Lumix S Pro 50/1.4 vs. 50 Summilux-SL - image thread

[verwackelt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is it true that the better the lenses are corrected and the more elements they have, the microcontrast, modulation of structures and clearness is suffering?
Somewhere in the www i saw a comparison between an Otus and an older Zeiss lens(unfortunately i did not bookmarked it).
The Otus seemed to be sharper and having more resolving power.
The older Zeiss was not so sharp, but seems to have more contrast and better modulation of structures.
Is that just a coincedence or web myth? Or is that general the downside of perfect corrected Lenses? The compromise one has to accept for perfect sharpness?
If yes, i would prefer older Desings for special tasks like b&w landscape where microcontrast and modulation is improving the imagequality more than the last 10% of sharpness.
Newer lensdesigns for jobs where sharpness is most important...

[BernardC]

The great thing about this discussion, and similar discussions elsewhere, is that they've made people realize that there's more to a lens than "sharpness."

I run two different sets of lenses on my SL. One is made-up of modern, low-flare, ultra-sharp lenses. The other is made-up of lenses, or lens designs, that have been around for 50 years or more.

It has been great to have that flexibility in how I want to convey a scene. Musicians work on their tonality. Photographers should do the same.

[hiepphotog]

8 hours ago, verwackelt said:

Is it true that the better the lenses are corrected and the more elements they have, the microcontrast, modulation of structures and clearness is suffering?
Somewhere in the www i saw a comparison between an Otus and an older Zeiss lens(unfortunately i did not bookmarked it).
The Otus seemed to be sharper and having more resolving power.
The older Zeiss was not so sharp, but seems to have more contrast and better modulation of structures.
Is that just a coincedence or web myth? Or is that general the downside of perfect corrected Lenses? The compromise one has to accept for perfect sharpness?
If yes, i would prefer older Desings for special tasks like b&w landscape where microcontrast and modulation is improving the imagequality more than the last 10% of sharpness.
Newer lensdesigns for jobs where sharpness is most important...

If it's just high macro contrast, you can achieve that in post. It's the micro-contrast that the Otus has over the older lenses. And really, without a really good control test, I would take any of that as a grain of salt. I have done enough lens testing myself. People tend to wax poetic about the magical properties of their old lenses as if the old lenses need to have something better than the new one besides being cheaper. Now, among the modern lenses, you will certainly see the difference between each company take on what they want to achieve. Better yet, a blind test would settle any argument.

[saxo]

Am 4.5.2019 um 16:50 schrieb Chaemono:

Yes, the Lumix S 50/1.4 is sharper in the corners than the 50 Summilux-SL. This applies to every corner but I'll only post the lower right one here the way I like to compare them. But I'm not sure this is the right question to ask. The difference is not material IMO unless one crops a lot. But if one crops a lot, the difference in the way the two lenses render the OOF area becomes apparent and here the Summilux is smoother. So in a way, the Lumix still 'looses.' 😀

 

Thanks a lot for your effort!

I thought the panasonic would be a little bit better in corners, but it was just a guess. With fast lenses Leica often tends to optimize the center rather than corners, which is often appropriated, but not always.

Edited May 6, 2019 by saxo

[thighslapper]

14 hours ago, hiepphotog said:

If it's just high macro contrast, you can achieve that in post. It's the micro-contrast that the Otus has over the older lenses. And really, without a really good control test, I would take any of that as a grain of salt. I have done enough lens testing myself. People tend to wax poetic about the magical properties of their old lenses as if the old lenses need to have something better than the new one besides being cheaper. Now, among the modern lenses, you will certainly see the difference between each company take on what they want to achieve. Better yet, a blind test would settle any argument.

I have no problem with photographers who like the rendering of older lenses ...... but they have to accept that they are inferior optical designs and that they are effectively using undesirable optical properties for artistic expression.

As achieving optical perfection is virtually impossible, lens design involves choosing which aberrations and defects are acceptable compromises in achieving the desired resolving power and colour fidelity. Then you throw in weight, size and robustness, and as a result you end up with no two lenses with the same properties. 

Leica have decided that some of this can be done in what is effectively 'post processing' ...... and if Adobe had the time and incentive, I suspect they could emulate the look of almost every lens ever produced by subtle image quality degradation. 

