50mm Summilux-SL ASPH Review

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let's keep going. Fantastic the way the light converges on the focus point with the Leica lens. It's sucks up every bit of light and makes the most use of it. The Sony Planar FE 50/1.4 wide open simply can't match that.

Sony Planar FE 50/1.4 - Exposure +0.10. ARW file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g965616734-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=-zcz7IU3a6vZRIIHLVgwNrZ9u_IGPytHkBl3KhUIFko=

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 @1/1000 sec.

 

50 Summilux-SL. DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g975153391-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=hfSAoe0u0QPHZWQ-rNI-qRkDrVYruhxQ2RnpE2jAuEs=

ISO 200 f/1.4 @1/1250 sec.

[Chaemono]

And therefore the 50 Summilux-SL can handle scenes with Highlights and Shadows effortlessly wide open. It's as if the SL has more dynamic range. 

Sony Planar FE 50/1.4 - Exposure +0.10. ARW file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g916949081-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=HQMAUyuhxX1nStDY97FhKrrd5q59QqqLgbkDVev0fqQ=

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.

 

50 Summilux-SL. DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g715005840-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=6rW3b8Pe4QKTb4ERcQagbX4yS26Mi9oEzSTDTv3QzwA=

ISO 200 f/1.4 @1/1600 sec.

[Advertisement]

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

[Chaemono]

And more

Sony Planar FE 50/1.4 - Exposure +0.30, Shadows +50, Blacks -20. ARW file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g754341137-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=t4SFHn7Sxm1JTqbDwf3epvFM5bDGikxVnDWb-Ubi-Tw=

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 @1/1000 sec.

 

50 Summilux-SL - Shadows +50, Blacks -20. DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g547629618-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=nnAnA7pZdRjS3UqH4oWgSNFG7zP1H859yIjhZ3etfto=

ISO 200 f/1.4 @1/1000 sec.

[Chaemono]

Contrast behaviour discussed in connection to "Castrol" in post #219 lends more depth to the Summilux-SL pictures, IMO.

Sony Planar FE 50/1.4 - Exposure +0.80, Shadows +50, Blacks -20. ARW file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g579336672-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=ljhB8192ZBxThLER7pLoQBVKBKBZb5IaHcy_nfOAhL8=

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 @1/2000 sec.

 

50 Summilux-SL - Exposure +0.40, Shadows +50, Blacks -20. DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g817094967-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=2vvvV7fx9WiJMA8qkeRn286JWClBtjkQra3fCXr4atI=

ISO 200 f/1.4 @1/2000 sec.

[jrp]

Thanks for doing these. It's great to be able to click them and compare them back and forth,

At screen resolution, they look v similar.  The Sony seems to have a bit more contrast, but that may be your processing.  The Leica appears to blur the backgrounds a little more, but it's probably not what you are going to notice first when looking at a pic.

[Chaemono]

Thanks for the feedback. The only reason the compressed JPEGs were posted above is to show what is behind the link. In the LUF JPEGs one cannot see a difference. 

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In a way, these are the perfect models to illustrate one of the fundamental differences between the Sony Planar FE 50/1.4 and the 50 Summilux-SL. The way contrast behaves with the Leica lens and the detail that is resolved after the focus point in the Leica picture has nothing to do with 'raised contrast at the edges in the raw format.' And the look can't be emulated because the details in the OOF areas aren't captured to begin with. No increased contrast in post can recover something that ain't there in the first place. With the Sony Planar FE 50/1.4, we get a sharp head in focus while immediately after the focus point the bokeh blurs the rest of the 'scene' (the sheep were the best models I could find this morning) into oblivion. See how nicely details are maintained with the Summilux-SL on the other hand.

While acknowledging that sometimes the look of a sharp object against a flat, blurred background may be preferred (the way the 55 Otus, the Sigma Art 50/1.4 render, too), the 50 Summilux-SL lends depth to a picture, a very desirable effect many times. 

 

Sony Planar FE 50/1.4 ARW file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g376441885-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=CW9an1Y_0p6UT5kdCWjH6eKTU_WuJimiUKpJaeG95YI=

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 @1/800 sec.

 

50 Summilux-SL DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g157427717-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=3Hk6jjtZn9Onshq9OYwoenqoc6A4-ySqMD0ztbB4bBQ=

ISO 200 f/1.4 @1/800 sec.

[Chaemono]

I can hear people clamoring for more. How about the depth effect in this one? Well, how about it? Some may be able to see it, others not. But it's there.

Sony Planar FE 50/1.4 ARW file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g1037326933-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=eeZ1JZpLCPz5Oqm4tqWypf-biQqRGo5eOLdUjvcml4E=

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 @1/2000 sec.

