thighslapper Posted January 3, 2017 Share #61 Posted January 3, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jared ..... from my experience, so far, your MTF assumptions are borne out in practice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 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!
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted January 3, 2017 Share #62 Posted January 3, 2017 Looking at the MTF charts is definitely interesting. Based purely on Leica's published data, not based at all on real-world results, here is what I would expect from the Summilux-SL 50: - Acutance should be very high on the new 'Lux-SL, even wide open, all the way to the edge. It is significantly higher than the 'Lux-M, especially in the corners. It is even a bit higher than the 'Cron-M APO at the center of the field when both lenses are shot wide open, and that's giving the 'Cron-M APO a full stop head start. - Resolution in the center of the field is excellent, exceeding even the 'Cron-M APO wide open. By f/2.8 they are comparable. However, there is a fair amount of off axis astigmatism in the new 'Lux which degrades the resolution as you move away from the center of the field. The 'Cron-M APO does not share this characteristic, and should have better off axis resolution at comparable f-stops. The 'Lux-M is not in the same league as the other two in terms of pure resolution. - I agree that the 50mm APO is the closer competitor. The new 'Lux is much better than the 'Lux-M which was already one heck of a lens. - When compared to the 50mm APO, both acutance and resolution are slightly higher in the new 'Lux on axis, but the APO does not have the astigmatism of the 'Lux so the APO should be a touch better in resolution off-axis at comparable f-stops. The APO is essentially perfect across the entire field at f/4 (just starting to show diffraction at f/5.6), while the 'Lux-SL is only perfect in the central 50% or so of the field. The 'Lux, of course, is a full stop faster. Obviously, this is all based PURELY on the MTF graphs, so it won't account for handling, throughput, sample variation, flare resistance, bokeh, color cast, etc.. There is only so much you can learn from a set of MTF charts, and even then you don't know how close actual lenses are to producing the results seen in the charts. Still, it can give you a general idea what you might expect. On paper, the lens should be capable easily out-resolving the sensor in the SL, even at f/1.4, at the center of the field. Looks like a great lens if you don't mind the cost, size, and weight. Obviously, the only way to know for sure if it will meet YOUR particular requirements is to try one out. It's good enough on paper, though, that I suspect you'd need absolutely perfect technique to find its limitations--tripod mounted, shutter delay, perfect focus, etc. - Jared - Jared From what I see ....... there's a whole lot of waffle and no pictures. The proof is in the pudding so please post pictures to prove your theory as when i look at pictures they usually don't come with MTF charts and the likes........ it's just a picture and one can make there own mind up if there sharp have CV or any other defiohsy Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted January 3, 2017 Share #63 Posted January 3, 2017 Here are a couple. They were not taken at quite the same time and were hand held. The APO Summicron (first image) is, of course, a stop shy of the Summilux, so we have an ISO 560 v ISO 1600 comparison. 20161216-163203_L1050631.jpg 20161216-162306_L1050621.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted January 3, 2017 Share #64 Posted January 3, 2017 Here are a couple. They were not taken at quite the same time and were hand held. The APO Summicron (first image) is, of course, a stop shy of the Summilux, so we have an ISO 560 v ISO 1600 comparison. 20161216-163203_L1050631.jpg 20161216-162306_L1050621.jpg Fantastic thanks for the pictures..... in my eye the sumerlux shines here............. saying that they are both not good examples when one is comparing pictures. I think at the end of the day it all boils down to what one likes and not giving a sh!t what anyone else thinks........ at the end of the day it's just a picture not a partner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted January 3, 2017 Share #65 Posted January 3, 2017 Well indeed. But I haven't got any pictures that compare the subject isolation / bokeh (which the MTF charts don't help with). I dare say that in some cases the lens may last longer than the partner -- we are talking Leica after all :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anickpick Posted January 3, 2017 Share #66 Posted January 3, 2017 how is it that the SL Summilux image is sharp across the whole frame? At 1.4 one would expect some parts of the image blurred... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted January 3, 2017 Share #67 Posted January 3, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can't remember where I focused, but the Exif is certainly f1.4. The Summicron says f3.5, although it would have been at f2. Both at 1/90s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anickpick Posted January 3, 2017 Share #68 Posted January 3, 2017 perspective is strange too - the lines are not realistic with a 50mm when the photos were taken from the ground. you certainly did some post work here. also the tree on the upper left is gone in the Summilux photo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted January 3, 2017 Share #69 Posted January 3, 2017 Yes, I applied the same Lightroom perspective correction to both images (as per my normal workflow for buildings). I may well have not stood at exactly the same spot when taking the images. (I was looking to see how the lights were treated, rather than sharpness or rendering.) Sorry, but this was the nearest comparison that I could find. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 3, 2017 Share #70 Posted January 3, 2017 mmmmm ..... I'm wary of shots like this ....... exposure is not the same ...... if handheld then even a tiny bit of camera shake can make an enormous difference ...... and ISO differences also influence the degree of sharpening you can employ. as for the comment on everything being in focus despite using f1.4 ....... I noticed the same thing with this photo from the 50/1.4 images thread ...... 