50mm Summilux-SL ASPH Review

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The X1D lenses presently, in 35mm equivalents, are 24mm, 35mm and 70mm. Forthcoming lenses are 18mm, 52mm, 95mm and a 28-60mm. Pretty much in the range on M and SL lenses except for the 135mm for the M and the long zoom for the SL. The nice thing about the X1D is its effortless usage. Almost like an M10 with autofocus. It is really ease to carry around and handhold with no strain on the wrist. Like an M10. Like I said before, I believe it's what the SL should've been. Very simple, intuitive and grab 'n go.

 

But the captures from an X1D OOC are stunning. I keep comparing SL and X1D shots of equivalent subjects, same aperture and ISO and the X1D files are very real and natural looking and don't look like photographs. A picture of hand looked like my hand was inside the camera. the SL looked like a nice pic of hand. 

 

I look forward to getting the relatively small 60mm (51mm) which will; ne in great use. I couldn't get the SL 50 because of the size, weight, balance and inconvenience. After all, I am an M shooter and can never go back to the canikon experience. the X1D gives me the M feeling with AF and and amazing sensor. Not to mention the price of the HCD 65mm will be 2/3 the SL50. Doesn't hurt.

 

Sorry for enraging Leica lovers, of which I AM one. But..

 

Cliff, if the x1d gives you the M experience, for what reason you keep the M10?

 

There are certainly some good reasons to like the x1d (first of all the sensor), but I dont agree that this is what the SL should have been.

Leica has already the S, and I assume the focus for the SL was speed and flexibility, zooms with long focal length range, tele, UWA.

Most of these factors are not offered by the x1d.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest VVJ]

There are certainly some good reasons to like the x1d (first of all the sensor), but I dont agree that this is what the SL should have been.

Leica has already the S, and I assume the focus for the SL was speed and flexibility, zooms with long focal length range, tele, UWA.

Most of these factors are not offered by the x1d.

 

+1.  I truly don't get these neverending comparisons between the X1D and the SL...

 

Both are entirely different cameras with a totally different purpose.

 

The X1D has a lot going for it and I am seriously contemplating replacing my S2 with the X1D but I would never replace the SL with the X1D.  

[dancook]

The lower the ISO the better the colours, not settling for 24-90 when this performs so beautifully.

 

brit_120417 (20 of 33) by dancook1982, on Flickr

[caissa]

Yes, the colors are even stronger than with the naked eye.

So I never use it for black and white - the bw pics are simply weaker.

[Chaemono]

1 of 3 - AF speed not an issue. Traced the jockey very well. What a lens. Have tons more but the compression here doesn't do justice to the this lens. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Chaemono]

2 of 3 - AF speed not an issue. Traced the jockey very well.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 of 3 - AF speed not an issue. Traced the jockey very well.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[dancook]

Using continuous AF?

 

I found that useful, and I should probably give it ago for my live music photography, as when the artists moves around a bit sometimes it can be difficult to relock AF - C-AF does a good job normally of following

[jrp]

I thought that all that caf does is allow you to release the shutter when the subject is not in focus.

[Chaemono]

Using continuous AF?

 

I found that useful, and I should probably give it ago for my live music photography, as when the artists moves around a bit sometimes it can be difficult to relock AF - C-AF does a good job normally of following

Yes, just as you recommended. I set AF to continuous, AF Field Size to Field (sometimes Zone), and AF Mode to Dynamic (Tracking). 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Chaemono

[dancook]

I thought that all that caf does is allow you to release the shutter when the subject is not in focus.

No, it will continually reacquire focus on the focus point whilst the shutter is half pressed.

[Chaemono]

No, it will continually reacquire focus on the focus point whilst the shutter is half pressed.

 

That's key. Shoot, keep the shutter half pressed, pan if necessary and shoot, again. Below is one example.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Chaemono

[Chaemono]

Of course, the order is, with the settings that Dan recommended, acquire focus, shoot, keep the shutter half pressed, pan if necessary, and shoot, again.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Chaemono

[mls1483]

Am 26.3.2017 um 16:49 schrieb Chaemono:

Here we go folks - SL50 vs. Sony FE 50 picture gallery.

