50mm Summilux-SL ASPH Review

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Sony/Zeiss 55mm is a lens of comparable optical quality. It's small, AF, has a metal barrel and costs under a thousand dollars.

Images, please? No, just BS opinions. For all I know you and the other Leica haters here could be working for Canon or Nikon who failed to innovate and are feeling the pressure right now.

 

Look here 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4055113

and here

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3618136

and here

http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/1721-7rii-with-18-55-sonyzeiss-chromatic-aberrations/

 

And, I still own this lens. I may borrow an A7x to show that you are lying.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Chaemono

[almoore]

just BS opinions. For all I know you and the other Leica haters here could be working for Canon or Nikon who failed to innovate and are feeling the pressure right now...I may borrow an A7x to show that you are lying.

Just to recap, this thread was begun by a guy who sells these things and asked for feedback. I'm giving my feedback: for my uses this lens is far too big to be practical.

 

You've made repeated unpleasant xenophobic jibes against 'Japanese junk', childishly abused me and another long-time poster as 'Leica haters', called me a liar and are now suggesting that I'm in the pay of 'Canon or Nikon'. The mix of rage, abuse, paranoia and defensiveness is too weird for me, so I'll leave you in peace to carry on extolling the virtues of this ridiculous lens. But really, if differing opinions upset you so much, you should seek out the reassurance of an echo chamber rather than a discussion forum.

[Advertisement]

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

[Chaemono]

Just to recap, this thread was begun by a guy who sells these things and asked for feedback. I'm giving my feedback: for my uses this lens is far too big to be practical.

 

You've made repeated unpleasant xenophobic jibes against 'Japanese junk', childishly abused me and another long-time poster as 'Leica haters', called me a liar and are now suggesting that I'm in the pay of 'Canon or Nikon'. The mix of rage, abuse, paranoia and defensiveness is too weird for me, so I'll leave you in peace to carry on extolling the virtues of this ridiculous lens. But really, if differing opinions upset you so much, you should seek out the reassurance of an echo chamber rather than a discussion forum.

 

Facts, please, on your claims about this lenses performance and others of comparable image quality with images. Not lies. Thanks.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Chaemono

[jrp]

These guys test a lot of different lenses, either on native bodies or on Sony, using both models, scenes and test charts.

 

Here are a bunch of 50mm, including the Sony http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160:adorable-50s-sigma-art-zeiss-otus-sonnar-leica-summilux-review&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2

 

The little Sony stands up well in the company of much bulkier lenses.

 

I have not yet got hold of Erwin Puts' latest on lens design, but whether it be for better edge performance wide open, or to accommodate AF, recent 50mm lenses do see to be behemoths. The SL's main shortcoming is the sluggish AF, which is a pity on for a system whose principal marketing feature on launch was its speed. However, when it does focus, which is, regrettably not 100% of the time, you get the benefit of the full performance of the lens.

[cpclee]

These guys open up lenses and the compromises and corner cutting in some even not so cheap lenses is appalling

 

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/9669855076/lensrentals-and-the-continuing-saga-of-the-broken-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm

 

That to me is junk

[AlexP]

BTW guys, don't go off topic too much

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

These guys open up lenses and the compromises and corner cutting in some even not so cheap lenses is appalling

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/9669855076/lensrentals-and-the-continuing-saga-of-the-broken-sony-fe-70-200mm-f2-8-gm

That to me is junk

That is not a particularly faithful characterisation of what the lensrentals guys found.

 

Anyway, as we know from cinematic lenses, price increases exponentially for marginal improvements. It's just that in this thread no one, me included, has been able to demonstrate what those benefits are, in any useful way. But we do have some attractive pictures.

[Chaemono]

Please, guys, let's stay focused on the SL50 here instead of talking about the poor build quality and the optical shortcomings of other manufacturers' lenses. 

