Otus vs SL Primes

[Csacwp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How do these compare?

[Advertisement]

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

[LD_50]

They’re heavy and expensive and excellent. SL have autofocus and weather sealing. Otus can be used on multiple camera systems.

[Jeff S]

And the SL can optimize use of native lenses through software corrections.

 

Jeff

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have only ever used the Otus 50 for a week or so and the 28 for a day or two. I own the SL50 and 90 as well as the Sigma Art 50 and 85.

 

They draw a bit differently. The Summicrons are a stop slower. Other than that there's almost nothing to argue against either.

 

The SL 50 is my favourite 50 ever.

 

Gordon

[geetee1972]

The SL 50 is my favourite 50 ever.

 

Gordon

 

you know for all the nay-saying I did about the SL50, I have to agree with you. The SL50 is really quite special. I'm quite embarrassed about the fuss I originally made about this lens.

[profus]

I've played with ZF.2 135mm and with 85mm Otus. Yes, both big and heavy, but both exceptional lenses working perfectly with SL

Couldn't justify the price of Otus and end up buying 85 Milvus which performs very close to Otus in many aspects (and could actually be sharper than

it wide open) at 40% of its price.

 

I am more than happy with that purchase and that is my primary portrait lens at the moment.

 

It would be strange not to be satisfied with an Otus/SL combo. 

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Otus is prettier, at least on the SL.

 

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!

 

[helged]

Otus 28mm is a very useful lens for astrophotography, easily beating e.g. 28mm Lux-M wide/wideish open. But the 24-90 SL is, actually, the best performer I have tested wrt coma, edge sharpness, etc. And the 16-35 SL is possibly even better. But apertures around f3-3.5 are, unfortunately, limiting the usefulness of the SL-zooms for astrophotography.

[carlosgavina]

Any direct comparisons between the Otus 55 and Summilux-SL? I own the summilux, just curious to see how they stand to each other.

[LD_50]

I believe some comparison images have been posted on this forum. It’s not likely you’re going to see many so I would recommend you rent the Otus and test for your use case scenarios.

 

They are so good it is not going to be an IQ issue to decide between them.

[Chaemono]

Any direct comparisons between the Otus 55 and Summilux-SL? I own the summilux, just curious to see how they stand to each other.

 

They render a bit differently so it really comes down to what look one prefers, the "Leica Look" or the "Zeiss Look."   

 

The Otus is bit sharper in the corners wide open but the Summilux-SL is acceptably sharp there. In the center, they are about equally sharp, maybe a slight edge for the Otus. The Otus is optimized for sharpness, the Summilux-SL for depth rendering, not the same as as 3D-Pop, a horrible word. To my eyes, the Summilux-SL beats the Otus by a mile in terms of depth rendering.

 

Where the Otus really shines is in low light situations on a sensor like the one in the α7R II/III due to a combination of extremely high sharpness, and high pixel count, high DR, excellent low light performance of FF BSI sensors (not rocket science for companies like TowerJazz to make for the SL2, I think). By the way, I find that the Sigma Art holds up really well in terms of resolution and OOF treatment agains the other two. For accuracy, one has to focus the Sigma Art manually, though. Still, it's incredible value for money.

 

I didn’t check thoroughly for CA/PF but the Otus showed a bit more wide open. It could be that the Summilux-SL is software corrected in this respect. Removing the opcodes doesn’t make a difference here, but the corrections could be baked into the raw. The ‘optical’ performance of the Summilux-SL is so impressive, I actually don’t care. Also, the corner to corner comparisons between the Zeiss and the Leica were done with the opcode distortion corrections applied to the Summilux-SL. It showed no visible loss of resolution to my eyes. The loss of resolution in the extreme corners wide open is ‘more visible’ when the lens profile in LR is applied to the Otus than comparing the extreme corners of the Summilux-SL with and without the opcodes. Leica did a terrific job there with the software corrections IMO. 

