tom0511 Posted February 12, 2017 Share #101 Posted February 12, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) anybody knows if anywhere in Germany there is a 50/1.4SL in stock/available? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 Hi tom0511, 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!
geetee1972 Posted February 13, 2017 Share #102 Posted February 13, 2017 I spent a bit of time looking at all the sample images taken with the 50 Summilux SL and the only thing I think it does better than M 50 'lux is autofocus. Indeed, most of the sample images I've seen look awful regardless of what they are being compared to, but I'm prepared to put that down to the fact that the images are just garbage photography. A shit photo is still a shit photo even if it's taken with a stupidly expensive lens. In conclusion I'd suggest that £1280 is a lot to pay for an autofocus version of the M 50 'lux, especially when you also consider just how big the SL version is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meerec Posted February 13, 2017 Share #103 Posted February 13, 2017 I spent a bit of time looking at all the sample images taken with the 50 Summilux SL and the only thing I think it does better than M 50 'lux is autofocus. Indeed, most of the sample images I've seen look awful regardless of what they are being compared to, but I'm prepared to put that down to the fact that the images are just garbage photography. A shit photo is still a shit photo even if it's taken with a stupidly expensive lens. In conclusion I'd suggest that £1280 is a lot to pay for an autofocus version of the M 50 'lux, especially when you also consider just how big the SL version is. Are your numbers right? Did you mean £4,080 not £1,280 ? – that's a big mistake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted February 13, 2017 Share #104 Posted February 13, 2017 Are your numbers right? Did you mean £4,080 not £1,280 ? – that's a big mistake. Ah no, I meant that £1,280 is the marginal cost of the 50' lux SL over the manual focus M version. The M version costs £2800. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted February 13, 2017 Share #105 Posted February 13, 2017 Ah no, I meant that £1,280 is the marginal cost of the 50' lux SL over the manual focus M version. The M version costs £2800. Or a whole £2000, comparing mint used Leica-M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted February 13, 2017 Share #106 Posted February 13, 2017 Or a whole £2000, comparing mint used Leica-M Well quite and there's a lot less to go wrong with a manual focus lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted February 14, 2017 Share #107 Posted February 14, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I find autofocus can be quite usefull specially for shallow DOF/fast lenses to help accurate focus. With a manual lens it slows you down becaue you frame, focus, magnify, correct focus, switch back to full viewfinder, recheck framing, hope you havent changed distance or subject hasnt moved, shoot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted February 14, 2017 Share #108 Posted February 14, 2017 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 can see that. [emoji6] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoreserve Posted February 14, 2017 Share #109 Posted February 14, 2017 I find autofocus can be quite usefull specially for shallow DOF/fast lenses to help accurate focus. With a manual lens it slows you down becaue you frame, focus, magnify, correct focus, switch back to full viewfinder, recheck framing, hope you havent changed distance or subject hasnt moved, shoot. Exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica1215 Posted February 14, 2017 Author Share #110 Posted February 14, 2017 I actually wonder if 50apo is better than SL 50? Judge from price point there is almost 2k differences between sl50 and 50 APO ... so they both from leica , does it mean something Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted February 14, 2017 Share #111 Posted February 14, 2017 According to Leica's own MTF measurements, the Summilux-SL 50 mm Asph is even (slightly) better than the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph. This is hardly surprising, despite the Apo-Summicron-M's higher price, because it's much easier to make a good big lens than to make a good small lens (for the same angle-of-view and image circle diameter). Under the M lenses' size constraint, it's incredible how good the Apo-Summicron-M 50 mm Asph is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted February 14, 2017 Share #112 Posted February 14, 2017 I actually wonder if 50apo is better than SL 50? Judge from price point there is almost 2k differences between sl50 and 50 APO ... so they both from leica , does it mean something Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Often the types of glass used and the amount of precision needed in manufacturing are drivers of high costs. So because of its small size I assume the Apo50 needs more precision, and is maybe also produced with more extraordinary glass types (I do not know). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted February 14, 2017 Share #113 Posted February 14, 2017 This https://www.docma.info/blog/trends-im-objektivbau-dick-und-rund-na-und explains why current 50mm lenses are so big. