50mm SL Lux - versus M lenses?

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For the first time ever, I tried an SL + 50mm SL-Summilux (I’m normally a user of the M240 + M 50mm APO, and know the M image quality very well).

 

My immediate thought of the very large prints I did off the 50mm SL-Summilux were that they seem much “sharper” than anything I’ve achieved with an M lens (maybe not in terms of out and out resolution, but more in terms of acuity, and particularly a transparent “clarity”).

 

Is that a general view of people who have both systems (and who print large)?

 

Clearly the handling / weight / evf vs rangefinder are the key issues, but I’m intrigued if my thoughts are shared about the SL 50mm lens being a notch up from any M lenses?

 

The weight is certainly in favour of the 50 APO (and its image quality is amazing for its small size) but maybe having such large lens elements in the 50 SL-Summilux really does make a difference in final image quality?

 

As an aside, I really liked the ability to accurately place my desired focus anywhere I wanted with the SL (whether manually focusing with M lenses, or autofocusing with the SL lens) ....quite a revelation in fact.

[Advertisement]

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

[bherman01545]

I've heard some great things about using M Lenses on the SL or even R lenses (which, since they were designed for a TTL SLR system) might be the better fit of the two.The 50mm F/1.4 Summilux is supposedly as good or better than the 50mm F2 APO Summicron.

 

With that said, Leica has really 'upped their game' with the new SL lenses (specifically the primes). I currently own the 24-90 and the 90-280, and I've got to tell you, I've owned all the best 'Pro Zooms' from pretty much every camera brand, and I can unequivocally state that these two zooms are the best that I've used.

 

According to Peter Karbe, the head of optics at Leica, "These primes redefine everything. They are simply amazing in terms of total optical performance, as well as mechanical. Fast autofocus. Next level image quality"

 

I've heard that the new SL F2 Summicrons (due to be released) may be even better!

 

Here's a link to the article:

 

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2016/09/setting-a-new-standard-with-leica-sl-lenses-a-discussion-with-peter-karbe-at-photokina-2016/

 

IMO, This is an exciting time to buy into the SL vision. Whatever the next SL will be, perhaps an SL2? Perhaps 48 Megapixel? these lenses will absolutely keep up and provide the best possible image quality available.

 

 

-Brad

[LD_50]

I have done a number of prints from my SL and M Summilux ASPH up to A2 size on my Epson P800. I've recently printed a few A3 size from the SL and Summilux-SL.

 

I do see fine quality in the Summilux-SL. I do think it's better than the M lens in terms of IQ. It's difficult to say how big is the difference without testing the two lenses side by side and comparing prints. I have not done any prints from 50 APO images as I don't own the lens and only have a small sample of photos I've shot with it.

[geetee1972]

For the first time ever, I tried an SL + 50mm SL-Summilux (I’m normally a user of the M240 + M 50mm APO, and know the M image quality very well).

 

My immediate thought of the very large prints I did off the 50mm SL-Summilux were that they seem much “sharper” than anything I’ve achieved with an M lens (maybe not in terms of out and out resolution, but more in terms of acuity, and particularly a transparent “clarity”).

 

Is that a general view of people who have both systems (and who print large)?

 

Clearly the handling / weight / evf vs rangefinder are the key issues, but I’m intrigued if my thoughts are shared about the SL 50mm lens being a notch up from any M lenses?

 

The weight is certainly in favour of the 50 APO (and its image quality is amazing for its small size) but maybe having such large lens elements in the 50 SL-Summilux really does make a difference in final image quality?

 

As an aside, I really liked the ability to accurately place my desired focus anywhere I wanted with the SL (whether manually focusing with M lenses, or autofocusing with the SL lens) ....quite a revelation in fact.

 

I print A3+ from my SL quite regularly. I use a 50 Summliux M but honestly I am rarely thinking about how sharp or otherwise the image is, I think it's more important and relevant to look at what's in the actual frame. It being a good photograph has little to do with how sharp the lens is.

 

My point is, if you want the 50SL because it has AF (and that might be a factor in the results you're seeing) then use that. If you need something smaller and lighter for all round use, then use the 50APO

[Donzo98]

That’s ridiculous....

 

This forum and many others obsess over sharpness, bokeh and other little nuances that 99% of the world could care less about. It’s just what we do here...

 

Why do you assume the poster doesn’t know what constitutes a good photo??

 

If he sees better IQ in the two prints, you shouldn’t dismiss him.

[Dr. G]

I print A3+ from my SL quite regularly. I use a 50 Summliux M but honestly I am rarely thinking about how sharp or otherwise the image is, I think it's more important and relevant to look at what's in the actual frame. It being a good photograph has little to do with how sharp the lens is.