 

50 Summilux-SL DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g745976866-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=viHce844bf0XhWkJJ4PJE1NmNy2LrsIAFalQRWRPX_I=

ISO 200 f/1.4 @1/2000 sec.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Chaemono

[Chaemono]

And it's there because if we crop, we can see that the 50 Summilux-SL smoothly resolves the car's brand in the OOF area, Horch, btw the most popular premium brand in Germany in the 1930s, while the Sony Planar FE 50/1.4's resolution simply drops fast after the focus point.

Sony crop of picture above

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!

 

Leica crop of picture above

[mls1483]

Am 3.11.2018 um 23:39 schrieb jrp:

At screen resolution, they look v similar.  The Sony seems to have a bit more contrast, but that may be your processing.  The Leica appears to blur the backgrounds a little more, but it's probably not what you are going to notice first when looking at a pic.

Exactly what I thought.

BTW, the Leica and Sony pictures all have different agles. It would have been better to use a tripod and show exactly the same perspective.

[jrp]

Odd. I had thought that, for the Summicrons at least, the Karbe pitch was that the lenses behaved at f2 as if they were f1.4 lenses. 

[sillbeers15]

1 hour ago, jrp said:

Odd. I had thought that, for the Summicrons at least, the Karbe pitch was that the lenses behaved at f2 as if they were f1.4 lenses. 

I do not think an F2 lens  can behave exactly as a F1.4 lens.

I do not have the SL50. But using the SL75 at F2, I noticed the following when there is sufficient distance between subject & background vs subject to lens distance:

1. The out of focus rendering behaves more like a F1.4 lens;

2. The in focus plans to out of focus plane fall off is more significant therefore creates a stronger 3D effect of the subject;

3. In focus sharpness is more distinct.

 

[Chaemono]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb jrp:

Odd. I had thought that, for the Summicrons at least, the Karbe pitch was that the lenses behaved at f2 as if they were f1.4 lenses. 

The 75 Summicron-SL and the 90 Summicron-SL blur the background exactly like the 75 Summicron-M and the 90 Summicron-M, respectively. Actually, the M lenses produce a tiny bit more buttery, smoother OOF areas but one has to look very closely. See here for the 75 comparisons: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-nW5Qwt/

When Peter Karbe says "that f/2 will offer a similar look to f/1.4" in the RDF interview about the SL Summicrons he is referring to the fact the "the contrast of in focus and out of focus will be more pronounced, which produces a very 3D effect." He is not referring to background blur.  The perception of this 3D effect will, of course, be also affected by how blurred the background is. So, I took some test shots with the 50 Summilux-SL and the 75 Summicron-SL and then magnified the background of the Summicron picture by cropping it and, therefore, made the OOF area appear in the frame more blurry.

See #134 here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/286524-leica-s3/?page=7

[mls1483]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb sillbeers15:

I do not think an F2 lens  can behave exactly as a F1.4 lens.

I do not have the SL50. But using the SL75 at F2, I noticed the following when there is sufficient distance between subject & background vs subject to lens distance:

1. The out of focus rendering behaves more like a F1.4 lens;

2. The in focus plans to out of focus plane fall off is more significant therefore creates a stronger 3D effect of the subject;

3. In focus sharpness is more distinct.

 

 

You are correct.

DOF is a function of the angle of the rays, i.e. of aperture. These are the laws of physics which cannot be overrun by any lens maker.

The focal plane is an exact plane - in theory. Due to aberrations, the focul plane gets unsharp and seems to extend:

- Spherical aberration scan be undone with aspehrical elements

- chromatic abberations can be resolved with apochromatic desing (corrected for three wavelengths: red, blue, green), using Kronglass and flintglass or ED (extreme low dispersion glass, which ist flouritglass)

This means that due to better corrections, lenses get sharper and more contrasty (and thus richer in colour BTW). The better the lens design, the sharper the falloff from the sharp to the unsharp region. We now see this with many brands. However, the lenses also get more and more similar. A lot of the rendering we appreciated in ancient times is due to aberrations.  I somehow miss the distinct rendering of certain lenses. The Noctilux M 50mm f/0.95 has a quite awfull optical performance (to present standards), but we all love its rendering.

 

[Brian C in Az]

On 3/18/2017 at 8:59 AM, almoore said:

And therein lies the explanation to Leica's current success with the SL. Bulky bling for people who believe that Japanese cameras are beneath them.

 

On 3/18/2017 at 8:52 AM, almoore said:

Are there no limits to the size/weight/price premium that you're prepared to pay in the pursuit of that notional 'best optical quality'?

