24-90 vs SL50

[stephan_w]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

don't know if it is still of interest, but having both lenses I would say the following:

 

If you look for bokeh, then there is no substitute to the SL50.

 

For everything else, including video, there is the zoom.

 

The AF is improved with firmware 3.0 for both lenses, the zoom has IS, which is a big plus for video and will you get at least two stops more. The Summilux SL is still a bit slower, of course, but again, if you are for bokeh then there is no alternative, exept the Noctilux

[Advertisement]

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

[trickness]

Apologies for being snarky, but this thread is doing my head in.

 

It always amuses me when someone comes on here and asks a relatively simple question and get three pages of useless mumbo-jumbo technical debates by armchair experts. As if microtonality is the big concern when you’re taking pictures of your kids.

 

Best to listen to the opinions of people who actually own the products in question, and then filter those opinions by looking at photographs taken by those people - are they good? Because if somebody can’t take a decent photograph, then microntonality is the least of their worries. And there is far too much babble and concern over technical trivialities on this forum and not enough about producing images with soul.

 

Personally I would go with the 24-90. It is a lovely lens and although you will not get the same bokeh as the SL50, It will work better for the range of subjects you posted about wanting to cover.

[thighslapper]

Apologies for being snarky, but this thread is doing my head in.

 .... there is far too much babble and concern over technical trivialities on this forum and not enough about producing images with soul.

 

 

Maybe you should start a thread about it ...... if there is anything more contentious and likely to lead to shouting and arguments than technical minutiae, it is opinions on what constitutes a good image .... 

[trickness]

Maybe you should start a thread about it ...... if there is anything more contentious and likely to lead to shouting and arguments than technical minutiae, it is opinions on what constitutes a good image .... 

People say the same thing about music and it is relatively true. That said, when someone sings out of tune and has no timing, it is pretty obvious. And when someone posts a photograph of the back of a stranger’s head taken with a $10,000 lens, that’s pretty obvious too....

[thighslapper]

yes ...... but who is brave enough on the forum to actually say it's crap .......

 

wars have been started for less......

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Apologies for being snarky, but this thread is doing my head in.

 

 

hahahahahah.........must be Scottish :)

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My mate has them both and they are so so...................we did a shoot together shooting a pretty Russien model him using the 50mm SL lens and me using S007 with S120 lens. I liked my shots better...............of course I did :)

 

Neil

[Chaemono]

One thing that struck me was how good the Sigma Art is. So how much softer than the Otus is it wide open? The answer is, not much. One really has to crop a lot to see a difference. 

 

Uncompressed version here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/

 

ISO 100, f/1.4, 1/640sec for all.

 

5DS R+Otus 55

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!

 

5DS R+Sigma Art

 

SL+Summilux-SL

 

And here somewhat cropped.

 

5DS R+Otus 55

 

5DS R+Sigma Art

 

SL+Summilux-SL

[Andrew Gough]

Chaemono,

 

Thank you for taking the time to shoot, edit and post this comparison. It is much appreciated! I do agree with your assessment looking at your images, the SL50 is a really, really, good lens. Next, I will compare it to the 50 APO as soon as I can get some time.

 

 

 

Andrew

[Chaemono]

Just keep in mind that the aperture blades will have an effect on the Summilux-SL's rendering of bokeh as you stop it down, be it so slightly, to match the 50 Apo Summicron wide open.

[robgo2]

One thing that struck me was how good the Sigma Art is. So how much softer than the Otus is it wide open? The answer is, not much. One really has to crop a lot to see a difference. 

 

Uncompressed version here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/

 

ISO 100, f/1.4, 1/640sec for all.

 

5DS R+Otus 55

5DS R+Otus 55 birdy_luvf.jpg

 

5DS R+Sigma Art

5DS R+Sigma Art birdy_luvf.jpg

 

SL+Summilux-SL

SL+SummiluxSL birdy_luvf.jpg

 

And here somewhat cropped.

 

5DS R+Otus 55

5DS R+Otus 55 birdy_crop_luvf.jpg

 

5DS R+Sigma Art

5DS R+Sigma Art birdy_crop_luvf.jpg

 

SL+Summilux-SL

SL+SummiluxSL birdy_crop_luvf.jpg

 

 

For depth rendering, the Lux wins by a mile. It's the only one in which the iron bird clearly stands out from the plane of the building, and it has nothing to do with background blur.

[Chaemono]

For depth rendering, the Lux wins by a mile. It's the only one in which the iron bird clearly stands out from the plane of the building, and it has nothing to do with background blur.

Yes, the Zeiss and the Sigma lenses show a sharp iron bird on a flat surface. One could call that 3D-pop, I guess. The Summilux-SL shows depth. Not the same. It's also obvious in the two below.

 

Zeiss contrast vs. Leica contrast. Uncompressed versions here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/

 

ISO 100, f/1.4, 1/160sec for both

 

5DS R+Otus 55

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+Summilux-SL

[steveBK]

I’ve been renting the 50lux for a week, and used various editions of the M 50lux.

 

I have to agree with your statement re: depth rendering.

Not sure what technical term describes this, but visually your last few examples show it in action.

