Ivar B Posted February 6, 2017 Share #1 Posted February 6, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sean Reid just published a very thorough and interesting review of the Summilux 50mm for the SL. It appears to be a spectacular lens, albeit in need of some aid from software corrections to eliminate certain aberrations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 Hi Ivar B, Take a look here Sean Reid has just published an extensive review of SL 50. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kikouyou Posted February 6, 2017 Share #2 Posted February 6, 2017 We need him to do a comparison with the Summicron APO M and possibly with the Noct for the out of focus rendering. I really like his reviews which are very factual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donzo98 Posted February 7, 2017 Share #3 Posted February 7, 2017 Sean Reid just published a very thorough and interesting review of the Summilux 50mm for the SL. It appears to be a spectacular lens, albeit in need of some aid from software corrections to eliminate certain aberrations. Is there a link?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 7, 2017 Share #4 Posted February 7, 2017 The link is ReidReviews.com (subscription site). I was pleased to see that Sean Reid agrees that software corrections should be optional in software like Lightroom. Let the photographer choose. Like many photographers who photograph people, Sean knows that a little barrel distortion is sometimes desired, such as where the subject is a group of people that fill the frame. Lenses that are well corrected actually distort the shapes of faces near the edge of the frame, creating a less natural appearance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 7, 2017 Share #5 Posted February 7, 2017 I think Leica's position is very clear: if you want a lens corrected optimally by the present day hybrid process you will find it in the digitally advanced camera systems, if you want the best lens corrected by legacy design, it will be in the legacy M system Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 7, 2017 Share #6 Posted February 7, 2017 That may be Leica's position, but it's not the optimal position for photographers of people. Digital correction should be an option, not a requirement. One of the great things about digital is the fantastic degree of control it gives to photographers via various software tools. Leica should not take away a tool, especially when there is a compelling visual reason to keep it. Glad to see Sean Reid supports this concept. Leica can change their position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 7, 2017 Share #7 Posted February 7, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) That may be Leica's position, but it's not the optimal position for photographers of people. Digital correction should be an option, not a requirement. One of the great things about digital is the fantastic degree of control it gives to photographers via various software tools. Leica should not take away a tool, especially when there is a compelling visual reason to keep it. Glad to see Sean Reid supports this concept. Leica can change their position. I suppose you unscrew elements from your Leica M lenses in order to increase your control over the picture captured by the lens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 7, 2017 Share #8 Posted February 7, 2017 I suppose you unscrew elements from your Leica M lenses in order to increase your control over the picture captured by the lens? Sean Reid understands what I'm talking about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 7, 2017 Share #9 Posted February 7, 2017 Sean Reid understands what I'm talking about. So do I. It's only that the request is not reasonable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anickpick Posted February 7, 2017 Share #10 Posted February 7, 2017 Sean Reid just published a very thorough and interesting review of the Summilux 50mm for the SL. It appears to be a spectacular lens, albeit in need of some aid from software corrections to eliminate certain aberrations. I am surprised by the weak edge/corner performance at f1.4, f2 and f2.8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted February 7, 2017 Share #11 Posted February 7, 2017 That may be Leica's position, but it's not the optimal position for photographers of people. Digital correction should be an option, not a requirement. One of the great things about digital is the fantastic degree of control it gives to photographers via various software tools. Leica should not take away a tool, especially when there is a compelling visual reason to keep it. Glad to see Sean Reid supports this concept. Leica can change their position. You don't have to use LR .... there are other developers that will allow you to view and use the uncorrected files. You have the option already ..... Leica is interested in producing images for the 99% that want them to be as good as possible, not the 1% who want to switch off digital correction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 7, 2017 Share #12 Posted February 7, 2017 You don't have to use LR .... there are other developers that will allow you to view and use the uncorrected files. You have the option already ..... Leica is interested in producing images for the 99% that want them to be as good as possible, not the 1% who want to switch off digital correction. "99%" is a number you just pulled out of your hat. Why make up numbers like that? "As good as possible" has a different meaning when photographing a group of people that fill the frame. Anyone who has looked can see that a little barrel distortion