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3D-D0T Posted February 16, 2017 Share #114 Posted February 16, 2017 This https://www.docma.info/blog/trends-im-objektivbau-dick-und-rund-na-und explains why current 50mm lenses are so big. http://imgur.com/9G6CKcE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richherzog Posted February 16, 2017 Share #115 Posted February 16, 2017 If auto focus isn't an absolute must, stay with the 50 lux. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted February 16, 2017 Share #116 Posted February 16, 2017 I find autofocus can be quite usefull specially for shallow DOF/fast lenses to help accurate focus. With a manual lens it slows you down becaue you frame, focus, magnify, correct focus, switch back to full viewfinder, recheck framing, hope you havent changed distance or subject hasnt moved, shoot. Sure but with an AF lens your first hope that you camera picks the right focusing point, then you have to correct it because innevitably it will get it wrong, so now you have to move the point to where you originally wanted it to focus except your subject has now moved so you have to move it again, then the camera focuses on the wrong bit or you get slight back or front focus and then maybe you end up with a decent picture. Alternatively you could just learn how to zone focus or just develop the skills/muscle memory to focus manually fast and acurately. I think most range finder shooters will tell you they can generally focus faster and more accurately than an AF can and focusing a narrow DoF with the SL is a cinch (and is one of the reasons I opted for it). I'm not saying AF doesn't have it's place because obvioulsy for sports and wildlife shooting it clearly does. I just don't see the vallue of it on a 50mm prime lens especially not one that costs £4k+. As for slowing you down, I'd say that was a good thing don't you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 16, 2017 Share #117 Posted February 16, 2017 Sure but with an AF lens your first hope that you camera picks the right focusing point, then you have to correct it because innevitably it will get it wrong, so now you have to move the point to where you originally wanted it to focus except your subject has now moved so you have to move it again, then the camera focuses on the wrong bit or you get slight back or front focus and then maybe you end up with a decent picture. I see your point but I would like to disagree. The way the SL operates you pick the right focusing point and don’t let the camera do it. Works like a charm and fast enough with the SL 50 even with moving subjects. Please, look at the picture of the gull that spreads its wings and the horse moving in the link below. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-ghS8qq/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted February 16, 2017 Share #118 Posted February 16, 2017 Sure but with an AF lens your first hope that you camera picks the right focusing point, then you have to correct it because innevitably it will get it wrong, so now you have to move the point to where you originally wanted it to focus except your subject has now moved so you have to move it again, then the camera focuses on the wrong bit or you get slight back or front focus and then maybe you end up with a decent picture. Alternatively you could just learn how to zone focus or just develop the skills/muscle memory to focus manually fast and acurately. I think most range finder shooters will tell you they can generally focus faster and more accurately than an AF can and focusing a narrow DoF with the SL is a cinch (and is one of the reasons I opted for it). I'm not saying AF doesn't have it's place because obvioulsy for sports and wildlife shooting it clearly does. I just don't see the vallue of it on a 50mm prime lens especially not one that costs £4k+. As for slowing you down, I'd say that was a good thing don't you think? With the SL its easy to move the focus point around where you want it. Or you can use face detection. Nothing against slowing down for some things, but there are also times where you want to catch the moment. Zone focusing maybe works for stepped down wide angle , but not for a fast standard lens. Manual focus works for many things, but one reason for me to get the SL was to have autofocus. Having accurate AF on a 50/1.4 lens allows me to play with shallow DOF more often without having fear that focus is off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted February 16, 2017 Share #119 Posted February 16, 2017 AF is really useful for 90-280 mm. For the wider lenses (WATE, 28) I usually prefer manual focus. 50mm is just in the middle - often manual is good enough, but just as often AF is really helpful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted February 16, 2017 Share #120 Posted February 16, 2017 I assume everybody has to decide on his own what way of focusing works better. If I manually focus a 50 I prefer to use the Leica M with rangefinder, since I dont like switching forth and back to magnification. Exception are lenses like the Noctilux 1.0 where focus shift makes it difficult to reliably focus it on the M. The faster the lens and the longer the focal length the more usefull I find AF. No question the price (and size) of the 50 SL is high. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.