Jump to content

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


leica1215

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The info in the SL-Summilux 50/1.4 box states that all aberrations are completely corrected  - either optically or in the camera. 

 

The resolution far exceeds the capacity of the sensor to record it, so from an optical point of view there is zero to discuss ...... other lenses will be equal or worse in some respect or other. 

 

As far as I can see the only points worthy of discussion are :

 

Bokeh (seems fine)

AF - nil to compare with except with the existing zooms - it's accurate but slower

Size - a bit like using a noctilux on the SL - and in reality not as big as some suggest

Ergonomics - MF focussing is easy, flare resistance etc, even with no hood seems fine

Reliability/Fault rate - too early to tell

Value for money - you are buying Leica ...... clearly this means little to you otherwise you would have a Fuji ....  :rolleyes:

Do you need it - depends on your wallet and specific preferences

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All!

Why until now, there is not any official interview by Mr. Steven Huff, Mr. Jono Slack, Mingthien ... for:

- SL Summilux 50mm f1.4 review,

- Comparision of this len with other 50mm lens as M 50 Lux f1.4, M Apo 50 f2.0, Nocti 50 f0.95 ...

Thanks!

Please do not include Huff with Slack and Thein. Huff is ultra positive about the next best thing in every review so fans of gear end up happy. From my perspective they aren't reviews so much as advertising bait.

 

As to why there are few SL system reviews, it's likely due to the price, limited interest and limited market share. I love it but don't expect many reviews. Those we do see tend to be blog posts from fans of the gear or those who clearly dislike it.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

It gives you the precision of MF when working with very shallow depth of field with the convenience of AF. You pay for it in size and weight. No doubt the look is truly Leica. It's a pure joy to use the way the SL operates with its native lenses. So are M and R lenses on the SL but in a different way. 

Edited by Chaemono
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This lens is super sharp, whether in dim light or in bright sunlight. no flare even without the hood.

Very contrasty.

Focus speed is slower than the zooms.

Much cheaper than the APO M 50 IN Hong Kong.

This SL 50 is 2k USD cheaper than 50Apo in retail price, anyway would you mind to share the price in HK and where to buy in HK? Private message may be better. Thanks

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a quite bit differences, make me wonder if this is natural improvements from optics, or it kind of software corrected image done by leica?

If it's the latter then it's not worth to pay such high price for it

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a quite bit differences, make me wonder if this is natural improvements from optics, or it kind of software corrected image done by leica?

If it's the latter then it's not worth to pay such high price for it

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why? Isn't it the image as it opens in Lightroom that counts? I don't understand why digital corrections that provide a higher end image quality are inferior to optical only designs with lower IQ. Can you explain?

 

Gordon

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a quite bit differences, make me wonder if this is natural improvements from optics, or it kind of software corrected image done by leica?

If it's the latter then it's not worth to pay such high price for it

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You can open the dng files in Capture One Pro without software correction. There is not so much correcting. Its not possible to build a terrible optic and make it perfect only with software correction. And in the end, image quality counts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 I don't understand why digital corrections that provide a higher end image quality are inferior to optical only designs with lower IQ. Can you explain?

I suspect that the path to perfection is not the issue, it's the price of the lens. There is a perception, either rightly or wrongly (and I don't know which it is) that a software correction should work out a lot cheaper overall than engineering the hardware to perfection in the first place. People don't mind paying a lot of money for a lens that's got 200 hours of manufacturing time on it but they do mind if it's 10 hours of manufacturing plus a tiny share of the software development time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's an expensive lens and probably overpriced relative to Asian competition. I'm not sure, though, that it's overpriced relative to the design and engineering effort that went into it and relative to the high German labor costs.

 

On the digital corrections, one can remove the opcodes and compare but I'm not sure if Leica hides more corrections elsewhere.

 

This is optically an excellent lens despite having more distortion in the corners than one would like a 50 to have which is than corrected digitally. This leads to no deterioration in sharpness or resolution as far as I can tell. See here https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-C3jP8s/

 

This lens has very little purple fringing which is then entirely eliminated digitally. I have not even bothered to upload images with and without opcodes on this because it's hardly noticeable in the uncorrected DNGs unless Leica hides the corrections somewhere else.

