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

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

isnt it cool we could use all those lenses on the SL?

[LocalHero1953]

If Leica will keep straight to their scheduled path, then we should very soon see the first Summicron SL 75 (offcial release in summer). Soon because they tend to show a few lenses before this date - as they did with the 90-280 and the 50. 

And soon afterwards the much expected Summicron SL 90 (official release autumn). 

Here again we have suddenly a "difficult choice" as it turns out we have three (four) options - that are maybe not equivalent, but all very attractive on their own ground.

+ Summicron SL 90 (or 75) as a lens with a special "thin" DoF (highly praised by Mr. Karbe). (A Summicron like a Summilux.) Quite small compared to the existing SL lenses.

+ Sigma 1.4/85 Art, with amazing AF speed on the Novoflex Canon AF adapter and excellent optical quality.

+ Nikon 1.4/105E. As big as the Summilux 50 (or bigger ?), focusing really well with the Novoflex Nikon AF adapter and highly praised for its outstanding IQ. (And currently a record holder).

A tough choice. Please convince me ...

What about collecting pics for comparison ?

Why do you need someone to tell you?

I'm going to wait and see - and decide for myself.

[wlaidlaw]

A Summicron 75 would be of much more interest to me than the Summilux 50 SL is. I find my Noctilux 0.95 works so well on the SL, that other than weather sealing, I can see no benefit from the Summilux SL for me. When using a lens like this wide open, I would want to focus manually anyway, so again the AF is of little benefit. I have a very early Summarit 75mm/f2.5, bought the week they came out and have never been terribly impressed with it, so would be very happy to P.Ex it for a 75/f2 SL. 

 

Wilson

[caissa]

I have finally received my SL 50. Now I can compare directly with the adapted EF 1.8/50 STM.

Size and weight is clear. The SL 50 fits well into the hand, but the 50STM with adapter is much lighter and shorter, although it does not fit very well. (Too small maybe ? Not a nice shape.)

The SL 50 is faster focusing - that means it is actually fast, but not as "instantaneous" as the 90-280. The 50 STM is about equal in focusing speed on the 5Ds as on the SL, which is not bad.

SL 50 produces a very low soft noise (sounds like the vibration of a stepper motor - humming softly). Almost unhearable for anybody but the photographer. The 50 STM is quite loud - just as many other Canon lenses. (loud is here relative)

I noticed the noise more on the SL than on the Canon 5Ds.

The 90-280 is also much more reliable when focusing. (I'd say 99% hit rate). The SL 50 and the 50 STM are both less reliable (3 hits out of 4). It could have to do with my preferred method of "single-point", which is perfect for the 90-280. For the 50mm lenses I should maybe change to "field". Will try in the following days.

The SL 50 needs some getting used to it. If the focus jump is too big it sometimes has a "hickup" and does not target anything. It needs first some help, a focus point close by, and then in the second step it focuses instantly.

 

The 50 STM is optically no match to the SL 50, but as an emergency lens it is quite acceptable. For the sunday afternoon walk it is probably preferable and a good alternative to a TL lens. When stopped down to 4 or 8 the difference is not that big anymore as the 50 STM is quite modern and well corrected.

For a specialist, bokeh is also no match (surprise), though the 50 STM also has a rounded iris (7 rounded blades) and bokeh is again good enough for the sunday walk.

 

The Sigma 50mm Art would probably be a much tougher match for the SL 50, but AF does not work with the Novoflex adapter. So it is handicapped, despite its optical quality. Same as the Otus 55. So the SL 50 is unmatched. 

 

Using the SL 50 in sunlight I made the first shots at 1/10000 with the electronic shutter. First I could not believe how quick and noiseless it is. Would be nice to get this also for lower speeds.

[caissa]

I continued shooting while the light was getting worse (from sunset into the night).

The SL 50 is still usable (it even seems to improve). I am sure I get more hits with AF than with manual focus in these dimly lit scenes. (and much faster).

While the 50STM is getting worse and gets very few hits in bad light. So it is mainly for using in sunshine (on a sunday walk). Too frustrating at night.

On the Canon 5Ds it works still very well at night (fast and mostly on target). While on the SL it is slow and often (most of the time) misses focus completely.

With the adapted lens I cannot change to field, only to auto (face detection) which is often not too helpful.

[caissa]

After using it several hours I am now soooo tired. 

Why did Zeiss have to start this whole story of the oversized Otus lenses with optimal resolution. The images are great - even in twilight or dimly lit bars. The colors are actually richer than what I see with the naked eye. So many details, simply great.

But it was much more fun with the old lenses. My old R 1.4/50 is weak compared at full aperture. I needed to stop down. But it was a game, while with the SL 50 it is tough work after a while. 

You really have to pay for the high quality.....

 

Strange but I can use the heavier SL 90-280 for a long time and do not feel so exhausted.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With any larger camera I have moved to sling straps and it really makes a huge difference after several hours. Just being able to let the camera hang at your side with the weight distributed across your body really helps.

 

The standard strap puts too much force downward on one side of your body. After a while I don't want to hang the camera and my hands get tired. No so with a sling. Also getting the camera up to your eye is still fast.

