thighslapper Posted October 28, 2017 Share #101 Posted October 28, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here we go again ....... hair splitting to the point where you entirely lose sight of what photography is all about...... I have not the slightest doubt that you could devise tests to show that there are indeed subtle marginal differences. The problem then is deciding which is 'better' .... based on a completely arbitrary set of values that vary from person to person. Why not just accept that all the above lens/camera combos produce great images, but as we are all Leica folk we are invariably going to say the SL 50/1.4 is the one we prefer ..... particularly if you have spent the money buying it ..... 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 28, 2017 Posted October 28, 2017 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here 24-90 vs SL50. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted October 28, 2017 Share #102 Posted October 28, 2017 The 50mm f1.4 is a brick with slooooooooow AF and basically useless The Zoom is like all rooms ..............in your face vinaigrette and also sloooooooow AF Neil xx 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted October 29, 2017 Share #103 Posted October 29, 2017 The Zoom is like all rooms ..............in your face vinaigrette and also sloooooooow AF Not really dude, wrong on both accounts... 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robgo2 Posted October 29, 2017 Share #104 Posted October 29, 2017 Here we go again ....... hair splitting to the point where you entirely lose sight of what photography is all about...... I have not the slightest doubt that you could devise tests to show that there are indeed subtle marginal differences. The problem then is deciding which is 'better' .... based on a completely arbitrary set of values that vary from person to person. Why not just accept that all the above lens/camera combos produce great images, but as we are all Leica folk we are invariably going to say the SL 50/1.4 is the one we prefer ..... particularly if you have spent the money buying it ..... To my eyes, the difference between the Lux-SL and the Otus is not subtle and marginal and would have a significant impact on what I want to convey in my photographs. I say this as someone who does not own either lens. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted October 29, 2017 Share #105 Posted October 29, 2017 (edited) 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. You are raising an interesting point which moves this discussion into a direction that requires a separate thread. Possibly, with enough PP skills one can achieve the Leica look, as you state. Thank you. The author of the article below addresses it in the last paragraph. http://www.artphotoacademy.com/the-leica-look/ „With an existing computer technology it is entirely possible to emulate the Leica look in post-production, yet, getting it in-camera takes no time, while the alternative requires serious Photoshop skills, sizeable amounts of time and, in the first place, knowing what you are trying to emulate.“ Irakly Shanidze © 2017 The question is, why not get it in-camera and not having to worry about what to look for in the first place by spending 32.7% more on the Summilux-SL than on the Otus 55 (B & H Foto prices). To me the Summilux-SL is the first Leica product that is priced right based on alternatives in the market. Let’s see where they’ll price the Clooney relative to the X-T2 (I’m guessing APS-C sensor with snappy hybrid AF system but better EVF ). Edited October 29, 2017 by Chaemono 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted October 29, 2017 Share #106 Posted October 29, 2017 You are raising an interesting point which moves this discussion into a direction that requires a separate thread. Possibly, with enough PP skills one can achieve the Leica look, as you state. Thank you. The author of the article below addresses it in the last paragraph. http://www.artphotoacademy.com/the-leica-look/ „With an existing computer technology it is entirely possible to emulate the Leica look in post-production, yet, getting it in-camera takes no time, while the alternative requires serious Photoshop skills, sizeable amounts of time and, in the first place, knowing what you are trying to emulate.“ Irakly Shanidze © 2017 The question is, why not get it in-camera and not having to worry about what to look for in the first place by spending 32.7% more on the Summilux-SL than on the Otus 55 (B & H Foto prices). To me the Summilux-SL is the first Leica product that is priced right based on alternatives in the market. Let’s see where they’ll price the Clooney relative to the X-T2 (I’m guessing APS-C sensor with snappy hybrid AF system but better EVF ). Those are all fine lenses and I'm not suggesting that anyone should buy one or another. I was looking at the comparison photos and trying to figure out what was different about them, and whether they show real differences between lenses or something else. The color balance difference may be due to the camera or the lens or the software. I don't know where it comes from. It could be from the lens, the auto white balance, or how Lightroom is programmed to treat each camera's file. While a warmer look is often pleasing to the eye, it isn't always better. Anyway, a warmer look can easily be achieved with the Canon/Sigma/Zeiss combinations, either in camera or in