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! .... but I think it has more to do with the inherently higher microcontrast giving an illusion of sharpness ....... at 100% it is clear that the church and clock are OOF .... although the whole frame looks ok at first glance...... plus the OOF rendering has a particularly unobtrusive quality so it just isn't as noticeable. The true plane of focus is the pub sign. having said that ....... with the camera on 1.4 the display shows that with a focus point at 53m everything from 34m to infinity is in focus Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! .... but I think it has more to do with the inherently higher microcontrast giving an illusion of sharpness ....... at 100% it is clear that the church and clock are OOF .... although the whole frame looks ok at first glance...... plus the OOF rendering has a particularly unobtrusive quality so it just isn't as noticeable. The true plane of focus is the pub sign. having said that ....... with the camera on 1.4 the display shows that with a focus point at 53m everything from 34m to infinity is in focus ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267776-please-convince-me-the-sl-5014-is-better-than-summilux/?do=findComment&comment=3178326'>More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted January 3, 2017 Share #71 Posted January 3, 2017 Depth of field at f/1.4 and large distances is deceiving. Leica no longer posts depth of field tables for their SL lenses, but if you look at the table for the SX-50 M, at f/1.4, the official depth of field extends from 48m to infinity when the lens if focused on infinity. But here the lens is probably focused on the doorway, which appears to be about 40 m away from the camera. So I would guess that from 20 or 30 m to 80 m or about the width of the building would be reasonably sharp, even at f/1.4. But there is some magic in apparent depth of field for these Karbe lenses. See also this shot taken at a reasonably large distance along a canal at f/1.4, and also apparently sharp all along the building fronts: (not mine, along the river in Tuebingen, posted earlier from a shared DNG): https://flic.kr/p/PVYbWe and you will see the same effect. Part of it may be that apparent sharpness is always greater behind the point of focus than in front of it. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted January 3, 2017 Share #72 Posted January 3, 2017 ....having said that ....... with the camera on 1.4 the display shows that with a focus point at 53m everything from 34m to infinity is in focus Aha! The DOF tables are now in the 2.2 firmware of the SL itself, and can be read on the top panel LCD! Can you see what distance is hyperfocal at f/1.4, 2, and maybe 5.6 and what the near end of the sharp range is at each? The hyperfocal distance will be the closest you can set manual focus to and still see infinity at the far extreme that is in focus. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anickpick Posted January 3, 2017 Share #73 Posted January 3, 2017 Thanks, you are most certainly right about the DOF effect at such distances. However, I thought that the higher microcontrast of the SL Summilux at the point of focus and the very sudden reduction of contrast in front and past the point of focus would result in a more 3D look (a clearer distinction between sharp and unsharp perceived areas). So far I am not so sure whether I like the oof rendering of the Summilux SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 3, 2017 Share #74 Posted January 3, 2017 f number near focus point back 1.4 34m 53m infinity 2.0 27 44 infinity 4.0 15 26 infinity 5.6 11 20 infinity Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 3, 2017 Share #75 Posted January 3, 2017 Thanks, you are most certainly right about the DOF effect at such distances. However, I thought that the higher microcontrast of the SL Summilux at the point of focus and the very sudden reduction of contrast in front and past the point of focus would result in a more 3D look (a clearer distinction between sharp and unsharp perceived areas). So far I am not so sure whether I like the oof rendering of the Summilux SL. you cannot completely defy the laws of optics ....... and this is a 50mm lens with a maximum aperture of 1.4 ....... not a noctilux. anyway, I think this indicates precisely what Karbe was alluding to ....... but obviously you are only going to get this effect at closer distances ...... which is exactly why I posted this originally ... 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=3178359'>More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted January 3, 2017 Share #76 Posted January 3, 2017 f number near focus point back 1.4 34m 53m infinity 2.0 39 88 infinity 4.0 15 26 infinity 5.6 11 20 infinity Thanks. Very interesting. Data point at f/2.0 probably needs rechecking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 3, 2017 Share #77 Posted January 3, 2017 ooops .... corrected now... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 3, 2017 Share #78 Posted January 3, 2017 Here are a couple. They were not taken at quite the same time and were hand held. The APO Summicron (first image) is, of course, a stop shy of the Summilux, so we have an ISO 560 v ISO 1600 comparison. 20161216-163203_L1050631.jpg 20161216-162306_L1050621.jpg Something is strange. The first picture (using 50 APO Cron) has lots of coma in the left and right bottom corner (look at the point lights). Second picture (Using SL 50) has virtually no coma and it is one stop wider !! That means it is technically much better than 50APO. Someone correct my observation here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donzo98 Posted January 3, 2017 Share #79 Posted January 3, 2017 Something is strange. The first picture (using 50 APO Cron) has lots of coma in the left and right bottom corner (look at the point lights). Second picture (Using SL 50) has virtually no coma and it is one stop wider !! That means it is technically much better than 50APO. Someone correct my observation here. Agreed... the bulbs in the bottom left/right in shot 1 look like like lines as compared to points in shot 2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica1215 Posted January 4, 2017 Author Share #80 Posted January 4, 2017 It looks like the SL 1.4 is a really good lens, I read somewhere said the AF is slower than the 24-90 and the 90-280 is the fastest. Is it the 1.4 noticeably slower? Do u think later software update can improve this? 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.