Jump to content

Otus vs SL Primes


Csacwp

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think the SL was designed with the walk-around photographer in mind. At the time, the M and, for those needing AF, the T (now the CL) fulfilled* those needs. The SL was designed for events and occasions when you're not going far, when size and weight are less critical.

 

I'm happy to have the SL and two larger zooms. I would never think of using either for casual "what shall I take with me today?" use. I also have no need ('wish' is another matter) for the primes, as changing lenses wastes time when you're in a hurry. 

 

Of course, people use cameras as they want, not just as the designers intended - nothing wrong with that but it's unreasonable (IMO) to blame Leica for design choices which make good sense in another scenario.

 

Edit: to avoid restarting old battles, perhaps "addressed" is a better word than "fulfilled"

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the SL was designed with the walk-around photographer in mind. At the time, the M and, for those needing AF, the T (now the CL) fulfilled those needs. The SL was designed for events and occasions when you're not going far, when size and weight are less critical.

 

I'm happy to have the SL and two larger zooms. I would never think of using either for casual "what shall I take with me today?" use. I also have no need ('wish' is another matter) for the primes, as changing lenses wastes time when you're in a hurry.

 

Of course, people use cameras as they want, not just as the designers intended - nothing wrong with that but it's unreasonable (IMO) to blame Leica for design choices which make good sense in another scenario.

I absolutely agree.

Any camera will have it's limitations as it was designed with a purpose in mind.

The SL is a Mirrorless full frame AF camera with the ability to adapt S, R & M lenses for manual focus (except S) when design. A good versitle concept.

Many in the forum are happy to use the SL for manual focus lenses, which is fine. My personal thoughts differ as I hope to optimize the usage capability of the SL on AF and gladly accept the size of the native lenses. I recognize that there are better AF Mirrorless camera out there. But I am happy on the current AF capability of the SL as I get one of the best lenses money can buy. The SL also offer users a good range of focal length coverage. Ideal as a workhorse.

I would not just keep bitching about sensor not big enough, resolution not high enough, lenses not compact enough. There are MF, Micro 4 thirds, CL/TL out there available for users with different priorities. The ultimate success or failure of the SL system will be judged by the sales Leica makes.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the SL was designed with the walk-around photographer in mind. At the time, the M and, for those needing AF, the T (now the CL) fulfilled* those needs. The SL was designed for events and occasions when you're not going far, when size and weight are less critical.

 

I'm happy to have the SL and two larger zooms. I would never think of using either for casual "what shall I take with me today?" use. I also have no need ('wish' is another matter) for the primes, as changing lenses wastes time when you're in a hurry. 

 

Of course, people use cameras as they want, not just as the designers intended - nothing wrong with that but it's unreasonable (IMO) to blame Leica for design choices which make good sense in another scenario.

 

Edit: to avoid restarting old battles, perhaps "addressed" is a better word than "fulfilled"

 

Paul,

 

As far as I am concerned the SL body is fantastic.  It is a little bit heavier than Sony, Hasselblad X1D and Fuji X-H1 but not that much.  

 

Ergonomically IMO the grip can be improved and following the rounded comments from Kaufman I suspect that is what will happen as well once the SL2 comes along.

 

I fail to understand though why Leica in addition to heavy zooms and heavy reference lenses cannot at the same time release smaller and lighter primes as well.

 

After all most of Leica's reputation is based upon delivering the highest optical quality in a small package.  Why only apply that to the TL/CL and not to the SL?  It doesn't make sense to me.

 

As you have noticed the Hasselblad X1D is making huge inroads.  Why?  Because Hasselblad packs a larger higher resolution sensor in a smaller package with lighter and cheaper lenses, still maintaining fantastic image quality.

 

We are now 6 lenses in to the SL-system and the average weight is 1,077g.  Sorry, simply too much... 

 

Thanks, Joris.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

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/ 

Thank you for the great comparison. It's such an eye opener for me. I have done lens test/comparison before, but often time, it's not as easy to spot the difference as yours. Maybe the Leica is just that good! 

 

Paul,

 

As far as I am concerned the SL body is fantastic.  It is a little bit heavier than Sony, Hasselblad X1D and Fuji X-H1 but not that much.  

 

Ergonomically IMO the grip can be improved and following the rounded comments from Kaufman I suspect that is what will happen as well once the SL2 comes along.

 

I fail to understand though why Leica in addition to heavy zooms and heavy reference lenses cannot at the same time release smaller and lighter primes as well.

 

After all most of Leica's reputation is based upon delivering the highest optical quality in a small package.  Why only apply that to the TL/CL and not to the SL?  It doesn't make sense to me.