 

Gordon

[caissa]

It's difficult (impossible) to show the quality here, but anyway I show a few examples comparing a small part from a larger pic. (All taken with the SL).

The light is quite bad - a dull afternoon, a room with single window facing north. (only natural light).

I don't want to convince anybody. It is not possible with pics anyway. And yes, the pics look too dark here on the forum. They looked ok on my screen. Maybe it is because of the white default background of the forum.

 

This is the full image (a room with a lot of crap and full of details). No corrections of any sort, just taken from the default jpeg.

 

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!

[caissa]

EF 1.8/50 STM   f 2.2

 

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!

[caissa]

Summilux SL 50    f 1.4

 

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!

[caissa]

Summilux SL 50   f 2.2

 

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!

[caissa]

The EF 1.8/50 STM is sharp and bokeh is quite fine (here used at f 2.2). AF is fast with Novoflex AF adapter, but not always very precise. This is quite normal, but on a DSLR camera you typically notice it only when back at home. Sometimes manual correction is necessary.

This pic was without any sort of manual correction.

 

The Summilux-SL 50 is extremely sharp and contrasty already at f 1.4. Bokeh is much better than the EF lens (but probably not visible here). AF is fast (not lightning fast) and VERY precise. You never even think about manual correction.

SL 50 at f 2.2 is simply more of the good stuff. 

 

Summary for me: Both lenses are better than expected.  

[caissa]

Why is the quality of the pics not better ? Because more than 95% of the data is missing.

Starting with 6000x4000 pixels, this resulted in a jpeg of about 8-9 MB. Then I took the crop, resulting in a file of about 4.7MB size.

Then I needed to reduce the pixels (by at least 50% linearly) resulting in about 1.2MB and finally reduce the data to less than 500 KB.

The result is a pic with less than one quarter of the pixels of the crop and only about 300 KB of data.

 

Isn't it time to increase the file limits ? Reducing a foto with 24 MP or 37 MP (The 24 MP mean the raw file size is about 44.5 MB, I don't know the file sizes of the S camera, but probably more) to less than 1 MB (0.5 MB for normal users) is a reason not to post anything as it is not possible to show pics containing any details.

From 44.5 mb to less than 0.5MB means 99% of data is destroyed. Any iphone would produce equal or better results under these conditions. (Better because there is less reduction).

 

If allowing generally larger files is a problem, why not offer dedicated photo threads, which allow much larger limits. Anybody watching these threads would then know what to expect and have no reason to complain about the file sizes. Add a warning if necessary.

[thighslapper]

While I agree with the sentiment ...... until we all have very fast internet connections even large jpg's are a pain to view.

 

Also there is the issue of the forum servers ....... the small thumbnails on the photo forum were removes as they cause issues with server performance, so hosting and providing the images speedily is also a consideration. 

 

You can already link to a externally referenced image that exceeds the forum limits and although the forum moderators are aware of this ..... and occasionally warn about it, Andreas hasn't bothered to close the loophole ..... yet, anyway ....

[profus]

While I agree with the sentiment ...... until we all have very fast internet connections even large jpg's are a pain to view.

 

 

I hear this argument very often here. And I just don't get it! t is year 2017 and I cannot imagine, that the very same people buying one of the most expensive cameras in the world are

sitting behind 33.6k modem

Besides how fast internet connection should really be required?

[LocalHero1953]

I hear this argument very often here. And I just don't get it! t is year 2017 and I cannot imagine, that the very same people buying one of the most expensive cameras in the world are

sitting behind 33.6k modem

Besides how fast internet connection should really be required?

Some people view the forum on a smartphone (I do sometimes), and that can quickly eat up a monthly data download allowance. 

[profus]

Some people view the forum on a smartphone (I do sometimes), and that can quickly eat up a monthly data download allowance. 

I do sometimes, too. Sometimes. But more often than not, when using smartphone I am on wireless connection anyway.

Besides what's the point to view those image heavy topics in which eg. different lenses are compared on a smartphone sitting on the beach? Most of topics contain discussion only...

[LocalHero1953]

If I'm at home then I don't use my smartphone to view the LUF, even though it is connected to wifi at home - it is not often connected to wifi elsewhere.

 

The forum is not particularly rigorous about where photos are posted and where not, so it is difficult to avoid them.

 

In many cases, it is not important to assess a photo at maximum size and quality - it may be the subject matter or a low res 1:1 image that is of interest. So, yes, I often want to view images on my smartphone while not connected to wifi.

[profus]

We are all different. I practically do not see any reason to see images on my smartphone at all...

 

And I think most of the topics presenting images, comparing different lenses etc. are completely useless like it is at the moment - with this compression nobody

can see (almost) any difference anyway...

 

Also I do not really feel like wanting to upload my images anymore - they are often degraded to the level I don't want to accept.

 

Might also be a reason not so many good images to be found here?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

@profus, would you view images in full res if a link to an external gallery is provided here? I’ve read comments complaining about this as well. And back to topic, one of the major advantages of the SL50 over the Summilux-M to me is AF. When there is action it’s  needed. Wouldn’t have been able to take many of the photographs without it.