thighslapper Posted December 29, 2016 Share #21 Posted December 29, 2016 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 .... Do you need it - depends on your wallet and specific preferences Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 Hi thighslapper, 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!
cpyu Posted December 29, 2016 Share #22 Posted December 29, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted December 29, 2016 Share #23 Posted December 29, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 29, 2016 Share #24 Posted December 29, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica1215 Posted December 30, 2016 Author Share #25 Posted December 30, 2016 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 More sharing options...
meerec Posted December 30, 2016 Share #26 Posted December 30, 2016 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 +1 Me too ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
38wadcutter Posted December 30, 2016 Share #27 Posted December 30, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) +1, Me too. Thanks, Mitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
horlogere Posted December 30, 2016 Share #28 Posted December 30, 2016 Here is a comparison with the M 50 Lux f1,4 and the SL 50 1,4. https://norbertwindecker.blogspot.de/2016/12/vergleich-leica-summilux-sl-11450-asph.html and my first impression https://norbertwindecker.blogspot.de/2016/12/erster-eindruck-first-impression-leica.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica1215 Posted December 31, 2016 Author Share #29 Posted December 31, 2016 Here is a comparison with the M 50 Lux f1,4 and the SL 50 1,4. https://norbertwindecker.blogspot.de/2016/12/vergleich-leica-summilux-sl-11450-asph.html and my first impression https://norbertwindecker.blogspot.de/2016/12/erster-eindruck-first-impression-leica.html 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 More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted December 31, 2016 Share #30 Posted December 31, 2016 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
horlogere Posted December 31, 2016 Share #31 Posted December 31, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted December 31, 2016 Share #32 Posted December 31, 2016 Well I'm super tempted now, going to have to wait a bit though.. I've only just bought the SL, 50mm 1.4 lm and 90-280mm... need to recover Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted December 31, 2016 Share #33 Posted December 31, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 31, 2016 Share #34 Posted December 31, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 31, 2016 Share #35 Posted December 31, 2016 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 More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted December 31, 2016 Share #36 Posted December 31, 2016 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! 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=3176693'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted December 31, 2016 Share #37 Posted December 31, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 2. 3. 4. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267776-please-convince-me-the-sl-5014-is-better-than-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=3176694'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted December 31, 2016 Share #38 Posted December 31, 2016 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. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 6. 7. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267776-please-convince-me-the-sl-5014-is-better-than-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=3176695'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted December 31, 2016 Share #39 Posted December 31, 2016 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 ...... Happy New Year ! ps ..... remember what Karbe stated about the 'enhanced 3d effect' of the new summilux SL ....... is it evident ?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica1215 Posted January 1, 2017 Author Share #40 Posted January 1, 2017 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.