 

As you have noticed the Hasselblad X1D is making huge inroads.  Why?  Because Hasselblad packs a larger higher resolution sensor in a smaller package with lighter and cheaper lenses, still maintaining fantastic image quality.

 

We are now 6 lenses in to the SL-system and the average weight is 1,077g.  Sorry, simply too much... 

 

Thanks, Joris.

It will take time Joris. Clearly, they didn't go for another Summilux release but switched to a set of APO Cron. The Elmarit/Elmar will follow. I feel the SL mirrorless system is the most flexible system Leica has right now. If you want to go extremely small, you need to adapt the M-mount lenses at the moment. But the option is there. If you want unequal performance in the 135 format, you have the native SL lenses. SL system is still at its infancy, but from where I am looking at it, you already have much more flexibility than Sony/Olympus/Fuji/Panasonic had back then. And I'm shooting mainly with Sony  but I'm keeping a keen eye on the SL development. The Cron set seems to be what I want to get at a later date.

 

I'm puzzled however by the decision of normalizing the size of the lenses. Clearly the system is not meant for video only, and doing this would greatly limit the flexibility down the road for a wider or longer focal length.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They normalized the size of the announced Summicrons. The other native lenses are different sizes. I don’t think they will limit the roadmap to maintain a specific lens size. They are seeing cost reduction by sharing parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They normalized the size of the announced Summicrons. The other native lenses are different sizes. I don’t think they will limit the roadmap to maintain a specific lens size. They are seeing cost reduction by sharing parts.

We'll see when they have another Summilux. Even with cine lenses, they didn't normalize the zoom lenses. Cost reduction is also my first thought, but hopefully that they won't do the same size for Wide angle and long lenses later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I took some test shots this weekend with the α7R III + Sonnar FE 55/1.8 and the SL + 50 Summilux-SL to compare a "great and more likely to be carried" system with an 'optically perfect,' heavy one. First, the two lenses aren't really comparable, f/1.8 vs. f/1.4, or are they? Well, in many ways they are. The FE 55/1.8 is spectacular for its size. It draws really nicely wide open with very pleasing blur while maintaining almost equal sharpness across the frame. Coupled with the high resolution of the α7R III sensor this combo packs a lot of performance in a very small package. But wide open the FE 55/1.8 shows a lot of purple fringing, the 50 Summilux-SL none. Even if it can be removed in post most of the time, some seem to be intolerable of this after being spoiled by the SL lenses. TL lenses like the 35 Summilux-TL and M lenses like the 50 Noctilux also show tons of purple fringing wide open, at least mine do. The other difference is the way contrast behaves with the 50 Summilux-SL. First, contrast and resolution are extremely high at the focus point for both, the FE 55/1.8 and the Summilux-SL. But with the Leica lens it seems contrast is maintained around the focus point and falls off gradually before dropping very fast. See the the back of the white BMW in the pictures that the link leads to. The focus point is on right rear light but the license plate of the Sony pictures starts to show more blur faster despite the lens being f/1.8. Also, I took two identical pictures at f/1.8 for both lenses. The focus point in the London Talbot picture is in the upper right hand corner and I provided the crops. But look at how much detail the Leica picture shows on the left side of the car.

 

 

Here the link to pictures: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-vtX3dB/

 

Sony violets with FE 55/1.8

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!

ISO 100 f/1.8 @1/8000 sec.

Edited by Chaemono
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-vtX3dB/

 

SL violets with 50 Summilux-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!

ISO 100 f/1.4 @1/16000 sec.

Edited by Chaemono
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

For my taste the SL body has a a very good user interface. I have used m43 and Sony dx and Sony FF and while the bodies are smaller (which is nice for certain occasions) overall I prefer to have a stable grip, to have a display on the top of the camera, to have buttons which are easy to find and which are not too small.

I agree about the lenses, the 24-90 is a great range but on the big side , as is the 50/1.4.

The75 is just right IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that’s what I was suggesting... average and mediocre lenses. Funny.

 

Of course we don’t know sales figures, but I bet they would have been higher starting with the full set of Summicrons, including the 35 and others. Then supplemented with a smaller zoom trio, of excellent optical quality, with IS. As I’ve written, I’d own the system if they were smaller and more like 21-35, 35-90 and 90-180. Great for travel. Who will routinely pack or carry the current trio?