[Chaemono]

Ok, I've added two more comparing the TL35 with the SL50 on the SL, images 7 & 8 in the links below. I've included a link to small file sizes now as well. Also, the last seven pictures show some fast objects photographed with the 50SL wide open.

 

Here's the link to the full resolution versions: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-m8cbnV/

 

And here are the same pictures with much smaller files sizes: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-dVGCSZ/

Edited March 19, 2017 by Chaemono

[andybarton]

Gentlemen.

Can we keep ad hominems and other unsubstantiated accusations out of this discussion, please?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

to make it short, here are the pros/cons

 

Pros: luscious bokeh and lovely color rendition (typical Leica characteristic that we all know)

 

Cons:

1. Lens is a beast

2. vignetting wide open

3. AF is on the slow slow side (Hardcore Leica user doesn't like when i said AF is super slow)

4. minimum focus distance is long

5. Price (this is subjective...since anything relate to the "red dot" is not cheap)

 

Is there alternative out there? of course. At the end of the day, it is your money to use. You don't have to please anyone but yourself. If you like it, buy it but at the same time, you can't just discount all the cons this lens has and blindly defense for it. After all, these are just tool. Happy shooting.

 

Mind if I add a couple.

 

Pros:

1. Build quality is exemplary.

2. Weather sealed

3. Sharp across most of the frame, even wide opem.

4. AF is silent and very accurate.

5. Zero focus shift.

6. Water repellant front lens element.

 

Cons:

1. Fly by wire manual focus.

2. 82mm filters (not a con if you have filters for the zooms that you share).

 

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

to make it short, here are the pros/cons

 

Pros: luscious bokeh and lovely color rendition (typical Leica characteristic that we all know)

 

Cons:

1. Lens is a beast

2. vignetting wide open

3. AF is on the slow slow side (Hardcore Leica user doesn't like when i said AF is super slow)

4. minimum focus distance is long

5. Price (this is subjective...since anything relate to the "red dot" is not cheap)

 

Is there alternative out there? of course. At the end of the day, it is your money to use. You don't have to please anyone but yourself. If you like it, buy it but at the same time, you can't just discount all the cons this lens has and blindly defense for it. After all, these are just tool. Happy shooting.

 

 

Yes, that sounds pretty accurate.  From what I've seen, your pros omit the fact that the lens is (apparently) bitingly sharp and seems to live up to Leica's aspiration of making this the best 50mm they can make for the SL.  This means, what you list as cons are a consequence of producing a reference lens.  From comparative photos, lenses of a similar performance from other manufacturers (though obviously not AF in L mount) are pretty much as big and are also not cheap.

 

Vignetting is hardly an issue, and easily removed, minimum focusing distance of 0.7m(?) is pretty standard for Leica lenses, and we know the AF is slow because of what has to be moved inside the lens.

 

I won't be a buyer, I don't think - I already have three M mount 50mm lenses, and I'm not sure I need the extra performance or AF in a 50mm prime; but if I was starting afresh, then I'd be in.  The ideal kit for me would be 28mm, 50mm and 120mm (macro), with the zooms.  But, as I have M primes, I'm unlikely to add an SL mount prime any time soon.

Edited March 19, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The Sony/Zeiss 55mm is a lens of comparable optical quality. It's small, AF, has a metal barrel and costs under a thousand dollars. They also have an oversized 50 f1.4, but at least provide the option of a smaller lens.

 

The SL 50 isn't enormous because it has to be, it's enormous because it can be.

 

I don't really think Leica went into a design meeting and said "let's make this bastard HUUUGE". There are reasons of which we are not aware.

 

the SL system is 15 months old. It was three years until Sony had more than one 50. Now they have three. All good lenses. They chose the smaller one first and it is a great lens but I have yet to see anyone with both say the bigger one isn't different optically. The differences are subtle, but they are there. Same with the SL 50. There are definitely differences in how the Sony Ziess renders and the Leica. Which is better is a matter of taste. When I shoot the Sony I don't dislike the images it makes. It's a great lens. But I do prefer the way the SL50 draws. The 55mm 1.8 is more agressive in the way it draws. It has some purple fringing wide open. It's also astonisingly sharp and quick focusing and if you keep it away from certain backgrounds it it a very pleasing lens.