 

Below you will find two links leading to images comparing the SL 50 with the Sony FE 50 (on the a7II). One link leads to full resolution versions of the files and the other to smaller file sizes. They can be downloaded. They were exported from DNG and ARW files opened in Preview. No tweaks whatsoever, no sharpening, no contrast added, except for the Ferrari SL shot where exposure was increased a bit as it was shot using a slightly faster shutter speed than the Sony one. All the others were taken using the exact same settings on each camera. The SL images look a bit warmer but as we know white balance can be adjusted.

 

Just to get the point about the price difference out of the way first, the Sony FE costs less than one third of the SL50 or, said differently, the SL50 is three and a half times as expensive. I can see why the SL50 is at a 33 percent premium to the Zeiss Otus. It offers AF and state of the art weather sealing and if customers value these features then Leica might as well charge for them (value based pricing - one can charge a premium only if one offers the customer something more than what exists in the market today). But is the SL50 this much better than the Sony FE to charge such a large premium? Well, the answer is it is better in one significant way and those who value this difference will be willing to pay for it.

 

To praise the Sony first. As Gordon mentioned earlier, it’s sharp corner to corner wide open with no significant CA and it renders the out of focus areas nicely. It does show a bit more purple fringing than the SL50 (look at the motorcycle and the Delage) but it’s still impressive how well it is controlled. As far as shooting it with the a7II is concerned, it doesn’t feel too front heavy and with a battery grip it would be perfect ergonomically. The issue is more the cramped layout of the buttons and controls on the Sony but no need to get into this now. One can get used to it and it handles well in manual control. I set the ISO, set the aperture on the lens, changed the shutter speed with the rear wheel, chose flexible spot, and assigned a function key near my right thumb to bring it up and move it around with the scrolling wheel. Then I focused by half pressing the shutter. That’s how I like to shoot and I had fun doing it with the Sony. I just wished that the rear wheel for changing the shutter speed would be a bit more easily accessible and that moving the flexible focus spot around would work a bit faster. A joystick would be perfect for that. 

 

As far as the difference in IQ is concerned, everyone can seen for themselves by downloading the pictures. Let me just point out the biggest and most obvious one in optical performance between the two, the 3D look that the SL50 generates. It’s just unbelievable. It’s even better than the Apo 50. And we know how Leica achieved that. Peter Karbe explains it in this interview: http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-50mm-APO-Summicron-M-ASPH-f-20.html   It has to do with contrast behaviour, that the contrast is high where the focal plane is, but that it should fall very fast in the front and behind. With the SL50 Leica managed to top what they had achieved so far in this regard. Look at the pair of pictures of the Bugatti. Download the crops and move back and forth between the SL and the Sony pair. There is a 3D-ness to the SL pictures that is not matched by the Sony. Look at the steering wheel, the panel with the instruments, the windscreen. This effect is there in all the SL pictures but it may not be obvious to everyone in the others as it is often more subtle. Look at the roses on the Rolls Royce, for example, the red Ferrari, the black Bentley. That’s what one is paying for when buying this lens. It’s not good blur nor subject isolation. That can be achieved with an iPhone today.

 

Just to complete the post, there is an interesting article here: http://www.artphotoacademy.com/the-leica-look/   It mentions a few paragraphs down that „… the difference between Leica and Zeiss images is that even though they all may look three-dimensional, the former seem deep, yet the latter are more like a flat surface with 3D objects on it.“ After looking at these pictures taken with two great lenses, I couldn’t agree more.

 

 

Here's the link with the large file sizes https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-883rLt/

 

And here's the link with the small file sizes https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-WDgzDG/

 

I wish this was true. Leica raises the contrast at edges already in the raw format, whereas Sony is very (maybe too) conservative in this. With a few tweaks in post processing, the findings can be reversed: contrast slightly increased, brightness slightly reduces, saturation slightly increased, somewhat higher temperature (5600 K). Here the Sony picture, quick and dirty:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

BTW:  I have the Summilux SL 50mm f/1.4 and also the Sony/Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4 (at Sony A7R2).

Edited October 29, 2018 by mls1483
addition

[Chaemono]

Interesting. Hopefully, I’ll find time to post  some links to Raw files by the weekend. I don’t like the ones I posted. I’ll try to expose the Sony pictures better. There should be a visible difference in how details are resolved behind the focus point between the two lenses. It has to do with how contrast behaves. One might be able to make adjustments in post to emulate the effect of the Summilux-SL in this respect, but the transition from the in-focus to the out-of-focus areas will make a difference in some pictures, although, some may neither be able to see them nor care. 

