SL 50mm 1.4 slow AF compared to summicron?

[howiebrou]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

If you’re in the USA try LensRentals. 

Thank you. Unfortunately I am not...

[thighslapper]

The SL 50/1.4 is not slow ...... it's just that the Summicrons are snappy and the zooms lightning fast.

With the SL 50 at 1.4 you require accuracy above all else .... so if it's a bit slower than the other lenses I would consider that a reasonable trade-off.

I'm not sure what I would need super quick focussing at f1.4 for anyway ...... and if I wanted smaller apertures I would just use the 24-90.

This is a lens with specific uses and not just a general do everything optic for everyday snapping. 

Anyway, you can always get a 75/2 and just step back a few feet ..... 😕

[Chaemono]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb hteasley:

i borrowed one from Leica Bellevue, and it's great, but So. Very. Large.

Otus size and the Zeiss lens doesn’t come with AF nor state of the art weather sealing. 

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!

[tom0511]

The 50 Lux is not superfast but for my part I find AF speed fast enough for most things including images of my kids.

AF is certainly much faster than a Otus, and as far as I know there is no 50/2.0 AF Leica lens available until some time next year.

For me the size/weight of the 50/1.4 is more the point where I sometimes a little unhappy. 

The optical quality and rendering is exceptional though.

Since I do not need f1.4 often I would probably prefer a 50 Summicron AF lens (if it was optically as good as the 50 Summilux), because I would prefer the smaller size.

 

[cabe]

For me the 50lux SL is fast enough for most uses, also the focus at the maximum aperture is very precise!

I have the 90SL which of course is faster than the 50...

The quality of the 50lux SL is spectacular!!!

Edited October 22, 2018 by cabe

[Ivar B]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 10:17 PM, Chaemono said:

Otus size and the Zeiss lens doesn’t come with AF nor state of the art weather sealing. 

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!

Did you by any chance compare the optical quality of these two lenses? I would expect a fairly equal performance, perhaps?

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did. They render differently. The Otus is optimized for sharpness, the Summilux-SL for depth rendering. It’s not alway visible and often doesn’t make a big difference but sometimes it changes the character of a scene. See the image of the woman kneeling and praying in the church for a loved one who is ill or injured in the first link below. The Otus shows a sharp object in front of a blurred background, the Leica picture shows depth and conveys emotions. The Otus is a tad sharper in the center but it’s immaterial, almost non-visible. The Otus is sharper in the corners but after the lens profile in LR is applied the difference in corner sharpness between the two lenses is negligible. Corner distortion is corrected by op codes with the Leica lens with no visible effect to resolution to my eyes. Leica did a terrific job here rather than leaving it up to lens profiles in Raw converters. The Summilux-SL has hardly any CA/PF, the Otus very little. It could be that the Summilux-SL is so clean because of software corrections baked into the DNGs, though.

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

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

Edited October 23, 2018 by Chaemono

[Ivar B]

5 hours ago, Chaemono said:

I did. They render differently. The Otus is optimized for sharpness, the Summilux-SL for depth rendering. It’s not alway visible and often doesn’t make a big difference but sometimes it changes the character of a scene. See the image of the woman kneeling and praying in the church for a loved one who is ill or injured in the first link below. The Otus shows a sharp object in front of a blurred background, the Leica picture shows depth and conveys emotions. The Otus is a tad sharper in the center but it’s immaterial, almost non-visible. The Otus is sharper in the corners but after the lens profile in LR is applied the difference in corner sharpness between the two lenses is negligible. Corner distortion is corrected by op codes with the Leica lens with no visible effect to resolution to my eyes. Leica did a terrific job here rather than leaving it up to lens profiles in Raw converters. The Summilux-SL has hardly any CA/PF, the Otus very little. It could be that the Summilux-SL is so clean because of software corrections baked into the DNGs, though.

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

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

Many thanks - very interesting. I enlarged your photos of the woman praying. I take it that L1000162 is shot with the Otus.  The sharpness difference is quite clear to see, in particular the candles. The glass containers are super sharp in L100162 but quite blurred in S100629. If this could be due to some focus error or something is hard to say of course. Perhaps the Summilux-SL scores higher in other respects. Well, it does not come as a surprise that Zeiss knows how to produce first rate lenses as well, and with the Otus line they have used all the tools in the box.  

[howiebrou]

6 hours ago, Chaemono said:

I did. They render differently. The Otus is optimized for sharpness, the Summilux-SL for depth rendering. It’s not alway visible and often doesn’t make a big difference but sometimes it changes the character of a scene. See the image of the woman kneeling and praying in the church for a loved one who is ill or injured in the first link below. The Otus shows a sharp object in front of a blurred background, the Leica picture shows depth and conveys emotions. The Otus is a tad sharper in the center but it’s immaterial, almost non-visible. The Otus is sharper in the corners but after the lens profile in LR is applied the difference in corner sharpness between the two lenses is negligible. Corner distortion is corrected by op codes with the Leica lens with no visible effect to resolution to my eyes. Leica did a terrific job here rather than leaving it up to lens profiles in Raw converters. The Summilux-SL has hardly any CA/PF, the Otus very little. It could be that the Summilux-SL is so clean because of software corrections baked into the DNGs, though.

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

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

For fun, i clicked through about 10 photos ignoring which lens took the photo and tried to guess which was which. 9 out of 10 i guessed the SL based on what i liked. The SL photos seem to pop out and have a much more 3 dimensional feel to them. No idea if this was a fluke but i was pleasantly surprised.

[Chaemono]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Ivar B:

Many thanks - very interesting. I enlarged your photos of the woman praying. I take it that L1000162 is shot with the Otus.  The sharpness difference is quite clear to see, in particular the candles. The glass containers are super sharp in L100162 but quite blurred in S100629. If this could be due to some focus error or something is hard to say of course. Perhaps the Summilux-SL scores higher in other respects. Well, it does not come as a surprise that Zeiss knows how to produce first rate lenses as well, and with the Otus line they have used all the tools in the box.  

The Otus is sharper but the focus point may not be on the exact same spot on the votive light stand in the church and it was handheld. The pictures of the lenses on the glass table were taken with a tripod. One can see slight differences there. For example, the OOF rendering in front of the focus point is smoother with the Otus than with Summilux-SL, busier blur, despite possible reflections from the adapter for the Otus.

Edit - I’d say super sharpness corner to corner wide open and buttery blur (on its native mount) in front and behind the focus point are what characterize the Otus. Contrast fall-off behind the focus point is sudden. Summilux-SL maintains more contrast behind the focus point, resolves, therefore, more detail, and creates the illusion of more depth.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Chaemono

[ajmarton1]

The 90-280 is enormous.  I carried it through Asia but would not do that again unless I was going to Africa and needed the length.