 

After the first day or two I was set on not buying it, and going with the 24-90 instead. Which is unusual for me as I’ve owned about 3 zooms and 50 primes in the last 20 years. The AF is just amazing on the 24-90. And the IS will be nice for video, and of course the 24-90 range means I can stop looking at those 21~25mm range M lenses.

 

But.. that 50lux rendering have me reconsidering. The size/weight balances better on the body too.

And playing around with the AF settings, it’s certainly faster than my focussing of the comparable M lens.

 

No doubt I wish the 50lux AF was faster. If it was, this would be an incredibly easy decision.

[zlatkob]

Yes, the Zeiss and the Sigma lenses show a sharp iron bird on a flat surface. One could call that 3D-pop, I guess. The Summilux-SL shows depth. Not the same. It's also obvious in the two below.

 

Zeiss contrast vs. Leica contrast. Uncompressed versions here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/

 

ISO 100, f/1.4, 1/160sec for both

 

5DS R+Otus 55

Jacob's Well_5DS R+Otus 55_luvf.jpg

 

SL+Summilux-SL

Jacob's Well_SL+SummiluxSL_luvf.jpg

 

I'm not sure that the difference is due to contrast.  The Leica images have more red, green and yellow, giving them a warmer appearance.  There is also more vignetting, making the subject stand out a little more.  If I give the Zeiss/Sigma images an adjustment of +4 red, +3 green and -7 yellow in Photoshop, and a touch of vignetting (which you took out by applying the profile), they look much more like the Leica images.

[robgo2]

Yes, the Zeiss and the Sigma lenses show a sharp iron bird on a flat surface. One could call that 3D-pop, I guess. The Summilux-SL shows depth. Not the same. It's also obvious in the two below.

 

Zeiss contrast vs. Leica contrast. Uncompressed versions here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/

 

ISO 100, f/1.4, 1/160sec for both

 

5DS R+Otus 55

Jacob's Well_5DS R+Otus 55_luvf.jpg

 

SL+Summilux-SL

Jacob's Well_SL+SummiluxSL_luvf.jpg

 

 

In this second comparison, once again the Lux-SL conveys a much greater sense of depth. Looking just at the stone well, for instance, one can see in the Lux image that it is well-rounded (no pun intended,) whereas in the Otus image, it is relatively flat. Also, in the SL image, the vegetation is clearly situated in front of the well, but in the Otus image, much less so. If I were debating which lens to purchase for myself, it would be an easy decision. The Leica images exude depth and presence, while the Zeiss images do not. The latter are extremely sharp, well corrected, flat and boring. It's an overrated lens, IMO. 

[robgo2]

I'm not sure that the difference is due to contrast.  The Leica images have more red, green and yellow, giving them a warmer appearance.  There is also more vignetting, making the subject stand out a little more.

Nope, the Leica images have much greater separation of subtle differences in tone. That is an important factor in conveying a sense of fullness and depth. Other reviewers have commented on the Otus lenses lacking this quality. Check out the blog of Yannick Khong for more on this subject.

[LD_50]

I would suggest posting a series of comparison photos at equal resolution without labeling the camera lens combination along with a purposely mislabeled series (ie Otus image labeled 50SL) to see what sort of subjective comments are received.

 

It’s just not possible to eliminate bias when you know what you’re looking at and looking for.

[robgo2]

I would suggest posting a series of comparison photos at equal resolution without labeling the camera lens combination along with a purposely mislabeled series (ie Otus image labeled 50SL) to see what sort of subjective comments are received.

It’s just not possible to eliminate bias when you know what you’re looking at and looking for.

Ah yes, a blinded scientific study is the best way to get at the truth. But we must be clear on what we are measuring. I would say, for the purposes of this discussion, we are interested in the subjective perception of depth in a set of images taken with two comparable lenses under identical conditions on the same camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LD_50]

Ah yes, a blinded scientific study is the best way to get at the truth. But we must be clear on what we are measuring. I would say, for the purposes of this discussion, we are interested in the subjective perception of depth in a set of images taken with two comparable lenses under identical conditions on the same camera.

I said “subjective” and not “scientific” and not that I would want to measure anything.

 

I would expect on a Leica forum when discussing a very expensive Leica lens in comparison with a Zeiss or Sigma that the subjective qualities of the Leica would often be called out as favorable.

 

With mislabeled images I’m curious if many would still call out the favorability of the images labeled Leica.

 

In a “scientific study” where we were measuring something, the labels would not change the objective measurements.

[robgo2]

I said “subjective” and not “scientific” and not that I would want to measure anything.

 

I would expect on a Leica forum when discussing a very expensive Leica lens in comparison with a Zeiss or Sigma that the subjective qualities of the Leica would often be called out as favorable.

 

With mislabeled images I’m curious if many would still call out the favorability of the images labeled Leica.

 

In a “scientific study” where we were measuring something, the labels would not change the objective measurements.

 

 

The thrust of the discussion in recent posts has been about depth rendering, which is, by its very nature, perceptual and subjective. We are not interested in quantitively measurable properties. All that information is readily available but is not directly translatable into how an individual viewer perceives depth. Does that render a blinded study unscientific. Well, it means it's not chemistry or physics but something more like psychology.