50mm summilux SL vs 35mm summilux TL

[AlexP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looks pure ugly. It's only my opinion though.

lol..as long as the picture comes out not ugly..it is all good right? 

[meerec]

lol..as long as the picture comes out not ugly..it is all good right? 

 

 

If it keeps you happy, it's fine. I would not be.

I sold this lens before buying SL and many other Canon finest glass. I bought the SL system to use Leica glass. Aesthetically, this Canon lens looks crap on any Leica camera. It looks good on the fat 5D4 or 1Dx.

Yes, "the picture make come out not ugly" as you say but if I was to use Canon modern glass I would not spend thousands on buying the SL.

 

Yep ... the forum haters will start attacking me soon   so be it.

[Advertisement]

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

[AlexP]

You forgot that there is only 3 lenses for SL as of right now. The 50SL is crappie for slow AF. Why spend thousand on something that not even work right? So you rather go for the look but not functioning? Interesting thought.

Edited March 17, 2017 by AlexP

[meerec]

The 50SL is crappie for slow AF. Why spend thousand on something that not even work right?

No more comment from me

;-O

[IkarusJohn]

You forgot that there is only 3 lenses for SL as of right now. The 50SL is crappie for slow AF. Why spend thousand on something that not even work right? So you rather go for the look but not functioning? Interesting thought.

I'm lost. What's not functioning?

[AlexP]

I'm lost. What's not functioning?

Slow af, hard to focus under low light condition, heavy..anyway, whatever it float his boat.

Edited March 17, 2017 by AlexP

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How is that non-functioning? People seem to be taking good picture with it.

[thighslapper]

Slow af, hard to focus under low light condition, heavy..anyway, whatever it float his boat.

 Do you own and use this lens ?

 

If not, then you are not in a position to make this sort of dogmatic statement.

 

I used it extensively whilst on holiday in Bologna ...... and exclusively at night ...... and found it responsive and accurate. 

 

It is NOT Slow ...... it is SLOWER  - than the zooms ....... and that is a different thing entirely. 

Edited March 17, 2017 by thighslapper

[caissa]

I value the SL 50 very highly. Just the same I had to use a cheap 50mm AF lens - because the SL 50 is still not available. Too bad that the Art 50mm does not work properly on the SL.

Regarding the size, the SL 50 is no beauty. So I tried another useful but big lens, as a replacement for the missing Summicrons from 24 to 35.

The Sigma Art 2/24-35 fits the SL quite nicely (similar in size to the SL 50, a bit smaller than the 24-90 because it is of constant length.)  Maybe not really a beauty, though the Sigma lenses look similar in color to the SL lenses.

But the 24-35 is optically excellent. AF is ok. No record-breaking AF is needed for these wide-angles. Even on the Canon the AF is simply "not noticeable" as it needs only very small movements. If I do not notice it, this usually means it is fast (enough). Of course it has a bit distortion at 24 and 35 mm (near 28/30mm it is virtually free of distortion), but this is easily corrected.

Quality is as good as a prime, (from 2.2!) and excellent from 2.8, so REALLY a usable lens - not just on paper.

It could also replace a 50mm, because it is very highly resolving and needs very little cropping to go from 35 to 50mm.

Wide open it has some vignetting, just as you would expect from any fast prime, again no problem. Usually does not even need correction.

 

I am really happy that this lens works so well on the SL. So I have all the time to wait for Leica to bring out more SL primes. And can wait for tests, to see if they offer more quality. This will possibly take years ....

[AlexP]

Do you own and use this lens ?

 

If not, then you are not in a position to make this sort of dogmatic statement.

 

 

Yes I did. I don't make comments on stuff that I don't have or know. So, yes I'm in IN THE POSTION to comment on it. You might accept the flaw that lens has which is fine with me. Beside the zoom lens you have, what other auto focus lens that you ACTUALLY own and use with the SL now? I own and did the actual tested on over 20 lenses with the SL so I do know a thing or 2 about it. Again, I'm not here to bash on the 50SL. Had it, sold it. My comment just for the other guy that refer to the 50SL just for the look of it but discount the flaw it has.

[Chaemono]

You forgot that there is only 3 lenses for SL as of right now. The 50SL is crappie for slow AF. Why spend thousand on something that not even work right? So you rather go for the look but not functioning? Interesting thought.