 

I still have my FE55mm 1.8. In the case of the A7ii and A7Rii, I agree with you that the smaller lens makes sense so I have chosen not to buy he larger lens even though I see the differences and i prefer the rendering of the 1.4. The SL being a larger camera, a larger lens doesn't bother me. The focus speed is fine for my use. Blah blah balh.... My reasons..... It seems you have an issue with the size and that's also fine. Hopefully Leica will eventually release a smaller Summicon that better suits your wishes.

 

There are people out there who know about wine. They pick up on subtle differences that make a huge difference to their enjoyment of what they drink. They have cool descriptive words that mean little to me. They meet up and discuss bouquet and argue about corks versus screw caps. The quality of wine, for me, is the company I drink it in. I accept though, that those wine conoseurs, taste something I don't taste. Something I don't really care to either. I don't think they're snobby because they appreciate something I don't. They get pleasure from those subtlties. I am the same with prime lenses. I see the subtleties and they matter to me.

 

So I hope you can see that when you say that lens "X" can produce images that are the same as lens "Y" I am always going to disagree with you. There are differences and I appreciate them. I don't even think that the Otus and the SL50 are the same in the way they draw.

 

Gordon

 

Gordon

[tom0511]

I dont get what the last pages of this thread are about.

The 50SL is an optically exceptional lens, the 35TL is a very good lens as well, but its a dx lens.

We now all know the 50 SL is not small or light nor it is cheap.

And its AF is not as fast as we wish but precise.

So thats the situation..if it is worth to buy or not ? Everybody has to decided on his own. 

[Chaemono]

Gentlemen.

 

Can we keep ad hominems and other unsubstantiated accusations out of this discussion, please?

 

Hi Andy, what exactly is this forum's policy against this http://photorumors.com/2011/11/11/major-camera-manufacturer-using-internet-trolls-to-promote-their-own-products/ please?

[thighslapper]

I dont get what the last pages of this thread are about.

The 50SL is an optically exceptional lens, the 35TL is a very good lens as well, but its a dx lens.

We now all know the 50 SL is not small or light nor it is cheap.

And its AF is not as fast as we wish but precise.

So thats the situation..if it is worth to buy or not ? Everybody has to decided on his own. 

 That just about sums it up.

 

No idea how this ended up in a shouting match. 

 

Anyway, it's an entertaining way to spend a lazy sunday afternoon...... 

Edited March 19, 2017 by thighslapper

[Bill W]

I dont get what the last pages of this thread are about.

The 50SL is an optically exceptional lens, the 35TL is a very good lens as well, but its a dx lens.

We now all know the 50 SL is not small or light nor it is cheap.

And its AF is not as fast as we wish but precise.

So thats the situation..if it is worth to buy or not ? Everybody has to decided on his own. 

Very concise summary.....plus in my case the wife and I are retired, we have no kids, we saved a lot while we worked and I can afford and want one....!!

[jaapv]

Please note that this is just a lens that is under discussion.

 

FYI: this forum has clear rules against  -amongst others- personal attacks, fighting, verbal abuse, rudeness and Leica bashing.

I would request  members to abide by these rules.

[wattsy]

No idea how this ended up in a shouting match. 

 

Anyway, it's an entertaining way to spend a lazy sunday afternoon...... 

Please note that this is just a lens that is under discussion.

 

 

Quite.

 

There has always been a certain amount of brand tribalism in these gear forums but it seems to be attaining new levels of absurdity. The suggestion that there may be trolls in the forum working for Canon or Nikon must surely win some kind of prize?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

Look what I found. How dare Leica make such a big lens. They are moving away from their roots. Not good...for the competition.

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 March 21, 2017 by Chaemono