 

My point is, if you want the 50SL because it has AF (and that might be a factor in the results you're seeing) then use that. If you need something smaller and lighter for all round use, then use the 50APO

 

 

I think it comes down to AF and ergonomics.  I actually like the way the camera handles and balances with the Summilux-SL vs the APO 50, even though the Summilux-SL is heavier and larger.  The APO 50 was a little small for me on the SL, but I have large hands.  Of course, if you want to control aperture with one finger and focus with another the APO can't be beat.  Image quality with either is exemplary.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Dr. G

[geetee1972]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That’s ridiculous....

 

This forum and many others obsess over sharpness, bokeh and other little nuances that 99% of the world could care less about. It’s just what we do here...

 

Why do you assume the poster doesn’t know what constitutes a good photo??

 

If he sees better IQ in the two prints, you shouldn’t dismiss him.

Whoa there trigger, I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort.

 

I was saying that image quality is bottom of the list in terms of whether you would choose to work with one lens versus the other because both are so good. There isn't enough between them and other factors become more important.

Edited January 5, 2018 by geetee1972

[FlashGordonPhotography]

SL50 is my favourite standard of all time. My M lux is brilliant but I always carry the larger lens with the SL.

 

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

Whoa there trigger, I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort.

 

I was saying that image quality is bottom of the list in terms of whether you would choose to work with one lens versus the other because both are so good. There isn't enough between them and other factors become more important.

I thought he was being ironic.

[Donzo98]

Whoa there trigger, I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort.

 

I was saying that image quality is bottom of the list in terms of whether you would choose to work with one lens versus the other because both are so good. There isn't enough between them and other factors become more important.

 

Who's trigger?? I think he was Roy Rgoer's horse...

[thighslapper]

Thorsten Overgaard has a very good video on 'Sharpness' ...... https://blog.adafruit.com/2017/09/23/leica-photographer-thorsten-von-overgaard-on-sharpness-in-photography-celebratephotography/

 

...... in which he quite rightly points out that like beauty it is mainly in the 'eye of the beholder' and not a lot to do with the actual 'sharpness' of the lens. Lighting and other factors count for a lot. 

 

The distinctive imagery of the 50 SL has more to do with the way the 'in focus' area drops off in front of and behind the image and the handling of the OOF elements to enhance the 3d effect and isolation of the subject. 

 

Having said that, the same is present to a variable degree in most similar Leica lenses  ..... and under identical circumstances I think you would see minimal difference with the 50/2 apo (which to my eye has almost identical rendering) and very little difference with the 50/1.4 or 50/0.95 at similar apertures. 

 

I have/have had all 4(*), and am sufficiently confident that the differences would be so small in real world use ..... and entirely down to 'preference' and subjective 'opinion' ..... that I am not going to waste several precious hours of my life producing images to prove it ...... 

 

(*) the 50/1.4 M has recently gone as it did nothing the other 3 couldn't do as well or better. 

Edited January 6, 2018 by thighslapper

[RoySmith]

Who's trigger?? [emoji4] I think he was Roy Rgoer's horse...

I think he meant “Whoa little dogie” which refers to Roy Roger’s song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2cFji4CmHE

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Edited January 6, 2018 by RoySmith

[tom0511]

The main problem for me is that I like the 24-90 so much for its flexbility, and the weight of the 50/1.4 and 24-90 make it difficult to carry both lenses on my hiking. So I often leave the 50 at home, even though I like it a lot.

I dont print much but I agree that the 50SL does show very fine detail. But I allways am impressed with the 50 APO, sometimes I believe it draws a little bit more gentle and natural. I believe both those lenses are clearly sharper than the 50/1.4asph M at larger apartures. I sold that lens since I prefered both the 50 APO but also the 50 Summicron.

What I heard from Leica the SL and S lenses are made more for "perfection" while the M lenses are very good but also with size/weight in mind.

I have to say that nowadays I use the Sl and CL much more than the M. Specially with fast lenses precise AF is a big advantage IMO.

[Helmut99]

I am glad I don't have an issue with "transportation" yet, so I have no problem carrying the two zooms and the SL50 together, even during longer hikes. Really like the Noctilux .95 for its unique rendering, will never sell that lens. Liked the 50 APO on MP240 and M10 but WOW, that SL50 which I only got a few weeks ago blows me away in terms of IQ combined with AF, especially when shooting in inconvenient conditions like rain or freezing temperatures (~15 C currently in MI)

 

Here is an example: f1.4, ISO 640, 1/60 s;  https://ziewers.smugmug.com/People/Photo-Shoots/AlexFamily/i-cRc2jMp/A

 

I know with the SL50 I won't use the APO anymore and will most likely sell it at some point.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Helmut99

[tom0511]

I am glad I don't have an issue with "transportation" yet, so I have no problem carrying the two zooms and the SL50 together, even during longer hikes. Really like the Noctilux .95 for its unique rendering, will never sell that lens. Liked the 50 APO on MP240 and M10 but WOW, that SL50 which I only got a few weeks ago blows me away in terms of IQ combined with AF, especially when shooting in inconvenient conditions like rain or freezing temperatures (~15 C currently in MI) I know with the SL50 I won't use the APO anymore and will most likely sell it at some point.