 

Well stated. One more of your excellent, balanced and facts based comments.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Chaemono

[IkarusJohn]

Alex, surely there's a difference between "It didn't work for me, so I sold it" or "I found it expensive and not as good as cheaper options" or any other expression of dissatisfaction, and "The 50SL is crappie for slow AF. Why spend thousand on something that not even work right? So you rather go for the look but not functioning?"

[thighslapper]

Well, everyones entitled to an opinion I suppose.

 

It just doesn't sound like a considered review of the 50/1.4 strengths and weaknesses after an extended period of use to me, that's all. 

 

Like a few on this forum I am in the lucky position to be able to buy most Leica stuff when I want and have no need to delude myself about my purchases to justify the expenditure.

 

Alex - I too have all the SL zooms (from release), most current M series lenses, a pile of R series ones, all the T AF lenses, Leica Q, various M's and Monochrom, so I am not an ill informed Leica Fan-boy with most of his 'experience' taken from reading Huff and DPReview. I appreciate you found the SL 50/1.4 AF disappointing, but I think your rather blunt opinions will not convince many here or gain you many friends. 

 

The 50 AF does what I expected it to ......but it is not going to displace the 24-90 as my main 'go-to' lens, and as I have pointed out before it is not particularly good value and there are other much cheaper options that will do 90+% of what the 50/1.4 will do with little image quality penalty. 

I won't be selling mine ..... but neither is it going to spend huge amounts of time on the camera ...... 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

 

I won't be selling mine ..... but neither is it going to spend huge amounts of time on the camera ...... 

 

​​Mine will be on the camera lots. In fact I did what I said I wouldn't and picked up a second body (got an unbelievable deal on one only two month old) because I know I'll have the 50 on one body and switch out the zooms on the other.

 

Everything Alex says is true. But here's the thing.....

 

One usage case for one person doesn't define whether the 50 will or will not work for other people. When my 50 arrived there were no surprises because I'd done some research and tested the lens (thanks Leica Store Sydney ) before I slapped down my money. I know for a fact that the 50 will perform where I need it to perform. In my case I'll take accuracy over speed. A faster AF would be nice but I spent years shooting the Canon 85L. And the SL50 focuses almost exactly like the 85L. I Shoot on the S. I know all about pedestrian AF. Leica Australia were more than happy to discuss the lens with me and were quite open about the focusing. I don't chase BIF or my non-existent grand kids with a 50.

 

Is it more important to have ultra fast AF than optical brilliance? For some people absolutely. And we should be open to that. Personally, I really don't like ANY of Canon's 50's. The 50 1.2L is the most disappointing 50 I've ever used. I went through 5 copies over a year before getting out of Canon altogether and moving to Leica, mostly because of that lens. But you know what? It works for a good friend of mine. And it works for Alex. For them it is a great 50. And that's all that matters.

 

For me the SL50 is the best 50 I've used (and I've used plenty). For Alex it's junk. Both opinions are valid. But they're both just opinions. Do your own testing and come away with your own conclusions. No surprises. No disappointment.....

 

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

Quite.

[caissa]

Flash,

you specify that you do not like the 1.2/50. In the last 10 to 15 years I always found that the "fastest" 50mm were usually not "usable" wide open. (not satisfactory) So I simply avoided them rigorously.

I learned to use mainly the 2.0 or 1.8/50mm. Usually they are available anywhere, quite inexpensive and often (because 50mm seems to be an easy correctable focal length nowadays) they are fine from 2.4 and even excellent from 2.8 .

Often the 1.2 lenses also need to be closed down to 2.8 to get similar quality.

So I think that with a reasonable lens (1.8/50) used in a reasonable way (2.4, 2.8, 4.0 or even slower aperture) the results can be very satisfying.

The SL 50 has the advantage that any aperture is usable. But with a little thought and carefulness a cheap 50 can produce almost identical quality. Some users take very rarely pics at 1.4 or 2.0, for these users the SL 50 is simply "luxury". Even in portraits it is often "better" to have more dof so that a larger part of the face is in focus. Maybe these pics do rarely win a price in a contest, but they are still the same "good" portraits. (a matter of taste, which many jury members do not share)

 

The 50mm is a special lens for Leica users. So it is understandable why Leica took this special effort. For the rest of the world it looks rather strange (bizarre or eccentric) to put such a big effort into a "normal" lens.

[Chaemono]

In case someone in Europe is looking for dealer who has the SL50 in stock this one seems to have one copy left   http://foto-woehrstein.de/shop/de/objektive/leica-sl/leica-summilux-sl-50mm-11-4-schwarz-asph?ref=idealo

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Flash,

you specify that you do not like the 1.2/50. In the last 10 to 15 years I always found that the "fastest" 50mm were usually not "usable" wide open. (not satisfactory) So I simply avoided them rigorously.