 

55 Otus + SL vs. 50 Summilux-SL + SL (OOF areas affected by the Otus not being on its native mount)

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-GGCRrg/

 

55 Otus + 5 DS R vs. 50 Summilux-SL + SL

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

 

And here in some shots the Otus on the α7R III (Angel with candle, for example)

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/ 

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

They render a bit differently so it really comes down to what look one prefers, the "Leica Look" or the "Zeiss Look." 

 

The Otus is bit sharper in the corners wide open but the Summilux-SL is acceptably sharp there. In the center, they are about equally sharp, maybe a slight edge for the Otus. The Otus is optimized for sharpness, the Summilux-SL for depth rendering, not the same as as 3D-Pop, a horrible word. To my eyes, the Summilux-SL beats the Otus by a mile in terms of depth rendering.

 

Where the Otus really shines is in low light situations on a sensor like the one in the α7R II/III due to a combination of extremely high sharpness, and high pixel count, high DR, excellent low light performance of FF BSI sensors (not rocket science for companies like TowerJazz to make for the SL2, I think). By the way, I find that the Sigma Art holds up really well in terms of resolution and OOF treatment agains the other two. For accuracy, one has to focus the Sigma Art manually, though. Still, it's incredible value for money.

 

I didn’t check thoroughly for CA/PF but the Otus showed a bit more wide open. It could be that the Summilux-SL is software corrected in this respect. Removing the opcodes doesn’t make a difference here, but the corrections could be baked into the raw. The ‘optical’ performance of the Summilux-SL is so impressive, I actually don’t care. Also, the corner to corner comparisons between the Zeiss and the Leica were done with the opcode distortion corrections applied to the Summilux-SL. It showed no visible loss of resolution to my eyes. The loss of resolution in the extreme corners wide open is ‘more visible’ when the lens profile in LR is applied to the Otus than comparing the extreme corners of the Summilux-SL with and without the opcodes. Leica did a terrific job there with the software corrections IMO. 

 

55 Otus + SL vs. 50 Summilux-SL + SL (OOF areas affected by the Otus not being on its native mount)

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-GGCRrg/

 

55 Otus + 5 DS R vs. 50 Summilux-SL + SL

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

 

And here in some shots the Otus on the α7R III (Angel with candle, for example)

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-Jfdr66/ 

 

Thanks. Again....

 

The near complete absence of CA on the SL glass, that you mentioned, is what impresses me the most. As I said I still have the SIgma Art 50 and 85. I also have the Sony 50, 55 and 85. Those lenses are really, really good. It's almost unfair to criticise at this level and simply astounding compared to what we were getting just a few years ago. I really like the way the Sony 85 draws. 11 aperture blades....

 

But now I've seen the near complete absence of CA on the SL lenses it's impossible to unsee it on the others. And they're epic compared to everything else on the market.

 

Gordon

[Jeff S]

Thanks. Again....

 

The near complete absence of CA on the SL glass, that you mentioned, is what impresses me the most. As I said I still have the SIgma Art 50 and 85. I also have the Sony 50, 55 and 85. Those lenses are really, really good. It's almost unfair to criticise at this level and simply astounding compared to what we were getting just a few years ago. I really like the way the Sony 85 draws. 11 aperture blades....

 

But now I've seen the near complete absence of CA on the SL lenses it's impossible to unsee it on the others. And they're epic compared to everything else on the market.

 

Gordon

What about CA on the XCD.lenses?

 

Jeff

[Guest VVJ]

I also have the Sony 50, 55 and 85. Those lenses are really, really good. 

 

I really wish Leica would release a handful of lighter lenses like the Sony 55mm (281g).  It would IMO go a long way toward making the Leica SL a more popular platform.  

[FlashGordonPhotography]

What about CA on the XCD.lenses?

 

Jeff

 

Pretty much zero as well. Even in Lightroom I struggle to see PF and other issues. And you can see the improvement over the HC lenses. For example the XC90 is CA free while the 100 shows coloured edges to it boke balls to f 4.5 (although they're not distracting from 3.5).

