SL primes vs M lenses stopped down

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1- “I doubt the difference can be seen except in very large prints.”

2- “I prefer the classic rendering of the classic lenses.”

 

Don’t these two statements contradict each other? 

 

I don't think so. The difference in rendering and character are far more obvious, and visible, than the small differences in detail and resolution.

[LD_50]

I don't think so. The difference in rendering and character are far more obvious, and visible, than the small differences in detail and resolution.

The post I quoted didn’t limit the invisible differences to “detail and resolution.”

[Advertisement]

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

[Mr.Q]

The post I quoted didn’t limit the invisible differences to “detail and resolution.”

 

So what exactly are the highly visible differences between the M and SL Summilux in your view?

 

Are the differences visible even in 600 x 400 smartphone resolution like a 75/80 Summilux vs modern lenses?

[LD_50]

So what exactly are the highly visible differences between the M and SL Summilux in your view?

 

Are the differences visible even in 600 x 400 smartphone resolution like a 75/80 Summilux vs modern lenses?

I can’t say if differences are visible at 600x400 smartphone resolution as that’s not how I have compared them. Vignetting with the M lens would certainly be visible wide open even at small resolution. I still have both lenses but am not interested in doing comparisons again.

 

Shooting both the differences are there. I like both lenses but have not shot the M lens much since buying the SL lens, despite the obvious advantage in size and weight.

[Mr.Q]

Fair enough, but I still don't understand the contradiction you referred to.

 

1- “I doubt the difference can be seen except in very large prints.”
2- “I prefer the classic rendering of the classic lenses.”

 

1. is suggesting that the difference can only be seen on very large prints (or by pixel-peeping)

Whereas the difference in 2. is glaring even in very small prints (or small web size images)

[pgk]

Differences in lens rendering depend not just on lens and camera but on subject, lighting and composition. When all reinforce each other then differences are clear and obvious - on small or large images. When they don't then the differences become nuances and are hard to see and much harder to quantify.

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The difference between a 75 Summilux-M and 50 Summilux-SL at f1.4 is quite apparent on most subjects, lighting and compositions.  They really don't need to reinforce each other.

[pgk]

Yes but that's an extreme case - the older 75 is much softer wide open than a 50 aspheric and has a bokeh shift away from 50mm focal length as it is a longer lens. Comparing lenses needs to be a comparison of similar lenses whereas this isn't.

[Mr.Q]

Well, that's where this discussion stemmed from.

 

Can any of the native SL lenses produce the same look as the Summilux-R 80 f1.4 or Summilux-M 75 f1.4 at wide apertures?

Classic vs Modern

Modern (ASPH-M) vs More Modern (ASPH-SL)

 

Which is more apparent on small/large prints?

[robgo2]

I am definitely in support of using the lenses that give the look you prefer.

 

That said I read this sort of thing frequently:

1- “I doubt the difference can be seen except in very large prints.”

2- “I prefer the classic rendering of the classic lenses.”

 

Don’t these two statements contradict each other? If you can see the “classic rendering” you can certainly see the difference with the SL lenses. I like my Summilux-M lens and I like my Summilux-SL lens. The difference was pretty clear when I shot them side by side on the SL. Each are good, and I may prefer one or the other’s end result.

 

Fair enough, so let me clarify:  With regard to item #1, I was referring specifically to the greater resolution and correction of aberrations of the native SL lenses. With regard to #2, the difference in rendering can be seen in "normal" size prints (i.e. not "very large).

 

Rob

Edited September 21, 2018 by robgo2

[LD_50]

Fair enough, so let me clarify: With regard to item number 1, I was referring specifically to the greater resolution of the native SL lenses. With regard to number 2, the difference in rendering can be seen in "normal" size prints.

 

Rob

Makes sense. I can definitely agree with rendering style being visible at “normal” size and viewing distance.

 

I do also see a difference with my best lenses at these sizes and distances as well though. I don’t think it’s just resolution. It probably includes edge performance, microcontrast, resolution and rendering all together.

 

An example would be that I noticed an immediate difference with my Nikon 200 f/2 when compared to my Nikon 70-200 (at 200) in normal photos, not lens tests.

 

Comparing various Leica lenses is probably more about rendering style than outright IQ as they all seem pretty good.

[Jon Warwick]

On the theme of SL primes vs. M lenses ..... as I say, I certainly DO see the SL 75mm Summicron as showing superior sharpness (resolution to some extent, and especially acuity) compared to my M 50 APO.

 

But it's not clear to me WHY this is the case ....after all, the MTFs for 5, 10, 20, 40 lines/mm of both lenses look really remarkably similar, especially around f5.6!!

 

Any ideas why the MTF graphs might not show the full picture of what i'm perceiving between SL primes and the 50 APO?

Edited September 28, 2018 by Jon Warwick

[LD_50]

Any ideas why the MTF graphs might not show the full picture of what i'm perceiving between SL primes and the 50 APO?

Sample variation may play a factor. It might also be the way you’re assessing sharpness. Rigid testing may match what MTF charts tell you. Comparing actual photos will show a lot more than a simple reading of the MTF.

[otto.f]

Most modern lenses tend to look good stopped down.

You can choose adapted and small lenses that are much cheaper than Leica if you are regularly stopped down.

I can’t agree with this. The SAA 90 is a modern lens but I see a definite decrease in IQ above F8. The TE 135 is a classic lens and keeps its IQ up to F32 quite stable Edited September 28, 2018 by otto.f

[LD_50]

I can’t agree with this. The SAA 90 is a modern lens but I see a definite decrease in IQ above F8. The TE 135 is a classic lens and keeps its IQ up to F32 quite stable

I think you’re agreeing with me.

 

Stopping down means decreasing the aperture and increasing the f-number. So f/1.4 lens is stopped down to f/8.

 

Most lenses, even cheap ones perform well when stopped down. f/8 and smaller apertures (larger f-number) tend to look good for most modern lenses.

[otto.f]

I think you’re agreeing with me.

Stopping down means decreasing the aperture and increasing the f-number. So f/1.4 lens is stopped down to f/8.

Most lenses, even cheap ones perform well when stopped down. f/8 and smaller apertures (larger f-number) tend to look good for most modern lenses.

No we don’t; this is a textual misunderstanding. Stopping down only refers to ‘speed’: longer exposure times when the aperture figure goes up and the aperture becomes smaller. But I sometimes I can’t understand the anglo-saxon way of talking in metaphors, metonyms and other shortcuts that aren’t fysically unambiguous enough. Edited September 28, 2018 by otto.f