or artifact. Noise, faithfully rendered, can make JPEGs grow in size, too. So although we like to say that the size of a compressed file (a .zip, for example) is a measure of how much information the file contains, that information may not have come from the original object that was being photographed. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted March 17, 2017 Share #279 Posted March 17, 2017 Jpegs get bigger when there is more detail, whether or not the detail is real or artifact. Noise, faithfully rendered, can make JPEGs grow in size, too. So although we like to say that the size of a compressed file (a .zip, for example) is a measure of how much information the file contains, that information may not have come from the original object that was being photographed. scott What you write is absolutely correct. However in the limited circumstances which pertain in the procedure to make a comparison between lenses in the manner I described then the problem of noise etc. should not arise. I accept that I should have been more specific about having a constant ISO, but comparisons between lenses need to be made at the same aperture, which in the case of two Leica lenses is very likely to men equal illumination of the sensor. The real risk is in the processing of the image DNG, which I think I made clear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted March 17, 2017 Share #280 Posted March 17, 2017 AF has been much better when I went from spot to field. Spot focussing anything the face it would hunt, I would have to opt for the collar to get focus. Shooting children running towards me or perhaps walking is a no go, which is a shame... As long as I keep the leica q at hand for fast stuff I can make it work for weddings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.