 

The XC lenses seem to have been made for extreme detail gathering and a small sacrifice in rendering in difficult conditions (say contrasty backlighting). They draw nice enough if you can keep the hex balls under control and the contrast in the background down a bit. The SL lenses have the detail gathering and also stunning blur.

 

I suppose that's the trade off when you try to keep AF lenses smaller like the X1D does. The SL does away with those constraints at the expense of larger lenses.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I really wish Leica would release a handful of lighter lenses like the Sony 55mm (281g).  It would IMO go a long way toward making the Leica SL a more popular platform.  

 

I'm glad they started with the pursuit of optical perfection. They released exactly the lenses I would get first.

 

But I agree some smaller lenses are needed. Some excellent f4.5 zooms for the landscape shooters and a set of Elmairit primes that are tiny (and maybe stabilised??).

 

Gordon

[jplomley]

Are these lenses so "perfect" that they have lost all character? Are we entering the clinical era of photography? I was just looking at some images a guy posted wit the 35 Cron R on his SL, and they looked so well rounded and organic. Not razor sharp and brittle which is where we seem to be headed. Do we really need all this optical "perfection" for such an imperfect world? It's seems the manufacturers are targeting measurebators more than photographers these days.

Edited May 17, 2018 by jplomley

[thighslapper]

Are these lenses so "perfect" that they have lost all character? Are we entering the clinical era of photography? I was just looking at some images a guy posted wit the 35 Cron R on his SL, and they looked so well rounded and organic. Not razor sharp and brittle which is where we seem to be headed. Do we really need all this optical "perfection" for such an imperfect world? It's seems the manufacturers are targeting measurebators more than photographers these days.

 .... errrr ..... that does beg the question why you are on the forum and using Leica gear at all.......

 

taking the argument to it's logical conclusion you should be using a cheap ancient 8mpx digital and some crappy old tamron lenses. 

 

attributing 'character' to deficient lens design is a matter of semi delusional semantics.

 

It's a bit like playing 78's on a wind up gramophone because you think modern Hi-Fi has ruined music ...... 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jplomley]

I guess Grumpy Old Fart is indeed spot-on accurate. And a Premium Member nonetheless. Nice.

[Jeff S]

.... errrr ..... that does beg the question why you are on the forum and using Leica gear at all.......

 

taking the argument to it's logical conclusion you should be using a cheap ancient 8mpx digital and some crappy old tamron lenses.

 

attributing 'character' to deficient lens design is a matter of semi delusional semantics.

 

It's a bit like playing 78's on a wind up gramophone because you think modern Hi-Fi has ruined music ......

Last I checked, many on the forum were jazzed about the reintroduction of lenses called Summaron, Thambar and the like. Character, perhaps.

 

But that aside, I think extreme scenarios miss the more moderate positions. Oftentimes there are ‘sweet spots’ in technology for some people. Car analogies often fail, but for me, the 911 was more fun when it was smaller and less powerful. Now the Cayman has filled the void. Markets often demand that things get bigger and faster and more whatever..... but one needn’t be a Luddite to think more is not better.

 

Yes, I sometimes still listen to vinyl and drive older cars. But while I’ve moved on to more modern variations, there’s a level beyond which I not only don’t need, but don’t want.

 

I moved to digital photography primarily to get out of the darkroom and to add color to my printing repertoire. But I will never need a 200 MP camera , Leica or otherwise. Or lenses that have corresponding resolution.

 

I have used the M for 35+ years in large part because of the size, controls, , viewing and focusing, and the lenses, of which the latter have been good enough for a long time. But Leica doesn’t make much money on folks like me. Although if they made the SL system smaller and more portable, with some slower and narrower range zooms, I’d add a bit to their sales. Unlike Gordon, I’d rather have a system that while great, I’m more likely to carry, than to prioritize optical perfection.

 

Jeff

Edited May 18, 2018 by Jeff S