Panasonic 50 S pro vs Leica 50 SL

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But then substract the behemoth ugly thing that sits on top of the lens and you're back to square one 😂

[Advertisement]

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

[Chaemono]

The 50 Summilux-SL and the Otus 55 are so close. 

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

S1R + Otus 55

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!

S1 + 50 Summilux-SL

[Chaemono]

Yet, so far apart. The 50 Summilux-SL simply renders differently, with more depth in certain situations.

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

S1R + Otus 55

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!

S1 + 50 Summilux-SL

[tom0511]

Summilux seems to have warmer and more "lively" color.

Ah, and dont forget AF. But I read in another thread that Summilux is outdated design and APO-Summicron is better. 

[Chaemono]

Well perceived. The 50 Summilux-SL is the best lens in terms of depth rendering. I'd say that it even takes "Zeiss 3D-Pop" to a new level.

[PeterGA]

I'd rather the amenity and utility of a native mount autofocus Summilux 50 to the adaptor required manual focus only Otus- - which is why I gladly sold out of my Otus and bought the lux as soon as it became available - which is the same approach I have to selling out of Zeiss Milvus or Otus manual focus lenses into Leica SL lenses -  as each focal length becomes available. I don't understand the point of a manual focus lens on an autofocus body tbh - especially when Leica M has smaller lighter and faster manual focus lenses in M mount if one is married to manual focus.

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I prefer manual focus with fast lenses and shallow DOF.  But the spot focus mode of the S1/S1R will show a little picture in picture with a zoomed in view which allows one to see if the focus has landed in the right place.  That's one feature I hope Leica implemented in the SL2.  The focus peaking also works well in manual focus with these Lumix bodies and it's actually a joy to use the 55 Otus with them.

[Hendo]

In my opinion there are only very, very minor difference between all these lenses without any practical consequences. 

[Ivar B]

On 4/9/2020 at 1:38 PM, Hendo said:

In my opinion there are only very, very minor difference between all these lenses without any practical consequences. 

I don`t think anyone will disagree with this. One question which puzzles me a bit is what difference the camera body makes, eg. Panasonic S, Leica SL2 or Sigma. In some recent tests Leica SL lenses have not come out as winners, but test camera was Panasonic S1R and I wonder if this is due to being tested on a Panasonic body. However, it would be safe to assume that the L-Mount alliance should write firmware so that lenses function properly on all bodies. 

[Jared]

1 hour ago, Ivar B said:

I don`t think anyone will disagree with this. One question which puzzles me a bit is what difference the camera body makes, eg. Panasonic S, Leica SL2 or Sigma. In some recent tests Leica SL lenses have not come out as winners, but test camera was Panasonic S1R and I wonder if this is due to being tested on a Panasonic body. However, it would be safe to assume that the L-Mount alliance should write firmware so that lenses function properly on all bodies. 

Assuming the tests were all conducted on an S1R, it seems unlikely that the body was the reason for a Leica lens not winning. First, there is no reason that the best Leica can do is necessarily any better than the best Panasonic or Sigma can do. They all have access to the same glass.  They all have access to excellent software that can accurately model any lens design’s performance. They all have excellent designers. The days when Leica lenses were automatically better than anything from Japan or China are long since over—not because Leica have slipped, but because the rest of the world has caught up.  That’s good news, not bad. It means we now have choices if we want excellent optics.  We should all rejoice.

The different companies still seem to have somewhat different priorities in their lens designs (particularly within a given series) which could make one choose one model over another at a given focal length. The 50mm Summilux SL and the Varios, for example, all use op codes and software correction for vignetting and distortion correction.  The Summicrons do not seem to. Pros and cons (unless you read Lloyd, in which case there are only cons). In their zooms, Leica seems to have “given up” on the idea of f/2.8–the traditional “professional” standard—in favor of other attributes. Sigma and Panasonic have not. Due to material choices, the Leica lenses seem to be consistently the heaviest anywhere the designs overlap.  All three makers seem to be trying to showcase the possible performance attributes at the cost of size and bulk, to the point that the 35 Summicron actually seems quite reasonable for an f/2 moderate wide angle. I think the trend towards higher resolution sensors has pushed them all this way, though there are plenty of situations where I’d give up a little micro contrast and corner sharpness myself if it would cut a pound or two and an inch or two away. I guess that’s what the CL is for.