I have got rid of ALL my old lenses as I'd prefer to start with images as optically perfect as possible and have the option of adding effects afterwards. The only exception is a recent Petzval copy which uses the aberrations caused by extreme field curvature for artistic effect. 

[BernardC]

4 hours ago, thighslapper said:

I have no problem with photographers who like the rendering of older lenses ...... but they have to accept that they are inferior optical designs and that they are effectively using undesirable optical properties for artistic expression.

I have no problem with that. If an undesirable optical property makes a subject's skin look smoother, or if it flares in a pleasing way, then I am all-in.

It doesn't work with all images, but when it does, it's magical.

I know I am not alone. Ultra-expensive motion picture lenses often come in "classic" and "modern" varieties. It's easier, faster, and cheaper to "bake-in" a look when shooting, compared to trying to achieve the same look later. That's especially true of lens flares that change a lot with slight changes in camera position.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think its a lot of work to produce the look of some older lenses in post. SO if someone likes the look of a certain lens, why not just use that lens.

 

[hiepphotog]

On 5/7/2019 at 8:12 AM, BernardC said:

I have no problem with that. If an undesirable optical property makes a subject's skin look smoother, or if it flares in a pleasing way, then I am all-in.

It doesn't work with all images, but when it does, it's magical.

I know I am not alone. Ultra-expensive motion picture lenses often come in "classic" and "modern" varieties. It's easier, faster, and cheaper to "bake-in" a look when shooting, compared to trying to achieve the same look later. That's especially true of lens flares that change a lot with slight changes in camera position.

I say few can maintain two sets of lenses with the "modern" varieties and the "classic" for that occasional magical requirement. If if anyone has done enough PP knows that if you want a certain look in post using one particular lens, it's only the first time that you need to spend a lot of hours to figure it out. The process should be quick for the next picture, especially if you know how to automate the process. I reduce my lens set to the essentials with no duplicates so that I can focus on shooting instead of wondering whether I should bring the Lux 50 ASPH instead of the non-ASPH... Of course that's just me. 

[su25]

I tried the Lumix S Pro 50 1.4, I have not tried the SL Summi 50. I find that specular highlights captured by Lumix 50 is probably as good as SL 50. I find the transition of SL better than Lumix. Sadly Lumix S Pro 70-200 f4 is not as good as Lumix 50, and I own the 70-200 ☺️

[ron777]

43 minutes ago, su25 said:

I tried the Lumix S Pro 50 1.4, I have not tried the SL Summi 50. I find that specular highlights captured by Lumix 50 is probably as good as SL 50. I find the transition of SL better than Lumix. Sadly Lumix S Pro 70-200 f4 is not as good as Lumix 50, and I own the 70-200 ☺️

How are you comparing a 50mm F/1.4 prime with a 70-200mm F/4 lens? What are your parameters? Be specific, please.

Edited May 9, 2019 by ron777

[su25]

28 minutes ago, ron777 said:

How are you comparing a 50mm F/1.4 prime with a 70-200mm F/4 lens? What are your parameters? Be specific, please.

Only specular highlights - for portraits, catchlight (eyes).
I find SL 24-90 is better at capturing catchlights than Lumix 70-200. 
While I understand that each of those lenses have specific uses, based on the focal length and aperture, my observation/comparison is limited to catchlights captured by each of those lenses. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by su25
added 24-90

[hiepphotog]

1 hour ago, su25 said:

Only specular highlights - for portraits, catchlight (eyes).
I find SL 24-90 is better at capturing catchlights than Lumix 70-200. 
While I understand that each of those lenses have specific uses, based on the focal length and aperture, my observation/comparison is limited to catchlights captured by each of those lenses. 

Catchlights depend on how you light and frame your subject. At similar focal length and aperture, one lens can't be better than the other...

[AlanYWM]

Recently, I had the opportunity to compare the Lumix 50mm f1.4 and the SL 50mm f1.4 Summilux over 2 days. Both lenses were attached to the Lumix S1R and where necessary, a tripod was used to minimise user error. I also chose electronic shutter over mechanical shutter to minimise any vibrations.

Out of the various subjects taken with both lenses, I did find the Lumix lens to be more prone to “vibration” blur. This effect is, however, not evident in every photo and is something that I would not consider as detrimental to the final image. I reckon most folks will not even notice this or complain about it.

Other than this phenomenon, I would rate the Lumix lens about equal to the Leica lens both in terms of sharpness and colour rendition. In other words, they are both excellent performers.