 

This lens is uncorrected way sharper than the Apo Cron in the center on the SL. The digital corrections, however, do lead to some false color which is only noticeable in objects far in the distance and only if one zooms in 200% or more. I went out and did some comparisons with the Apo Cron today. See link below. The first image is the uncorrected Summulux-SL one followed by a crop. The second is the digitally corrected image followed by a crop. The third is with the Apo Cron. Ignore the EXIF data on that one. It says Summarit-M 2.4/50 and that it was taken at f/2.4. But it's the Apo shot wide open. All were taken with the same aperture and shutter speed using a tripod which was not moved. They are from unprocessed DNGs (default sharpening in LR turned off) either exported from LR or the Preview App. By the way, in case someone doubts that this is the Apo I have many more from today with the EXIF data showing the correct lens :)

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-XMbRqd/i-8G8Dsdn

 

I absolutely love this lens and love using it as it provides the precision of MF in very shallow depth of field and allows to operate fast and fluidly with the SL.

Edited by Chaemono
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's an expensive lens and probably overpriced relative to Asian competition. I'm not sure, though, that it's overpriced relative to the design and engineering effort that went into it and relative to the high German labor costs.

 

On the digital corrections, one can remove the opcodes and compare but I'm not sure if Leica hides more corrections elsewhere.

 

This is optically an excellent lens despite having more distortion in the corners than one would like a 50 to have which is than corrected digitally. This leads to no deterioration in sharpness or resolution as far as I can tell. See here https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-C3jP8s/

 

This lens has very little purple fringing which is then entirely eliminated digitally. I have not even bothered to upload images with and without opcodes on this because it's hardly noticeable in the uncorrected DNGs unless Leica hides the corrections somewhere else.

 

This lens is uncorrected way sharper than the Apo Cron in the center on the SL. The digital corrections, however, do lead to some false color which is only noticeable in objects far in the distance and only if one zooms in 200% or more. I went out and did some comparisons with the Apo Cron today. See link below. The first image is the uncorrected Summulux-SL one followed by a crop. The second is the digitally corrected image followed by a crop. The third is with the Apo Cron. Ignore the EXIF data on that one. It says Summarit-M 2.4/50 and that it was taken at f/2.4. But it's the Apo shot wide open. All were taken with the same aperture and shutter speed using a tripod which was not moved. They are from unprocessed DNGs (default sharpening in LR turned off) either exported from LR or the Preview App. By the way, in case someone doubts that this is the Apo I have many more from today with the EXIF data showing the correct lens :)

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-XMbRqd/i-8G8Dsdn

 

I absolutely love this lens and love using it as it provides the precision of MF in very shallow depth of field and allows to operate fast and fluidly with the SL.

I just realized that the false color also appears when the DNG is opened in C1 so it has nothing to do with the digital corrections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit surprised at some of the differences posted by others and do wonder about the repeatability of their methodology .......

 

I think with the majority of Leica lenses we are quibbling about very minor differences that make little real world difference.

 

I took some photos of the Xmas tree tonight with a variety of lenses ...... same focus point (manual), on tripod iso 50....

 

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!

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

these are 100% crops, sharpened the same amount but no other processing:


 


  1.

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!

   2.      

 


 


3.   4.


Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5.  

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!

  6.     7.  
Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

lenses were SL-50/1.4, Noctilux 0.95, Summilux 50/1.4 ... all at 1.4, apo 50/2, zeiss planar 50/2, 50/2.8 collapsible, 50/4 tri-elmar all wide open.

 

the crops are not in order ...... so you can have fun sorting them out ......  :D

 

Happy New Year ! 

 

ps ..... remember what Karbe  stated about the 'enhanced 3d effect' of the new summilux SL ....... is it evident ??  ;)

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Isn't it the image as it opens in Lightroom that counts? I don't understand why digital corrections that provide a higher end image quality are inferior to optical only designs with lower IQ. Can you explain?

 

Gordon

I think it is more like handmade watch is less precise than quartz, but people still prefer handmade one.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...