Lightroom. If you're willing to apply a lens correction profile, then a slight color adjustment is just as easy; no serious skills required. Warmth/coolness is very often adjusted to taste anyway. As for the vignetting, the Summilux-SL example photos have more of it. As with warmer color, a little vignetting is often pleasing to the eye, but not always. Vignetting tends to make the subject stand out a little more from the background. Remove all vignetting and a photo can look flatter. The Sigma and Zeiss lenses have a nice vignetting too — but the examples have it removed by a lens correction profile. It seems the SL lens didn't have as much vignetting removed (or any). The vignetting difference is evident in all of the examples. If someone likes vignetting, the SL lens examples have more of it, and therefore look better. But the Sigma and Zeiss have vignetting too, when it hasn't been removed. So it's hard for me to draw conclusions from those examples. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted October 29, 2017 Share #107 Posted October 29, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) zlatkob, partly right. On Jacob’s Well, lens profiles applied to both (automatically on the SL - you’ve had this discussion before with others here), but then -20 on the slider for the Otus to add some vignetting back and +30 on the Summilux-SL to remove some of it. AWB by the cameras left as shot and only exposure adjusted slightly to try to match. Vignetting is only part of it. If you look closely, the Otus just doesn’t capture all the tones of the cobble stones on the well which is amazing given how sharp it is otherwise. As a result, the object looks flat. I can provide the raw files of Jacob’s Well if you like. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted October 29, 2017 Share #108 Posted October 29, 2017 Not really dude, wrong on both accounts...what ever floats your boat dudeNeil Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robgo2 Posted October 29, 2017 Share #109 Posted October 29, 2017 „With an existing computer technology it is entirely possible to emulate the Leica look in post-production, yet, getting it in-camera takes no time, while the alternative requires serious Photoshop skills, sizeable amounts of time and, in the first place, knowing what you are trying to emulate.“ Irakly Shanidze © 2017 The question is, why not get it in-camera and not having to worry about what to look for in the first place by spending 32.7% more on the Summilux-SL than on the Otus 55 (B & H Foto prices). To me the Summilux-SL is the first Leica product that is priced right based on alternatives in the market. Let’s see where they’ll price the Clooney relative to the X-T2 (I’m guessing APS-C sensor with snappy hybrid AF system but better EVF ). I'm not sure how to interpret the word "emulate" as it is used here, but I do not believe that you can reproduce the fine tonal separation of the Summilux-SL 50 with any amount of digital manipulation. If the subtlest differences in tone are not captured by the Otus in the first place, then it is impossible to create them digitally out of nothing. Hence, the depth rendering of the Lux cannot be faked. I have attempted similar experiments with other lenses and always failed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted October 29, 2017 Share #110 Posted October 29, 2017 Few will see the 50SL to be priced right when compared to the Otus as it’s limited to one camera. The Otus should be adaptable to just about anything if purchased with the Nikon F mount. The 50SL is only able to mount to a camera system that has its future being questioned due to slow roll-out of lenses and poor roadmap communication from Leica. I say this as a user of the SL who is waiting on delivery of the 50SL. I do think these products are overpriced, preventing more widespread adoption. The small user base then limits the scale and pace of future investment in building out the system. I’ll be interested to see how the 50SL compares to the 50 ASPH I’m currently shooting. The previously posted images from the Otus, Sigma, and 50SL all looked pretty good to me technically. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lx1713 Posted October 30, 2017 Share #111 Posted October 30, 2017 Curious phrase ; Leica look. I guess I can live with that. Every lens is designed with different targets in mind so I figured I will mostly use SL lenses on the SL. That seems a good way to get the Leica look Less surprises Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Gough Posted October 30, 2017 Share #112 Posted October 30, 2017 The 50mm f1.4 is a brick with slooooooooow AF and basically useless The Zoom is like all rooms ..............in your face vinaigrette and also sloooooooow AF Neil xx Clearly you do not own these lenses. Show me another 50mm lens that has comparable image quality with faster AF? Can't, why not - because there isn't one... Even the OTUS 55mm is behind the SL50mm at all apertures, and how well does it AF? My 24-90mm is as fast as most other brands equivalent 24-70mm zooms, and yes I own them too... If you do own an SL, which I doubt, then I highly recommend a firmware update, you will be surprised at the change in AF performance. Lastly Vinaigrette will damage most lenses Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted October 30, 2017 Share #113 Posted October 30, 2017 Clearly you do not own these lenses. Show me another 50mm