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

[Joshua Lowe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

I can't tell if it's coma or motion blur from the foliage moving with a breeze.

[scott kirkpatrick]

If you look at the mechanical drawing, the SX 50 SL has three elements that have to move and they move over a distance  that looks significant, so I don't think that this or the focusing motor is going to change.  But we'll see.

 

scott

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jmahto]

I can't tell if it's coma or motion blur from the foliage moving with a breeze.

I tried to look closely again in flickr (the largest size is not that big unfortunately and hard to tell) and it seems that there is a difference in focus point between the pictures. Combine that with curvature and what I am calling coma could very much be a slightly out of focus rendering. This is why I consider web sized samples next to useless in drawing any conclusion.

[anickpick]

These pictures don't tell anything.

There has been too much post work (and more of it in the Summilux picture).

Also, in the Apo Summicron picture, the focus is behind the scene. You can see that the left side of the frame is the sharpest. The central part is already blurred, the right side very much so. This effect of DOF can be expected.

In the Summilux picture, everything is sharp. Even considering DOF, I still think this is strange. Probably some post work with contrast/sharpness.

[leica1215]

Any comparison with 24-90 with prime lens? Really wonder the differences.... thanks

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steppenw0lf]

As the 24-90 is at a level typical for prime lenses, do not expect too much of a difference. The 24-90 is actually a big achievement.

It is like the Apo50: There is a difference, but it is only visible at VERY big enlargements.

So on a computer screen, fully zoomed in it will be visible. But in "real" pictures nothing will be visible.

 

You probably like pixel peeping, but after so many years it gets boring (for me) ....  and I am actually quite glad that general IQ is now so high that this is not crucial anymore.       

 

Remember that a portrait of 5 or 6 MP printed in decent size (A4) is usually regarded as a perfect image (there are many examples from earlier times with the M8 or even with the Digilux2 camera.)

This is about the quality level needed for websites, or catalogues or the typical high-gloss brochures.

No wonder that a D4 or 1Dx had only a 16 MP sensor - it was ample for almost all business needs. And as far as I know this is also about the resolution you get from an analogue film (12 to 16 MP from the best).

 

 

The 24-90 being so well constructed (regarding IQ), I am really keen on seeing the IQ of the upcoming 16-35. The current 17-35 and 16-35 (from CaNikon) still have a lot of optical flaws - easily visible with only the smallest zoom-in. So it will be very interesting if the SL 16-35 will be on a level like the other two SL zooms.

Edited January 6, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[dancook]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Happened to be testing the sharpness of the 50mm 1.4 Leica-M ASPH this morning

 

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!

 

2.8

[dancook]

and like it probably doesn't matter 90mm @ 2.8 from the 90-280mm

 

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!

Edited January 6, 2017 by dancook

[meerec]

and like it probably doesn't matter 90mm @ 2.8 from the 90-280mm

 

L1150847.JPG

To me the door is equally sharp in the last two, probably because both are shot at 2.8 aperture. LOL

Overall I think they are all equally sharp, however the first shot has the shallowest DOF. In that image at f/1.4 seems the,focus point was on the lower eye-lashes and the rest of the eye is soft given the DOF.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

 

The 90/280 is much sharper

[dancook]

I was making the point that the example here showing the M vs the SL is perfectly valid, and the sharpness is evident

 

[JamesBarry]

50 M at 1.4 with minor LR edit - just an example of how 'sharp' this lens is at distance.  It is however, for me, the overall 'look' that matters.  

 

I am predominantly a portrait photographer so families, children etc, and although I ideally try to get the eye (s) 'sharp'... again, it is the overall look of this lens which grabs the client.  I have the SL 24-90 which is great for its flexibility but to achieve that look; the 50 M is the one for me at the moment... 

 

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!

[JamesBarry]

with the 50 M @ 1.4 - face is out of focus (almost my first pic taken with SL!) but the overall 'look'...

 

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!

[steppenw0lf]

Sorry, but is there no consent that sharpness depends not on the lens and is usually not important for deciding about the quality of an image ?

And that this forum with its tiny images is the worst place to compare "sharpness" ...

 

What are we doing/discussing/comparing here ???????                 

Edited January 7, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[meerec]

Sorry, but is there no consent that sharpness depends not on the lens and is usually not important for deciding about the quality of an image ?

And that this forum with its tiny images is the worst place to compare "sharpness" ...

 

What are we doing/discussing/comparing here ???????                 

You're showing your Swiss sense of humour today ;-)

[jrp]

For those that want to see some APO 50mm M lens shots, here is a collection (not mine). https://explorecams.com/photos/pair/leica-sl-typ-601=apo-summicron-m-1-2-50-asph

 

Pictures with the zooms, and a whole bunch of other camera/lens combos are also available.

[JonPB]

In my opinion, this is like trying to compare peaty Islay whisky versus "old"-vine Napa Zinfandel wine. You've got to determine criteria for judgment before setting about determining which is better, but you could also just forgo criteria and enjoy any or all of 'em for what they are.

 

Cheers,

Jon

[otho]

In my opinion, this is like trying to compare peaty Islay whisky versus "old"-vine Napa Zinfandel wine. You've got to determine criteria for judgment before setting about determining which is better, but you could also just forgo criteria and enjoy any or all of 'em for what they are.

 

Cheers,

Jon

BTW, whisky & photo:

http://www.coolhunting.com/culture/the-macallan-masters-of-photography-elliott-erwitt

Edited February 7, 2017 by otho

[steppenw0lf]

and like it probably doesn't matter 90mm @ 2.8 from the 90-280mm

 

L1150847.JPG

 

Glad you added this - I simply like it best. 90 or 100 mm always seems a very attractive focal length.

And there are not so many fights about which 90mm is "sharpest" (as in the 50mm).  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[leica1215]

I have just had chance to try the SL50 for the first time, the AF is not that slow as I have read somewhere in the forum, but ability to focus from far and switch to close distance is a bit hunt.... as well as when contrast is not obvious then it has a bit difficulty to get in focus fast enough.... I still try to convince myself the SL 50 is worth to get... lol. I have not able to compare the IQ, so can't tell much... but I don't find M lens on SL easier to focus vs the M...or should I say not faster compare when I use M... in the mean time I also tried the new M10, the shutter sound solid well build than the 240 m-p. If the IQ is as good as the SL , then I will go back to the M.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk