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

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

90/2 is a completely different proposition ....... correcting aberrations is easier and the mobile component possibly lighter and easier/quicker to shift ..... plus the image will probably be more contrasty so AF may be easier to implement.

 

I have a feeling Leica made the AF 50/1.4 more as a reference lens to prove what they could achieve rather than the sensible compromises used in the 2 zooms. 

[LocalHero1953]

Let's hope so.

[steppenw0lf]

90/2 is a completely different proposition ....... correcting aberrations is easier and the mobile component possibly lighter and easier/quicker to shift ..... plus the image will probably be more contrasty so AF may be easier to implement.

 

I have a feeling Leica made the AF 50/1.4 more as a reference lens to prove what they could achieve rather than the sensible compromises used in the 2 zooms. 

 

I am always suspicious if I read the term "reference" anywhere. Usually it comes at a cost - often flexibility, here maybe speed.

I prefer "ordinary" lenses. And the 2/90 specs are rather "ordinary" so hopefully  closer to the performance of the zooms.

Too bad that they did not tell more about the next 5 lenses (on the roadmaps) in the meantime. I would really like to know when an 2/28 is going to arrive, or a "ordinary" 50/60mm, hopefully a macro lens.

[Chaemono]

I would guess the M10 and SL are display differing sensitivities at the same rated ISO to explain what you're seeing.

 

To confirm simply shoot the M lens on the SL with the same exposure settings as the SL lens.

 

Also you could test both lenses at something like f8 to confirm you're not simply seeing less vignetting with the SL lens.

 

This may sound like a stupid question but does Exposure Compensation in A mode and a fixed ISO affect any other parameter than shutter speed? The reason I'm asking is that in picture 9 in this link https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-3GHC93/ EV is at -0.6. The picture is clearly darker than No 10, also in the center, even though all the settings are the same and both lenses have the same focal length and the camera is the same. Could it affect the sensitivity of the sensor somehow without affecting ISO? Also look at the two pictures in this link https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-6VGVBr/i-hBxk9Md. Same camera, same lens, same ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. But the second one shows +0.3 EV and is clearly brighter. They were taken almost two minutes apart and light didn't change. Would appreciate your feedback.

[steppenw0lf]

Will I regret the purchase I do wonder.. The latest complaints about the Af seem to escalate..

 

Wanted to use it for weddings, during indoor stuff. 90-280 for outdoor and Q for close quarters

 

I don't understand your worries. You were able to get results with a manual lens. So you will certainly get good results with the AF lens.

In the worst case use AF only for pre-focusing and manual corrections for the rest. 

 

If you want to get rid of it - I buy it at half-price  

[dancook]

I don't understand your worries. You were able to get results with a manual lens. So you will certainly get good results with the AF lens.

In the worst case use AF only for pre-focusing and manual corrections for the rest. 

 

If you want to get rid of it - I buy it at half-price  

 

More concern than worry, i will sell it if it's no good but not half price

 

If the AF was so bad, MF on a proper manual focus lens could actually be superior

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If the AF was so bad, MF on a proper manual focus lens could actually be superior

 

My guess is you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[tom0511]

I received my copy 1 week ago. Af hunts a little more than I had guessed/hoped. However I believe I am still quite a bit faster and more accurate than manual focus.

Plus you allways have the option for manual focus. Comparad to manual lenses you have the advantage that you focus the lens wide open and it automatically steps down for the image, or if you want you can stop down manually fpr focusing to see DOF.

The lens is big but still handles nice on the SL. For my intended use AF is a clear advantage in regards of focus accurany and speed.

Other than that it looks like its exceptionally good even wide open.

[IkarusJohn]

Having two M mount 50s, I had pretty much given up on the idea of getting this lens.

 

What may change my mind is seeing the future lenses - the wide zoom and the Summicron primes.  I loved the Nikon wide zoom I had (14-24 f/2.8), so the 16-35 zoom could be interesting.  Once things settle down a bit, the choices may become clearer.  For primes, the 75 Summicron might be a more attractive choice than the 50 Summilux; I'd hold out for a 28 or 24 Summicron, though I think ...

[tom0511]

Having two M mount 50s, I had pretty much given up on the idea of getting this lens.

 

What may change my mind is seeing the future lenses - the wide zoom and the Summicron primes.  I loved the Nikon wide zoom I had (14-24 f/2.8), so the 16-35 zoom could be interesting.  Once things settle down a bit, the choices may become clearer.  For primes, the 75 Summicron might be a more attractive choice than the 50 Summilux; I'd hold out for a 28 or 24 Summicron, though I think ...

 

I wish more primes coming faster to market. On the other side the 24-90 is so good that the main reason for primes for me would be speed for low light or shallow DOF (or smaller size lenses)

[IkarusJohn]

I wish more primes coming faster to market. On the other side the 24-90 is so good that the main reason for primes for me would be speed for low light or shallow DOF (or smaller size lenses)

 

 

Why did we always prefer primes?  Before moving to Leica with the M9, I used that 14-24 zoom a lot (it was my only AF lens) but mostly at the wide end.  I had a mid-range zoom, with macro function (35-85?) which to be honest was a bit average, and the fabulous 180/2.8 IFED.  I found that I used the wide zoom and telephoto the most, not really taking much in the range 24 to 180, which seems very odd in retrospect.

 

Primes were viewed (rightly or wrongly) as better optically, they were faster and generally more compact.  I'd also have to say that having a few good primes, and moving around to get the shot you wanted, seemed to appeal more than staying put, 1.85 metres off the ground and framing the shot using a zoom - somehow, that didn't seem good enough.  With the M system, I haven't missed zooms for a minute ...

 

I hope Leica is sparing in releasing Summiluxes for the SL - perhaps 28 to add to the 50 and leave it at that?  Then develop the f/2 Summicrons to new focal lengths - 24mm & 120mm macro? - and f/2.8 Elmarits 16, 21, 180, 280 & 400?

 

No point in huge fast teles or fast wides, so the Summiluxes don't need to extend beyond the mid-range of 28 to 75 (35mm Noct as a trophy lens?), the Summicrons can cover a wider range, and the Elmarits the ultra wide and long tele range.  It will be interesting to see where it all gets to - perhaps they will be inspired by some of the favourite focal lengths of the R lenses?

 

PS - obviously the 280 & 400 teles would need to be F/4 & 5.6 to keep size and cost under control.

[ropo54]

I wish more primes coming faster to market. On the other side the 24-90 is so good that the main reason for primes for me would be speed for low light or shallow DOF (or smaller size lenses)

 

 

Smaller sizes would add a whole new dimension to the versatility of the SL 601. 

[IkarusJohn]

It's rather a shame you can't tell the relative sizes of the new primes against the existing three lenses.

[phovsho]

I love the M 21/1.4 for environmental portraits. Whilst it sits well on the SL body and the EVF helps with framing, I am struggling a bit with focusing at 1.4 where the subject is off centre. A firmware update where the focus point doesn't revert to the centre of the frame would be really helpful. An AF SL would be even better at least conceptually - but I wonder how big and heavy that thing might be. And if the sl crons have depth of field profiles wide open more like an M 1.4 - my interpretation of an interview I read with a Leica designer - then maybe a Sl-21 cron will get me to where I want to be. But a 21 / 2.8 wouldn't offer the speed and tight DOF that makes the M 21/1.4 special to me.

 

Best

 

M

[phovsho]

A concern I have with the viability of the SL platform is that the lens sales disappoint Leica, and they move away from investing in the SL platform.

I don't know the stats but I wouldn't be surprised if for every Leica M body sold Leica sells between 1-3 new M lenses to the average new owner over the next few years. In contrast, the number of SL owners without SL lenses seems pretty high - many using it as a platform for their M lenses. A good number have bought at least 1 zoom. It appears to me that many are questioning the SL -50 as being too big or having slowish AF. This is all anecdotal on my part.

Anyways, I'm hoping the next wave of AF lenses for the SL are really compelling. On paper I don't really need another zoom or cron fixed focal lenses in the 35 - 90 range. But I'm hoping the reviews suggest these lenses offer a step change in IQ performance (like the M 50 APO did), and have effective AF and weather proofing, so that I'm willing to take the jump despite potential size issues.

If this is true, then I hope they start selling like hot cakes. This will also give me the added confidence I need in the ongoing viability of the SL system and I can commit more fully too it. One fear I have with the SL - 50, at this time, is if I buy it and the SL system proves unsustainable for Leica then I have a lens with very little resale in 3-5 years time. But if I buy the M 50 Apo I know I will be able to sell it easily and maybe even make some money (experience I've had with other Ms). And despite all the reviews I still can't tell whether the Sl-50s images are a step up over the M APO! Lol.  In such an uncertain world my head tells me I should be buying the M 50 APO for the SL and not the native lens.   

[LD_50]

As far as long term viability goes, the compelling aspect of the M lenses is they are completely manual and therefore adaptable to any system. SL lenses will never have that legacy support or adaptability so will never have that value retention. M lenses are also the smallest high quality FF lenses you can find for any system. The SL lenses are very similar in size and weight to every other FF system's lenses and therefore just won't be as desireable.

 

I do hope Leica builds out the SL system so I can have a complete system of high quality AF lenses. Resale doesn't have anything to do with it. You're better off investing in something other than camera gear, and stick to the gear that works for your photography at the same time.

[phovsho]

LD_50

 

I agree with everything you say.  

 

One point though - I don't see camera gear as an investment.  However, I am still concerned with future resale values, as I like the flexibility to chop and change, and that has certainly proven to be less painful when it comes time to sell an M lens than pretty much any other piece of camera kit (particularly M digital bodies).   If SL lenses are going to have significantly higher depreciation than M lens, then its another reason why I might stay away from them.  AF and weather proofing are both nice to haves but not essential to my shooting, certainly less important than the financial flexibility provided by good resale value to make trying new gear more affordable.

[IkarusJohn]

Resale on SL lenses is, at best, speculative.

[johnbuckley]

I own the SL 50 Summilux, along with the two zooms. I don't regret the purchase of any of the lenses. However, I am dealing with the new phenomenon that the M10 with its upgraded EVF makes me take back my pledge to use the Nocti only with the SL from now on. But let's be clear about all three of these SL lenses: each, in its own way, is awesome. If you like or need autofocus, if your work doesn't depend on the M's small-size advantage, these are all tremendous lenses.

 

The 50 is amazing in use, though I wish it were smaller. None of these lenses is likely to depreciate much for one big reason: scarcity. And I'm not worried about Leica losing faith in coming out with more lenses. Everything they are communicating says that they view the SL -- accurately -- as an entry level professional system that appeals to those who don't need, or can't afford, the S.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tom0511]

...... Everything they are communicating says that they view the SL -- accurately -- as an entry level professional system that appeals to those who don't need, or can't afford, the S.

 

or to those who want a faster and more flexible camera for sports and action and occasional use of manual lenses. I see the SL as a very good companion for those who do own a S camera. Same user interface and menues, so SL could also be a backup for the S, plus for those days when you want a Telezoom, faster AF, or if you want f1.4.

Lenses like the 50/1.4 SL let the SL-IQ come closer to the S-IQ (while the larger sensor still has its advantages)