lens that has comparable image quality with faster AF? Can't, why not - because there isn't one... Even the OTUS 55mm is behind the SL50mm at all apertures, and how well does it AF? My 24-90mm is as fast as most other brands equivalent 24-70mm zooms, and yes I own them too... If you do own an SL, which I doubt, then I highly recommend a firmware update, you will be surprised at the change in AF performance. Lastly Vinaigrette will damage most lenses Yes I had a SL and sold it..........I did not have any SL lenses as they are like bricks............. I already have 3 x S bricks for my S007 (Now those bricks are special :) ) As for the Otus I also have that lens and used it on my SL and IMOO it is defiantly better IQ wise on the SL that the two lenses you mentioned. On the SL my lens of choice was the Noctilux and the 90mm Apple and ocaonally I would use the Otus..........not any more as that is also up for sale Later Neil Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Gough Posted October 30, 2017 Share #114 Posted October 30, 2017 My experiences are the opposite, with the SL 50mm being better than the OTUS. (We are splitting hairs here when it comes to sharpness) The MTF for both lenses also supports this conclusion. The lack of AF on the OTUS is a factor too. On the SL, I have used the APO 50, Summilux M 50, Noctilux 0.95 and F1.0 along with the SL 50. It is perhaps my favourite focal length. Each one has a different use and rendition, but the SL 50mm has something very special about it, just like the 50mm M Summilux. I found the Otus capable and also very good, but not worth lugging around without AF. Cheers. Andrew Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 30, 2017 Share #115 Posted October 30, 2017 Yes I had a SL and sold it..........I did not have any SL lenses as they are like bricks............. I already have 3 x S bricks for my S007 (Now those bricks are special :) ) As for the Otus I also have that lens and used it on my SL and IMOO it is defiantly better IQ wise on the SL that the two lenses you mentioned. On the SL my lens of choice was the Noctilux and the 90mm Apple and ocaonally I would use the Otus..........not any more as that is also up for sale Later Neil Neil, it's one thing to decide a lens or camera isn't for you, due to size, weight or whatever, but to bag a lens you don't have or haven't tried is just noise ... The 50mm f1.4 is a brick with slooooooooow AF and basically useless The Zoom is like all rooms ..............in your face vinaigrette and also sloooooooow AF Neil xx I quite like vinaigrette. The SL zoom AFs are anything but slow, and I haven't noticed intrusive vignetting - where did that come from? Don't become a troll - opinions are interesting and worth posting when based on your direct experience; at least, that's what I try to abide by. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted October 30, 2017 Share #116 Posted October 30, 2017 Neil, it's one thing to decide a lens or camera isn't for you, due to size, weight or whatever, but to bag a lens you don't have or haven't tried is just noise ... I quite like vinaigrette. The SL zoom AFs are anything but slow, and I haven't noticed intrusive vignetting - where did that come from? Don't become a troll - opinions are interesting and worth posting when based on your direct experience; at least, that's what I try to abide by. John Troll I am not........I have mates that have Leica cameras, I have a mate that has a Leica boutique.............I have tried these lenses and I constantly hear mates bitching about them...........Just sharing experiences with the forum. Neil Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 31, 2017 Share #117 Posted October 31, 2017 John Troll I am not........I have mates that have Leica cameras, I have a mate that has a Leica boutique.............I have tried these lenses and I constantly hear mates bitching about them...........Just sharing experiences with the forum. Neil Up to you, Neil, but the kind of post quoted above (based on very little) is as good as the experience which supports the opinion. I don't really get why you would post it, and the result is on the weight given to any other opinion you post. Noise. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted October 31, 2017 Share #118 Posted October 31, 2017 Exactly Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgrayson3 Posted October 31, 2017 Share #119 Posted October 31, 2017 Interesting. The SL zooms have about the fastest AF I've seen outside a Canon 1 series with white lens or a Leica Q. That's why the suckers are so large. They're designed with small and light-weight focusing elements, but that comes at a size cost for the rest of the design. The SL 50/1.4 is not designed for focussing speed, and THAT people have noticed. I'm waiting for that SL 16-35... Matt 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 31, 2017 Share #120 Posted October 31, 2017 Interesting. The SL zooms have about the fastest AF I've seen outside a Canon 1 series with white lens or a Leica Q. That's why the suckers are so large. They're designed with small and light-weight focusing elements, but that comes at a size cost for the rest of the design. The SL 50/1.4 is not designed for focussing speed, and THAT people have noticed. I'm waiting for that SL 16-35... Matt I think people have also noticed the image quality from the SL 50/1.4 ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.