I learned to use mainly the 2.0 or 1.8/50mm. Usually they are available anywhere, quite inexpensive and often (because 50mm seems to be an easy correctable focal length nowadays) they are fine from 2.4 and even excellent from 2.8 .

Often the 1.2 lenses also need to be closed down to 2.8 to get similar quality.

So I think that with a reasonable lens (1.8/50) used in a reasonable way (2.4, 2.8, 4.0 or even slower aperture) the results can be very satisfying.

The SL 50 has the advantage that any aperture is usable. But with a little thought and carefulness a cheap 50 can produce almost identical quality. Some users take very rarely pics at 1.4 or 2.0, for these users the SL 50 is simply "luxury". Even in portraits it is often "better" to have more dof so that a larger part of the face is in focus. Maybe these pics do rarely win a price in a contest, but they are still the same "good" portraits. (a matter of taste, which many jury members do not share)

 

The 50mm is a special lens for Leica users. So it is understandable why Leica took this special effort. For the rest of the world it looks rather strange (bizarre or eccentric) to put such a big effort into a "normal" lens.

 

See my bolding.

 

I had this long boring reply half written.....but...

 

I suppose it comes down to how you define "almost". For some people the extra 5-10% is huge. Others don't see it. But I can guarantee you, the way I shoot, that you would see the difference between a *nifty fifty* and it's five aperture blades and a really great 50mm. I'm not after satisfying. I'm after special.

 

Sure if I just want brutally sharp at f2.8 I could shoot a *nifty fifty* with all FIVE of it's aperture blades. But there are two parts to a fast prime. How the sharp bits look and how the unsharp bits look. I'm just as interested in the latter as the former.

 

Secondly, if I'm shooting my primes at f2.8 I may as well buy a zoom. The whole point of a fast prime is that it's fast. It's unfortunate that focus shift severely limits the usable area of the 50L where I'd like to use it the most. Close in and wide apertures. I work in places where a fast lens isn't a luxury if you want to deliver the goods to a client.

 

Thirdly I'll have to challenge you on your assentation that most fast 50's aren't any good wide open. This isn't the 1960's. Canon is the exception not the rule. Sony make 3 brilliant 50's for the FE system and a 50mm 1.4 Plannar that's just lovely for the A series. All fab wide open. The ZA 85mm is simply gorgeous as well. Voigtlander, Zeiss and Leica have 50's that are all great wide open. Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus make 50mm equivalents that are near perfect wide open. Dead accurate focusing. Sharp across the frame. No focus issues. great blur. Sigma seems to be setting new benchmarks for what a 50mm can do. It's only Canon and Nikon that seem to lag behind with standard lenses, although the Nikon 50mm 1.8 seems quite nice. I think you'll see a new Canon flagship 50 soon. They've just upgraded the 35mm and it's great.

 

I currently own over half a dozen 50mm or equivalents I'd be more than happy to use wide open or close to it.

 

Gordon

[caissa]

My new cheap 50 has seven blades, a circular iris (quite perfect actually) and is fine regarding bokeh, and quite close focusing (0.35m). AF is with a stepper motor, quiet precise and fast enough. (even suitable for filming)

Regarding this, it serves me probably better than the SL 50 ever will - though I probably would have bought it, if it had been available for me.

Until now the Summicron was my preferred 50, despite the R and M Summilux. I like them from 2.8, but wide open I find them not very attractive. Tastes are individual.  So for me the 35 and the 80 (Summiluxes) are much more important and useful than the 1.4/50. Even my nocti is most of the time put away in its box. Currently I like the cheap 50 with AF simply better ....

And since a short time, I like the Art 2/24-35 even better.

 

Many like that the SL 50 is (already) the third lens, but for me a fast 28mm and/or fast macro 90/100 would have been a much more attractive (third and fourth) lens. 

You are right that today the Sigma Art are attractive - but they exist since 2 years on that level ?! Before, their lenses were not that good. While Zeiss/Contax was always very attractive, but unfortunately only manual in most cases.

Edited March 18, 2017 by caissa

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[AlexP]

to OP, my 35mm summilux TL will come in tomorrow. Since you're original question regarding the 50SL vs 35mm summilux TL, i'll have my take on both lens tomorrow.