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

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hadn't looked at the prices of Leica 50s in a while. I must say, I'm surprised - the SL version isn't as expensive as I thought it might be:

 

- Summicron-M $2,200.00

- Summilux-M ASPH $3,800.00 (I'd pay the $600 premium for the black chrome version)

- Summilux-SL $5,000.00

- APO-Summicron-M $7,800.00

- Noctilux-M $10,650.00

- Summicron-C PL Mount $14,500.00

- Summilx-C PL Mount. $33,200.00

 

The SL & M Summiluxes don't look too bad at all by Leica standards. My Noctilux looks like a bargain compared to the PL mount lenses!

Edited February 16, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[01af]

If auto focus isn't an absolute must, stay with the 50 lux.

 

Yeah. Sure.

[Advertisement]

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

[tom0511]

By the way..I havent compared the 50lux (M) and the 50 Summicrons on the SL but on the M I prefer the Summicrons.

If I was shooting manual focus lens on the SL it would probably be the 50 Summicron R. I find the size fits well to the SL-body and it has a shorter minimum focusing distance than the M versions.

[geetee1972]

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/

I'm looking at your shots and the only image where AF played any part is that one of the seagull. If you're happy spending an extra 50% more than the price of what is already one of, if not the, best 50mm lenses available in order to end up with a lens that is three times the size and mass so that you can take pictures of seagulls then sure I think the choice makes sense.

[tom0511]

I'm looking at your shots and the only image where AF played any part is that one of the seagull. If you're happy spending an extra 50% more than the price of what is already one of, if not the, best 50mm lenses available in order to end up with a lens that is three times the size and mass so that you can take pictures of seagulls then sure I think the choice makes sense.

 

 

The price of the 50/1.4asph M is 3550 Euro, the price of the 50/1.4 SL lens is 4800 Euro, thats not 50% more, its 35%.

The M 50/1.4asph is without a doubt a great lens, but I believe many would disagree to say it is the best 50mm.

Besides AF you also get a weather sealed lens when using the SL version, you also get a shorter minimum focusing distance, and a newer optical formula which I would expect to leead to even better performance. If this all this is important for the user/worth the 35% is another question and might depend a lot on the subjects we like to shoot.

I have seen many many images shot with fast prime lenses like the Noctilux or also 50/1.4 that are very slightly out of focus that I would believe that I personally can benefit from AF in such a lens.

[Chaemono]

I'm looking at your shots and the only image where AF played any part is that one of the seagull. If you're happy spending an extra 50% more than the price of what is already one of, if not the, best 50mm lenses available in order to end up with a lens that is three times the size and mass so that you can take pictures of seagulls then sure I think the choice makes sense.

You are absolutely right. None of them needed AF except the one with the seagull and who cares about it. I was just making the point that by using the joystick to move the focus point around one can operate fast and fluidly and focus accurately with a very fast lens in situations where it’s needed. It was just in response to your comment that with an AF lens one lets the camera pick the focus point first and that may slow one down. This is not the case. By the way, I spent the money on that lens because it’s a lot of joy to use it. So are M lenses with the SL but in a different way and I don’t own the 50 Summilux-M.

[dancook]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been using my 50mm 1.4 Leica-M for Weddings, live music, events some of which pictured here http://www.danielcook.com/

 

I'm still seriously considering the 50SL, when it comes to things like kids running round or even just people moving towards you, MF can be tricky @ 1.4

[profus]

I've been using my 50mm 1.4 Leica-M for Weddings, live music, events some of which pictured here http://www.danielcook.com/

 

 

Nice images, thanks for sharing. Just not really possible to see which of them are taken using 50 M Lux...

[tom0511]

by the way in the german part of the forum there is a thread with sample images from both the M 50/1.4 amd the SL 50/1.4 - that threads indicates some clear differences between those 2 lenses.

[dancook]

Nice images, thanks for sharing. Just not really possible to see which of them are taken using 50 M Lux...

 

Thanks, for whalefest, bronte, gtopen mic sessions it's the same kind environment for which I interchanged use of the Leica Q, 50mm 1.4 Leica-M  90-280mm SL - not to focus on any image in particular

 

lakuta was all the 50mm

[jrp]

by the way in the german part of the forum there is a thread with sample images from both the M 50/1.4 amd the SL 50/1.4 - that threads indicates some clear differences between those 2 lenses.

Yes, but those images show the M lens to be literally unbelievably bad.  It isn't so.   The M lens is one of the best 50mm f1.4 that you can buy.  It's just that the recent 50mm 1.4 giant lenses are a touch better in some circumstances.  Arguably not enough to offset the weight / bulk difference.

[tom0511]

Yes, but those images show the M lens to be literally unbelievably bad.  It isn't so.   The M lens is one of the best 50mm f1.4 that you can buy.  It's just that the recent 50mm 1.4 giant lenses are a touch better in some circumstances.  Arguably not enough to offset the weight / bulk difference.

 

Yes, sometimes 100% pixel peeping doesnt have too much to do with real world photography.

Even though - like I said before - I have prefered both the Summicron 50 and the SummicronAPO 50 over the Summilux 50/1.4 asph on the M type 240 in regards of color and rendering and handling.

[jrp]

Well in this case the M samples look so rough that something else must be going on (eg, bad sample), so no pixel peeping is required.

[steppenw0lf]

Why don't you simply add examples how great your 1.4/50 renders images. Instead of doubting the tests of another person (which is quite unfriendly and not giving any new insights.)

If you look at the test then you see that "by accident"/by chance the two "worst case scenarios" for the 1.4/50 were selected. So I am not too surprised that it does not produce better results under those circumstances. (that are easily to be avoided by an experienced user).