 

I've no doubt that this lens will resolve slightly more detail wide open than the majority of 50s, but I don't believe that this will translate into a leap forward in photographic terms.

 

On 3/18/2017 at 8:53 AM, Alo Ako said:

 

No. For limited prices there is Canon, Nikon, Sony...

 

On 3/18/2017 at 8:59 AM, almoore said:

And therein lies the explanation to Leica's current success with the SL. Bulky bling for people who believe that Japanese cameras are beneath them.

I think that you are failing to put it into proper perspective in regards to prices adjusted for inflation. I spent $5000 about 15 years ago for a 70-180 f2.8.

That was more expensive than any of the current offerings.

My R body in the late 80's early 90's cost about the same as the SL after adjusting for inflation.

Yes, they are expensive, but a new Porsche 911 is well over $100K USD as well.

A Prius is $40K?! for a sub compact?

Everything has become ridiculously expensive due to cutting edge technologies.

I personally would prefer a fully manual SL with MF. That would reduce the price by over 50%, but Leica believes that the market demands AF, 11 FPS,  and shooting P; plus 4K video to boot....

[mmradman]

5 minutes ago, Brian C in Az said:

 

 

 

>>>snip<<<

I personally would prefer a fully manual SL with MF. That would reduce the price by over 50%, but Leica believes that the market demands AF, 11 FPS,  and shooting P; plus 4K video to boot....

It is certain segment of Leica camera users who believe that cameras shall be looked at and not used and what goes inside the shell is by implication immaterial.  Users who buy cameras to take pictures want cameras that can do more than yesterday's model and some more. You may be user who actually takes pictures but camera wouldn't sell for majority if it was crippled at birth.

Further, there is reoccurring statement made here where people talk of camera getting in a way of photography, implying non-Leica cameras bristling with dials and buttons.  All these button and dials appear to have no ill effect on majority of working photographers taking pictures for living, also global army of amateur photographers.

[Brian C in Az]

You are entitled to your opinion, but you do not need to insult me or insinuate that I don't actually shoot photographs. I was shooting earlier today for 2 hours as I do every weekend at minimum. 

There are a lot of very skilled photographers who shoot MF and manual exposure ONLY. We are not necessarily less skilled, we do so because we do not REQUIRE those aids. We prefer to control the scene. Not having software algorithms determine the lighting and exposure. I appreciate the higher ISO range. I like instant feedback of digital. I like shooting 200+ shots in an afternoon and seeing them on my computer hours later (for free!). I never shot 200 frames in a day with film. Film always had a waiting period between taking the shot and seeing the results. But, again, since I shot film, I learned to think and calculate and compose. There was a financial cost to every mistake made; not to mention no ability to machine gun shoot 11fps.  For some of us back then, it made us better photographers. Too many today grew up not learning the basics. Many do not understand the exposure triangle nor do they understand HOW an in camera meter sees the exposure and what it is trying to accomplish.

I have no need for 4K video. I do not need IS to take shake free photos with 360mm focal length. I do not need P mode.

Many Leica purists prefer the minimalist approach, that doesn't make them lesser photographers. Many of them are better because of that approach and preference.

You may need those things, but the better photographers do not.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Brian C in Az

[jaapv]

You don't need 4K video...Until you have used the stills aspect of the format.

[Brian C in Az]

14 minutes ago, jaapv said:

You don't need 4K video...Until you have used the stills aspect of the format.

Do you shoot 4K and pull stills from it? That is one way to capture images, but not the way many of us WANT to capture images. I think that if Leica made that the only way the camera works, then many Leica customers would either not buy into the technology or they would switch brands.

Again, it boils down to what we each want from our photography experience. There is a piece and solitude inherent in shooting a frame at a time vs the "capture it all on video and edit it out later" mentality.

Again, there is no need to insult people ( as in post #236) just because they prefer the "old" way of doing things.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

Nothing to do with a mentality, but an addition to our photographic toolbox. It opens up photographic possibilities.

The 4K format is very useful for focus stacking, fast bursts with pre-release and post-focus. I would be happy if Leica added those options to their 4K enabled cameras. The main drawback presentlyis that the camera is producing 8 MB JPGs in that mode, but that will be solved when we reach 8K.

For instance post-focus with stacking enables deep-DOF landscape and macro shots without stopping down, which avoids diffraction degradation.  If you have to do that manually you need a tripod and a lot of time on the computer.

Nobody is telling you that you should use the present-day possibilities of photography, but you should be aware they exist and that they open up a way of taking photographs that cannot be created otherwise.

You mention IS, but I for one are very happy that it exists. How else could I be able to take dynamic photographs with an 800 mm lens? It used to be impossible.