looks better when the subject is people filling the frame. For people near the edge of the frame, full digital correction produces distorted heads. In other words, it creates an unpleasant artifact, often a worse picture. This is a fact. It's not even debatable. Sean Reid knows this. Some people don't. I realize there are alternatives to Lightroom, but I feel that it's an important practical and philosophical point about camera design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 7, 2017 Share #13 Posted February 7, 2017 A designer strives to create a lens that is as good as possible within the parameters given. Digital corrections are integrated in the optical design. A refusal to accept this holistic design approach is a refusal to accept the present day level of optical design IMO. Of course it is legitimate for a photographer to try and modify the output of a lens for artitistic reasons. We used to smear Vaseline on a filter etc. But it is unreasonable to demand that the designer to take such use into consideration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 7, 2017 Share #14 Posted February 7, 2017 A designer strives to create a lens that is as good as possible within the parameters given. Digital corrections are integrated in the optical design. A refusal to accept this holistic design approach is a refusal to accept the present day level of optical design IMO. Of course it is legitimate for a photographer to try and modify the output of a lens for artitistic reasons. We used to smear Vaseline on a filter etc. But it is unreasonable to demand that the designer to take such use into consideration. Unreasonable for the lens designer to consider the photography of people? Are these lenses intended exclusively for photography of non-human subjects? I don't think so. The lens designer knows the exact problem that I'm talking about. The fact is that software digital correction makes people near the edge of the frame look more distorted. This is not about changing the lens design. Rather, it's just a question of giving the photographer a tool that the photographer should have because it actually matters for pictures. Why do you side against the photographer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 7, 2017 Share #15 Posted February 7, 2017 I don't understand all this bellyaching. If you don't like the look of photos made with the lens, don't buy it ... buy some other lens. Lenses that are properly designed, whether digitally corrected or not, do not make people look distorted at the edges of the frame. None of my digitally corrected Micro-FourThirds lenses ever did, unless I foolishly used an ultra wide-flat field lens to take photos of groups of people at the edges of the frame. My SL24-90mm lens doesn't either, and that is certainly digitally corrected. Lenses with barrel distortion, or pincushion distortion, distort people's faces a different way, that's all. They're still distorted. If they look pleasing to you, get a lens that produces that effect in your exposures. Pick your poison and drink it. Sheesh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 7, 2017 Share #16 Posted February 7, 2017 Unreasonable for the lens designer to consider the photography of people? Are these lenses intended exclusively for photography of non-human subjects? I don't think so. The lens designer knows the exact problem that I'm talking about. The fact is that software digital correction makes people near the edge of the frame look more distorted. This is not about changing the lens design. Rather, it's just a question of giving the photographer a tool that the photographer should have because it actually matters for pictures. Why do you side against the photographer? I think that a few decades ago photographers used to know the effect wideangle lenses had on the depicted scene. They also would have suspected that a lens makes the same image, be it on a plate, a film or a device which reckons photons by as yet unknown means. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 7, 2017 Share #17 Posted February 7, 2017 All of technology nowadays is moving towards traditional concepts being merged with digital solutions, like it or not. We are just at the beginning. Sean reminds me of king Canute..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 7, 2017 Share #18 Posted February 7, 2017 Lenses that are properly designed, whether digitally corrected or not, do not make people look distorted at the edges of the frame. You're not correct about this. They do in fact distort people at the edges, more so if digitally corrected. And the distortion is evident even with a 50mm lens. The problem is not limited to ultra-wide lenses. Sean Reid knows his stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted February 7, 2017 Share #19 Posted February 7, 2017 I suspect his viewpoint is as a Lens Reviewer ...... rather than your average joe using a camera. He is quite entitled to moan about digital correction ..... presumably it makes his job and making any valid comments a whole lot more difficult. However the SL 50 is designed to be used on the SL - and you have to assess the results based on that fact .... not purely the underlying optics. I don't hear anyone asking for the option to disable ABS braking, power steering and the catalytic converter on their car just so they can get the 'real' driving experience Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 7, 2017 Share #20 Posted February 7, 2017 His viewpoint is that of a skilled photographer. You're assuming a bunch of things to somehow try to dismiss a perfectly reasonable request. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.