[mls1483]

From an optical standpoint, both lenses deliver excellent results from f/4 onward. However, the Sony is a typical Planar desing (double Gaussian), which is softer in the corners and at the edges than the Summilux-SL below f/4. The same holds true for the 50mm Planar f/2 ZM in comparison to the APO Summicron-M 50mm. Thus, for available light the Summilux is better. 

The SL system is rugged, weather sealed and offers optically outstanding lenses for every focal length (even the zooms are exceptional). It is also big and heavy (more than others) - whhich is no problem for a session, because it balances well. Thus, the system is great.

 

 

 

 

[mls1483]

Maybe one remark to the transition zone of sharp and unsharp regions: In theory, the more all manufacturers strive to perfection, the similar their lenses will get. In the end, the focal plane is just a plane, not a zone. The glasses get more and more similar anyway, because there are only a few global manufacturers of (excellent) glass, e.g. Schott. In addition, many lenses are toll manufactured in Japan (e.g. Zeiss ZM or Loxia at Cosina). 

Many typical renderings are due to aberrations, e.g. spherochromism or field curvature. Maybe lens makers should not push it too far in making perfect optics...

BTW, Cosina (Voigtländer) has learnt a lot, have a look at the Macro APO Lanthar 65mm f/2 or the 110 mm f/2.5.  Of course, macro lenses have always been the sharpest for the last 30 years, but these are truly exceptional. The optical design is also very complex, the 110mm having 14 elements in 12 groups and two floating lens elements (fle).

Back to the Summilux-SL 50mm: Leica optimizes for wide open performance, and the Summilux-SL 50mm really delivers. I think this is the great benefit. You can shoot wide open at fast speeds and can stop down very gradually. This actually makes a great IQ.

[Chaemono]

Let's start with the positives of Sony/Zeiss Planar FE 50/1.4. It's almost as sharp as the the Leica lens wide open in the center and it shows very little CA/PF, just a bit worse in both respects than the Summilux-SL. The difference is immaterial, though, and certainly not worth to pay a $3,800 premium for it. But there are some fundamental differences between the two lenses and they have to do with the way contrast behaves around the focus point and the way light is captured and focused. I have tons of Raw files 😀.  Let's show a few. I used slightly lower ISO on the α7R III in order not to blow Highlights and adjusted Brightness a bit in post. The difference is about +0.30 EV when using ISO 160 on the Sony and ISO 200 on the Leica SL. 

 

α7R III + Planar FE 50/1.4 - Exposure +0.75, Shadows +50, Blacks -20. ARW file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g907044839-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=MF0YUqDoN7yHT1zk0MwaSbQTJFKObdnhikXL_wpnogA=

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

ISO 160 f/1.4 @1/1600 sec.

 

SL + Summilux-SL - Exposure +0.40, Shadows +50, Blacks -20. See how well the light rays parallel to the principal axis converge at the focus point. This is wide open performance at its best. The Sony above at f/1.4 simply can't handle it as well. We will see more examples of this. This is one of the major differences between the two lenses. DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g598979052-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=_OCHvzCAZwjp3XwxCp9254eLnrBjkmdR0_EYkgxx4yc=

ISO 200 f/1.4 @1/1600 sec.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

Let's show another major difference that is responsible for a depth effect that the Sony Planar FE 50/1.4 simply lacks. These are crops of the ones above and Exposure was adjusted a bit on the Leica picture. See how smooth and gradual the fall-off behind the focus point is with the 50 Summilux-SL. The Sony lens loses contrast suddenly.

α7R III + Planar FE 50/1.4

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

SL + 50 Summilux-SL - The "C" in Castrol is still resolved before each subsequent letter smoothly fades away. This cannot be emulated in post with the Sony lens.

[Chaemono]

Let's show two more.

Sony Planar FE 50/1.4 - Exposure +0.60, Shadows +50, Blacks -20. ARW file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g635798293-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=oEj8WPujOBwDLvUlgH73aOCUbom0-xc6mkNQGy0eiAI=

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

ISO 160 f/1.4 @1/2500 sec.

 

50 Summilux-SL - Exposure +0.30, Shadows +50, Blacks -20. DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g1029343552-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=LZY-CFjjp5BPrL3uRXcGXZSxlZiFGJLraMKl1rzk8Hg=

ISO 200 f/1.4 @1/2500 sec.