 

So please add more info (e.g. test images) and stop telling stories about bad samples (how would you know, were you involved in any of the tests ?). How many 1.4/50 lenses do you own, or have access to, that you know about the likelihood of bad samples ? What do you know about the tolerances and possible differences between lenses (that Leica quality control tries to keep as low as possible) ?

Please add to the information in this thread - and not to the confusion by talking about things completely unsubstantiated.

 

 

Finally - if you think that both lenses should produce equal results, then have a look at the corresponding MTF graphs. Are they equal or at least very similar ? Not at all (in my eyes). Conclusion ?

Is the M 1.4/50 a bad lens (as some suggested here) ? Certainly not, but it makes sense to know its properties and to use it under the best circumstances (like most other lenses, with the exception of some unusual apo corrected lenses that always produce optimal IQ).   (The apo50 and the SL 50 belong for me in this category, as the macro R 100, the SL 90-280, the Apo R 180 and 280, maybe also the M 35 AA and the M 28 (all three 28 are great))

Edited February 21, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[geetee1972]

 

Finally - if you think that both lenses should produce equal results, then have a look at the corresponding MTF graphs. Are they equal or at least very similar ? Not at all (in my eyes). Conclusion ?

Conclusion: MTF graphs are utterly pointless and without any value to photography. They add nothing other than satisfying an almost fetishistic desire for information by photographers who are only interested in gear and know nothing about truth, beauty or love. If you need to look at an MTF graph in order to decide what (vastly expensive) lens to buy, you've got no business buying an expensive lens.

[steppenw0lf]

Yes, they are not really that useful, so I usually do not care much about them. But if they are different for two lenses, then it is quite unlikely that the results will be identical.

That's all I tried to show. All the rest is fine and more important for good images. 

Your feelings are ok just as anybody elses. So we cannot fight about the feelings for these lenses (at least we should not).  

And you should consider more carefully what you write: Nobody said that "nothing but MTF matters" - that is your invention. And the opposite ("MTF is pointless) is also not a valid conclusion.

At the same time I try to keep my eyes open and look at EVERYTHING - feelings AND facts (even if the facts include an MTF graph).

Relying only on feelings, while there are also facts ready to use, makes little sense to me. (I try not to ignore anything).

 

 

P.S: my budget is very limited so I very carefully consider the lenses to buy (only added the 90-280 to the SL up until now). So we agree completely on this. Leica helps saving money, by only very reluctantly developing new lenses ...  

Edited February 21, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[jrp]

Why don't you simply add examples how great your 1.4/50 renders images. Instead of doubting the tests of another person (which is quite unfriendly and not giving any new insights.)

If you look at the test then you see that "by accident"/by chance the two "worst case scenarios" for the 1.4/50 were selected. So I am not too surprised that it does not produce better results under those circumstances. (that are easily to be avoided by an experienced user).

 

So please add more info (e.g. test images) and stop telling stories about bad samples (how would you know, were you involved in any of the tests ?). How many 1.4/50 lenses do you own, or have access to, that you know about the likelihood of bad samples ? What do you know about the tolerances and possible differences between lenses (that Leica quality control tries to keep as low as possible) ?

Please add to the information in this thread - and not to the confusion by talking about things completely unsubstantiated.

 

I don't want to be unfriendly to anyone, but at this stage, the M 50mm Summilux is a known quantity: there are plenty of tests, samples, etc, around.  Those shown by that tester do not accord with my experience, or other images that I have seen.  I have no idea why.

 

Yes, the newer bigger lenses can be better, technically.   The 50mm SL Summilux has remarkable contrast centrally, wide open.  Whether that, and the difference in the way that the lenses render, eg, the backgrounds, and the importance of AF, and the price difference, make the SL lens better make the additional bulk worth it is a matter for the user.

 

This Erwin Puts article comparing the M Summilux with the Otus has some perspective on the trade-offs: http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/styled-45/ 

[dancook]

Putting my 50mm 1.4 ASPH up for sale now, will get the Sl version as soon as I can.. Quick before my next wedding

[dancook]

Any suggestions on UK retailers?

 

Can't find actual stock, and half the retailers I spoke to don't really know when they would get stock.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

Any suggestions on UK retailers?

 

Can't find actual stock, and half the retailers I spoke to don't really know when they would get stock.

 

Even in Germany most dealers don't know when they'll get stock and Leica ships one unit at a time, it seems. Also, my dealer told me that for every lens he sells he receives two new orders.

 

I bet you'll get more keepers with the SL version of the 50 Lux at weddings and it'll be a very enjoyable experience as this lens is such a joy to use with the SL.

 

Below, I've done some quick comparisons today between the M10 with the 50 Apo Cron and the SL with the 50 Lux-SL shot at f/2.0 using the same ISO and shutter speed. I've included crops just so that you get an idea how sharp in combination with the SL this lens is. Also, it seems because it has a larger diameter it lets more light in than the 50mm Apo Cron. I know that sounds wrong. In theory a larger lens barrel shouldn't make a difference how much light gets in. For the same focal length, 50mm in this case, the aperture is all that matters. But I've consistently observed that the 50 Lux-SL pictures are brighter for a given ISO and shutter speed. Look at pictures 9 & 10, both from the SL. They are both at ISO 400,  1/30, f/2.0 and exported out of LR with no adjustments except the LR default ones. No. 9 is with the 50 Apo Cron, No. 10 with the 50 Lux-SL. In fact, for all of these I’ve only adjusted WB mostly on the SL images and tweaked exposure a bit to match. The first picture in a set is from the M10 with the Apo, the second from the SL with the Lux-SL. One can tell by the file names which is which. 

 

Here's a link to a gallery with low res versions for people using cell phones on slow networks: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-3GHC93/

 

 

And here's a link to full resolution versions: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-qQNkHJ

Edited February 24, 2017 by Chaemono