 

Wow, the 2 zooms and the 50. I have carried the S and 2 lenses on hikes in the mountains but recently I am leaning more towards enjoying a light backpack. If I go paragliding I also carry 15+ kg backpack but I dont like to if I can avoid it.

[Dr. G]

I am glad I don't have an issue with "transportation" yet, so I have no problem carrying the two zooms and the SL50 together, even during longer hikes. Really like the Noctilux .95 for its unique rendering, will never sell that lens. Liked the 50 APO on MP240 and M10 but WOW, that SL50 which I only got a few weeks ago blows me away in terms of IQ combined with AF, especially when shooting in inconvenient conditions like rain or freezing temperatures (~15 C currently in MI)

 

Here is an example: f1.4, ISO 640, 1/60 s;  https://ziewers.smugmug.com/People/Photo-Shoots/AlexFamily/i-cRc2jMp/A

 

I know with the SL50 I won't use the APO anymore and will most likely sell it at some point.

I sold my APO in favor of the Summilux-50 and haven't missed it. I also have the 24-90. I have an event to shoot next Saturday on the beach at night and I'm still having a tough time deciding which lens to take. Yes, I know they both have their strong points. I'll be taking shots of plated food and the chefs preparing them. The 50 gives me extra stops for low light performance (IS of the 24-90 enabling slower shutter doesn't help me with the chefs as they're moving subjects), but the 24-90 gives me a little more latitude with the plated shots. Of course taking both is an option, but I'm not too keen on changing lenses in an environment with sand and smoke from the cooking.

[antigallican]

Thorsten Overgaard has a very good video on 'Sharpness' ...... https://blog.adafruit.com/2017/09/23/leica-photographer-thorsten-von-overgaard-on-sharpness-in-photography-celebratephotography/

 

...... in which he quite rightly points out that like beauty it is mainly in the 'eye of the beholder' and not a lot to do with the actual 'sharpness' of the lens. Lighting and other factors count for a lot. 

 

The distinctive imagery of the 50 SL has more to do with the way the 'in focus' area drops off in front of and behind the image and the handling of the OOF elements to enhance the 3d effect and isolation of the subject. 

 

Having said that, the same is present to a variable degree in most similar Leica lenses  ..... and under identical circumstances I think you would see minimal difference with the 50/2 apo (which to my eye has almost identical rendering) and very little difference with the 50/1.4 or 50/0.95 at similar apertures. 

 

I have/have had all 4(*), and am sufficiently confident that the differences would be so small in real world use ..... and entirely down to 'preference' and subjective 'opinion' ..... that I am not going to waste several precious hours of my life producing images to prove it ...... 

 

(*) the 50/1.4 M has recently gone as it did nothing the other 3 couldn't do as well or better. 

Thanks for the video link. It's a good little essay Mr Overgaard makes - encapsulated a few things for me.

[dfarkas]

In my review of the 50mm Summilux-SL, I do some direct comparisons with the 50 APO M and the 50 Lux M ASPH. 

 

Leica Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH Review: A New Standard

 

The 50 SL is incredibly sharp wide-open, yet has such a smooth, lovely roll-off to out of focus. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

In my review of the 50mm Summilux-SL, I do some direct comparisons with the 50 APO M and the 50 Lux M ASPH. 

 

Leica Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH Review: A New Standard

 

The 50 SL is incredibly sharp wide-open, yet has such a smooth, lovely roll-off to out of focus. 

 

David, in the article you write..."Like the 24-90 and 90-280, the 50 SL employs an internal focusing design. This allows it to maintain a consistent barrel length across the entire focus range, which aids greatly in moisture and dust sealing."

 

My understanding on the 24-90 is that the internal focusing design keeps the lens from rotating when focusing, better facilitating use of polarizers, etc.  But the barrel length, unlike the 90-280,  does change when changing focal lengths.  I often wonder if this extension has any effect on weather sealing.  In any case, I prefer the constant barrel length of the longer zoom.  But I do like that both zooms have OIS, unlike the S zoom.

 

It will be interesting to read your SL Summicron reviews, and to compare size and weight to the Summilux.

 

Jeff

 

[LD_50]

The 24-90 changes barrel length when changing focal length, but not when focusing.

 

The 50 and 90-280 are also fixed length when focusing. The 90-280 is fixed length when changing focal length.