My point is, there is no reason a Panasonic lens can’t beat its Leica counterpart in a lens test depending on the priorities of the designers and the weighting’s assigned by the tester. Frankly, the problem lies in giving a numeric “score” for a given lens.  That’s just silly. My particular priorities in a lens are extremely unlikely to match up with the tester’s weighting system.  Better to just measure, describe, and demonstrate a lens’ characteristics and let me draw my own conclusions about which features matter.

[BernardC]

20 hours ago, Jared said:

They all have access to excellent software that can accurately model any lens design’s performance.

The common suspicion is that manufacturers "boost the sharpness sliders all the way" with their own lenses, but not with competing lenses, especially when they recognize the characteristic patterns of a resolution test. This can be theoretically justified by the fact that they know the performance of their own lenses, and therefore know which parameters to enhance in order to "correct" the images.

In the end it's an aesthetic judgment. Do you prefer "boosted" images? I'm sure than many people do. Of course, it doesn't hurt that anybody with the right software can put-up a lens evaluation web site, and try to generate affiliate clicks. A single-number rating of a lens is more likely to lead to a click-through, compared to a more nuanced evaluation taking multiple factors into account.

[wizard]

Am 13.10.2019 um 13:40 schrieb Jon Warwick:

I thought the SL lens is the second one. Looked a bit smoother OOF rendering.

Exactly my thoughts. So is it true then?

[Jared]

49 minutes ago, BernardC said:

The common suspicion is that manufacturers "boost the sharpness sliders all the way" with their own lenses, but not with competing lenses, especially when they recognize the characteristic patterns of a resolution test. This can be theoretically justified by the fact that they know the performance of their own lenses, and therefore know which parameters to enhance in order to "correct" the images.

In the end it's an aesthetic judgment. Do you prefer "boosted" images? I'm sure than many people do. Of course, it doesn't hurt that anybody with the right software can put-up a lens evaluation web site, and try to generate affiliate clicks. A single-number rating of a lens is more likely to lead to a click-through, compared to a more nuanced evaluation taking multiple factors into account.

That seems extremely improbable. The bit about applying sharpening to raw files when resolution tests are detected and the lens is their own.

The part about single numbers leading to click-throughs... Maybe.  You usually want to leave more of a cliff hanger to get someone to click, though, or say something outrageous, not just jump to the “prize”.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Jared

[BernardC]

39 minutes ago, Jared said:

That seems extremely improbable. The bit about applying sharpening to raw files when resolution tests are detected and the lens is their own.

Here is Erwin Puts' recent observation:

https://photo.imx.nl/blog/files/09454a45366c36dd20255a07bf49ff55-149.html

Quote

The pattern that shows the same quality at all apertures is remarkable and raises the question of whether internal programs help the optical designer. This is not unusual for modern digital cameras and their lenses. It is not for nothing that a recognition mechanism is active in the camera, which recognizes the correct lens and makes the corresponding corrections.

He then tests the same lenses with earlier generations of cameras that do not have this "optimization" feature. The results are different, in that they vary by aperture (lower contrast wide-open, peak contrast at middle apertures).

It is improbable that Panasonic (and every other major brand) does not do this. They also correct for geometric distortion, colour fringing, etc.

[Jared]

12 hours ago, BernardC said:

Here is Erwin Puts' recent observation:

https://photo.imx.nl/blog/files/09454a45366c36dd20255a07bf49ff55-149.html

He then tests the same lenses with earlier generations of cameras that do not have this "optimization" feature. The results are different, in that they vary by aperture (lower contrast wide-open, peak contrast at middle apertures).

It is improbable that Panasonic (and every other major brand) does not do this. They also correct for geometric distortion, colour fringing, etc.