What may interest some folks here is that during the tests, I found the AF with the Lumix lens was noticeably faster than the Leica lens. Another point to take note of is manual focusing was easier on the Lumix 50mm f1.4 than on the Leica lens. The Push/Pull mechanism to switch between AF & MF on the Lumix lens made manual focusing easier and more precise. With the Leica SL 50mm, due to focus by wire, the EVF was not reactive enough for quick and precise focusing. There is no AF On/Off switch on the Leica lens. Hopefully, the slower AF will be addressed in the SL2. We just have to wait and hope for the best.

I would rate both lenses as very well built but I would give Leica a slight edge here. To be honest, I believe both lenses will probably suffer serious damages if drop from a height of 1m.

Obviously, of the two lenses, the Lumix lens is cheaper by a good margin. Whether you want to admit or not, price does play a part in the buying decision for many people.

Please note that these are only two individual lenses tested and the test results may vary slightly with different lenses.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

18 hours ago, AlanYWM said:

Recently, I had the opportunity to compare the Lumix 50mm f1.4 and the SL 50mm f1.4 Summilux over 2 days. Both lenses were attached to the Lumix S1R and where necessary, a tripod was used to minimise user error. I also chose electronic shutter over mechanical shutter to minimise any vibrations.

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I already have the SL50 so that's what I'm keeping.

Do you realise that under some shooting conditions that using the silent shutter EFCS can affect, slightly, how a lens draws compared or how the sensor records light, to the mechanical shutter? Shading and vignetting can be affected as can how blur is drawn. It's not always noticeable and often subtle.

Gordon

Edited May 11, 2019 by FlashGordonPhotography

[helged]

2 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Thanks for your thoughts. I already have the SL50 so that's what I'm keeping.

Do you realise that under some shooting conditions that using the silent shutter EFCS can affect, slightly, how a lens draws compared or how the sensor records light, to the mechanical shutter? Shading and vignetting can be affected as can how blur is drawn. It's not always noticeable and often subtle.

Gordon

Interesting. Is it possible to illustrate the above with an example? I tend to use electronic shutter more and more, but I perhaps I should be more careful... 

[Chaemono]

Am 10.5.2019 um 15:05 schrieb AlanYWM:

Out of the various subjects taken with both lenses, I did find the Lumix lens to be more prone to “vibration” blur. This effect is, however, not evident in every photo and is something that I would not consider as detrimental to the final image.

It's sort of like the 50 Noctilux stopped down a bit but without the color fringing.

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-T38GkM/

 

S1 + Lumix S 50/1.4

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 @1/320 sec.

 

M10 + 50 Noctilux

ISO 200 f/1.4 @1/350 sec.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

10 hours ago, helged said:

Interesting. Is it possible to illustrate the above with an example? I tend to use electronic shutter more and more, but I perhaps I should be more careful... 

 

There are more examples on the web but here are a couple.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/limitations-of-the-electronic-shutter-function/

https://petapixel.com/2018/12/07/psa-electronic-front-curtain-shutter-may-be-quietly-hurting-your-bokeh/

I use electronic shutter and EFCS as well, often. Just nice to be aware that it *may* have an occasional effect on how the sensor gets it's information.

Gordon

 

[helged]

15 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

 

There are more examples on the web but here are a couple.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/limitations-of-the-electronic-shutter-function/

https://petapixel.com/2018/12/07/psa-electronic-front-curtain-shutter-may-be-quietly-hurting-your-bokeh/

I use electronic shutter and EFCS as well, often. Just nice to be aware that it *may* have an occasional effect on how the sensor gets it's information.

Gordon

 

Much appreciated, Gordon! Do we/someone know the sanning speed off the S1R sensor? For SL it is about 1/30 sec (as far as I recall). 

[Chaemono]

This means silent shutter for street in bright daylight is basically useless. Fortunately, the M10-P has an almost silent mechanical shutter. 😀

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

This means silent shutter for street in bright daylight is basically useless. Fortunately, the M10-P has an almost silent mechanical shutter. 😀

Not really. EFCS will have some effect on blur. Silent shutter is an issue mostly for mixed light sources. Night street maybe but daylight should be fine, from my interpretation of the various articles I've read.

And I think the Panasonic has a sweet shutter. Not much difference between EFCS and mechanical in sound. Maybe that's just me.

Gordon