 

I wonder how many people were clamoring for a 90-280 bazooka in advance of the SL launch. I bet most would have scoffed. (And I bet some who bought it mostly don’t use it). It’s funny how we rationalize and admire after the fact. If great quality, but smaller and more compact zooms had been released, I bet the forum would be praising them as much or more than the current group of stellar big ones. And loving their Summicron primes.

 

Jeff

 

 

The SL 90-280 is for me the highlight of the SL range. The weight is just a small price.

So opinions are often completely different - like tastes.

I always have this lens in my bag, it is so useful.

The 24-90 is not my favorite, while the new SL 16-35 is a fine replacement.

Edited by caissa
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even at this size I could pick the SL 50 shot. :)

 

Gordon

 

And once one gets into pixel peeping one sees this in the Sony image, CA leading to some fringing in the OOF areas. It's not much but the only way to fix it is to pull back the magenta and green channels which will change the overall color balance of the picture. It's not that the FE 55/1.8 wide open is too bad in this respect, it's impressive how "clean" the 50 Summilux-SL is.

 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-vtX3dB/

 

Sony BMW crop

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 BMW crop

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I know this is resurrecting an old post, but I was able to test a Leica 50mm Summicron SL side by side with a Zeiss Otus 55mm for Nikon on a new Leica SL2 camera. The autofocus feature of the Summicron is great and makes it a more useful lens. For straight sharpness, I don't really see much difference, even with pixel peeping. However, the color rendering is definitely warmer with the Otus than the Summicron. The one downside of the Summicron is it definitely has more chromatic aberrations - specifically color moire - compared with the Otus, which is not completely correctable in C1P or Lightroom. The Otus doesn't have any color artifacts, but here is the Summicron at 100% magnification that shows it. I tested them side by side with several images.

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 by isleofgough
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the differences in color moire are related to the angle light is hitting the sensor. I had previously used a Nikon D800E (which lacks an antialiasing filter) and rarely had to deal with moire in C1P, Lightroom, or Photoshop; when I did, it was usually easy to fix.  With the Leica SL2, I have to use an adapter and assign the lens profile manually. The adapter physically distances the lens from the camera somewhat, and maybe that is what is happening. If this were just resolving power, I would expect to see a difference in sharpness at high magnifications, and I am not seeing it. The differences between the two lenses on bokeh and sharpness are so minimal that I don't really see an advantage of one over the other. Realistically, the very short depth of field at f2 means that even slight focusing errors will far outweigh differences in the laboratory.

I have tested shots taken with a tripod using the two lenses on a SL2 in Capture One Pro, Lightroom, and FastRawViewer. DXOphotolab will not open SL2 files currently, so I cannot compare, but would be curious about "try another raw converter". Obviously, in C1P and LR, one has to assign the lens profile manually, as the adapter does not relay information about the lens to the camera.

Edited by isleofgough
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is not what is happening. The sensor-lens distance will be exactly the same - that is what an adapter is for. It is just the high acuity that throws the demosaicing algorithms off the track that causes moirë Try another raw developer, like RawTherapee,  or Silkypix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought the purpose of an adapter is to maintain the distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor, equivalent of the camera for which the lens was originally made. That does not mean that the distance of the rear element on a Leica lens to sensor would necessarily be the same as on a Nikon. The angle of view should be the same (if both were exactly 50mm lenses) but that is different from rear lens to sensor distance. The actual angle of light to the sensor from the rear element would not have to be the same either between the two different camera systems.

 I hadn't tried RawTherapee or Silkypix but a quick try of them didn't really seem to have an advantage over the programs I know better. I can get very close in C1P, but I have to turn moire removal up to 75/100. LR at 45 (brush) works pretty well but causes some color shifts that are undesirable. Rawtherapee did not work well with 1-2 iterations using AMaZE but Sinkypix wasn't too bad on its default settings. I actually could get a better result in C1P, but that is probably because I know that program. One things I am not seeing is a difference in sharpness between the two lenses, which would be strange if the moire is completely related to lens sharpness.

Edited by isleofgough
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moire happens when a lens out-resolves a sensor (which is true of most high-quality lenses), and the image detail is very near to the sensor sampling frequency. I wouldn't read too much into the fact that you saw moire with one lens/sensor/subject combination, but not another. You may have had different results by changing any variable, including a tiny adjustment of the focusing distance.

Software also plays a role. Not only post-processing software, but also camera firmware. Your camera may detect moire-like patterns and apply some level of smoothing/averaging before saving the raw file.

Was your example shot off-of your display? I see a regular pattern which could be from a computer monitor. It looks lie a diffraction grating. Some images display moire at certain magnifications, but the effect disappears if you increase or decrease the magnification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...