To APO or not to APO?

[phovsho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps the more technically minded forum members can answer this question...

 

How does one reconcile that the SL 50/1.4 isn't APO yet the M 50 / 2 APO is? I can see the value of a fast, durable AF 50 on the SL but not if it isn't as good as the M APO (especially given the latter can be used on both the SL and Ms). Is the SL 50 less than it could have been because it isn't an APO?

 

Thanks

 

Murray

[Advertisement]

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

[thighslapper]

This has been discussed before ..... the term 'apo' is rather subjective and depends where you set the bar .... which for Leica has traditionally been rather high, with a number of past lenses being technically 'apo' in performance but not labelled as such.

 

Anyway, with the tendency to correct aberrations to an increasing extent in firmware the term for the SL becomes a bit vague in what it actually siginfies ......

[phovsho]

Ok. Thanks. Sounds like I would be more than happy with the SL then.

[leica1215]

Well, I will also add considerations for the weight and versatility, as 50apo can use on both M and SL, I currently mate my SL with 50APO, you won't find much slow in focus if your are experienced in manual focus, which I m still learning to be one...lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phovsho]

Thanks. I'm a regular M shooter. So good with manual focus speeds, though my eyes sight ain't what They were for tack sharp focus.

 

I also find with the SL at fast apertures and subjects with even moderate movement (eg candid portraits where a subject can move a few inches) can cause focus problems because focus magnication for M lens on the SL is in the centre and generally requires recomposing after focusing. I have a bunch of 50 M lenses (0.95; 1.4 asph, 2.0 rigid and collapsible) and just wonder if the SL 50 1.4 is an interesting option for me.

 

I think I'm really asking myself whether I should sell the M 50 1.4 Asph and buy either the SL or M 50 APO.

 

Your points about size and weight are acknowledged.

[pop]

This has been discussed before ..... the term 'apo' is rather subjective and depends where you set the bar .... ...

This happens not to be the case.

 

Lenses used for photography are usually calculated to be correct at two distinct wavelengths. The term "apo" with reference to a photographic lens states that the lens has been calculated to be correct at three distinct wavelengths.

 

Some makers of photographic lenses may elect to call "apo" some but not all of their lenses which have been corrected for three wavelenghts.

 

The distribution of the three wavelengths seems not to be prescribed. Hence, there will be difference in performance for different apo lenses. 

 

As "apo" just denotes that difference, it does not imply how well any given lens is corrected for all the different kinds of aberrations.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am a long term M user, and now use both the M and SL.

 

 

-I can manually focus pretty good with M lenses, but focus is still slightly off sometimes when using them on the M. When I use the EVF the accurancy is more accurate most of the times, but I am not so much a fan of going back and forth between framing, magnification, focus, framing etc. I feel it slows me down and disturbs me to manually focus with the EVF. When one uses the EVF on the M10 there is the advantage that the camera switches automatically to magnification when you start turning the focus ring, plus you can move the focus point around. So I would say for manual focus of M lenses the M10 is the best camera.

It works als well on the SL, but for my taste having a dedicated AF lens makes life easier and faster. I can better concentrate on the subject and I am faster.

-however the AF of the SL50 can be improved, it hunts quite a bit. It is ok and faster than manual focus but not great in this regard

 

I havent compared the 50 APO to the 50SL yet, since my 50 APO is on vacation at Leica at the moment.

From my experience with both systems and the first impression of the 50SL and few comparison shots between the 50SL, 50 Summicron R and the S70mm I have some impressions:

-The 50SL at f2.0 clearly beats (in my few comparison shots)  the R50 Summicron in regards of sharpness and detail. It also has a smoother bokeh than the 50R2.0. And it shows warmer mor vivid color. The difference is quite obvious and visible, at least if you compare directly. I clearly prefer the 50SL here. I dont know how it would compare to the APO version of the M 50 Summicron. I would expect both to be so impressive in regards of IQ that it might be more a question of small size, f2.0 and manual focus vs much larger site, but therefore f1.4 and AF.

 

I have the 50SL just for a short time, but if my first impressions will be confirmed over a longer period than I would see not much reason to buy a 50APO over a 50SL when one wants to use the lens just on the SL. And if I was prefering the 50APO I would rather use that on the M10.

At the moment I am impressed how sharp the 50SL is even wide open, but still with a very natural and smooth rendering. I would say it allmost creates a medium format look on the SL.

[Guest]

I have a bunch of 50 M lenses (0.95; 1.4 asph, 2.0 rigid and collapsible)

 

For a moment I thought he has 50 M lenses! Of course I then realised the collection amount to 3 or 4 50mm lenses.........

[jrp]

Lenses used to be less well corrected at the blue end of the spectrum, at least in b&w days.  An APO lens is corrected for a broader spectrum.  This is important for longer lenses.

 

There is a big size difference between the 50mm APO and the 50mm SL Summilux.  Also worth bearing in mind that you will struggle get full microcontrast output on anything that moves or if hand holding.

[ramarren]

Perhaps the more technically minded forum members can answer this question...

 

How does one reconcile that the SL 50/1.4 isn't APO yet the M 50 / 2 APO is? I can see the value of a fast, durable AF 50 on the SL but not if it isn't as good as the M APO (especially given the latter can be used on both the SL and Ms). Is the SL 50 less than it could have been because it isn't an APO?

 

 

Whether they are both APO or not, as well as "which one performs better", is mostly irrelevant. They're both extremely high performance lenses and both produce beautiful results. 

 

Picking one or the other is a matter of the other things: 

• Do you want to take advantage of auto focus on the SL?
• Do you want to use the lens on the M as well? 
• Do you mind the additional weight and bulk of the SL lens?
• Do you want to be able to use Shutter priority and Program mode exposure options on the SL?
• Do you want to spend $2500 more for the M lens?

 

Personally, I prefer to use R and SL lenses on the SL and M lenses on the M. My fast 50s for the SL are a circa 1980 Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4 and circa 1964 Summicron-R 50mm f/2. Neither 'outperform' the SL50 lens from a technical perspective, but both are lovely performers in their own right and together cost me less than a fifth what the SL50mm lens does. They make beautiful photographs. My current 50mm for the M are either Nokton 50/1.5 or Color Skopar 50/2.5, both good lenses in their own right, but the fast 50mm I want for the M is going to be a Summicron-M 50mm (not the APO variety), which I'm buying used for 20% of the price of an APO 50mm. The APO is a better lens, but it's not five times better. And I have previous excellent experience with the Summicron-M 50mm...

 

All choices here are good.