They do correct for distortion and vignetting (Leica, Panasonic, and virtually everyone else), but that is via op codes that are tagged to the file so that image processing software after the fact can make corrections. It’s not done in-camera to raw files at 10+ frames per second.  Heck, the color fringing correction he alleges isn’t even possible in a raw file since debayer hasn’t occurred yet. All one can do, and all ano of them DO do, is tag the files. And I saw nothing in Irwin’s post even speculating that the camera is “watching” for resolution charts in the images so it can apply extra sharpening (which you mentioned previously).

As far as resolutions being different on previous generations of cameras... The simple fact that a completely different sensor is used with different micro lenses, pixel pitch, and anti aliasing filter makes it impossible to draw any conclusions related to raw processing. 

The manufacturers have generally been less clear than I would like about their dependence on lens profiles for correcting distortion and the like, but that’s about it.  It’s just op codes and curves applied in the raw files as far as I am aware.

[chasdfg]

I note that the thread was started in July last year, so this is just for future reference for anyone asking the same question later on (and my 2 cents).

I have owned both lenses, along with the 50mm APO-Summicron SL. To me, the APO-Summicron wins in all respects except speed. It is smaller, is sharper and has more pop than with either 1.4 lenses. Bokeh rendering is subjective, but I don't dislike the APO-Summicron's (it certainly won't win a creamy-bokeh contest compared to the other two). I didn't own them all at the same time so don't have side by side comparison pics to show. I did own the 50mm APO-Summicron alongside the 50mm 1.4 Panasonic, and picked it over the Panasonic every time.

Leaving the Otus aside (my favourite of the 4 50-55mms mentioned in this reply), if you are unable to decide based on rendering style and performance (whatever side by side pics/pics on the web/flickr you can find), it may be helpful to focus on the physical aspects of the lenses to help decide. The Panasonic is smaller and has a manual focus clutch. I very much like this. The build does not feel as premium as the Leica SLs, but it not poorly built by any means. I suppose cost comes into the equation too, with the Panasonic being half the cost (if that helps). 

If nothing above aids you, you could ask what your heart wants, because if you purchase the lens for solely rational reasons (size, cost etc) you'll likely still be yearning. If that's the Leica, then there's nothing else to talk about.

I agree that camera manufacturers are not transparent about lens profiles and corrections, and pairing a lens with a "native camera" (same manufacturer on top of being the same mount) probably produces the best results. Gone are the days of pure optical performance without in-camera/PP corrections.

Edited April 15, 2020 by chasdfg

[BernardC]

9 hours ago, Jared said:

Heck, the color fringing correction he alleges isn’t even possible in a raw file since debayer hasn’t occurred yet.

You two will have to agree to disagree on that point.

On a related note, the question of "what is a raw file?" has been coming-up a lot recently in video forums. That is because there are multiple competing raw video file formats, and they all draw the line between "raw" and "processed" in a different way. Even CinemaDNG is suspect, since it can include distortion correction (as per the Sigma fp manual). Suffice it to say that raw isn't the same as Kodachrome in analogue photography.

[Jared]

25 minutes ago, BernardC said:

You two will have to agree to disagree on that point.

On a related note, the question of "what is a raw file?" has been coming-up a lot recently in video forums. That is because there are multiple competing raw video file formats, and they all draw the line between "raw" and "processed" in a different way. Even CinemaDNG is suspect, since it can include distortion correction (as per the Sigma fp manual). Suffice it to say that raw isn't the same as Kodachrome in analogue photography.

I certainly agree that raw is not simply an unprocessed readout from the analog to digital converter.

By the same token, neither was Kodachrome or Velvia or any other slide or print film.  Different adjustments than in digital, of course, but even chromes included saturation adjustments, the analog equivalent to tone curves, white balance adjustments (tungsten films), etc. Not the same processes as digital, but no more true or faithful than a DNG. In some cases, less.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[BernardC]

I used Kodachrome in my example because it had standardized processing, and it was the "camera original." It's not a perfect analogy, but it's probably the closest to "value A at the image plane equals value B on the output."

[jrp]

https://www.stefangroenveld.de/2021/the-e-18500-50mm-lens-test.  3-way comparison with the Noctilux.