Nikkor Z 35/1.8 S vs. APO 35 Summicron-SL

[Donzo98]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Head and shoulder crops.  They are not even close.  Look at the details of the dress on the shoulder.

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

Nikon Magi H & S 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!

Leica Magi H & S crop

35 SL... we all agree... is great. What are you trying to prove by showing more pics? 

You’re not going to change anybody’s mind by posting more. It’s better... and should be. 

[Donzo98]

34 minutes ago, Artin said:

Yes the Leica is much better, we all agree . But as I mentioned in a previous post on a professional level.. it is more then justified to pay the prices they are charging.. If I was billing 500,000 dollars a year on commercial photography. I would defiantly pay 6000 dollars a lens 

been there done that , but for a hobby , it is a stretch 

It’s like beating a dead horse though... I don’t why I keep replying  

Hello... I’m Don... and I’m an addict  

[Advertisement]

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

[Donzo98]

4 minutes ago, Artin said:

I hear Don. I am addicted too trust me.. you have too be addicted to spend 78,000.00 dollars on camera gear for a hobby, because there is no other logical reason for it. When my friends ask me how much my cameras cost I am embarrassed to tell them the truth

I don’t mind... we can afford it... and worked hard to be able to.

I am also not naive enough to think that the difference in my pics is because the 35SL is better than the 35 Z.

I like having what I feel is the best glass... and that’s why I use it. 

[m9photo]

@Chaemono If you have Canon RF 28-70/2.0 would you care enough to do comparison? this lens has my caught my attention, it's like having 35/50/75 SL in one lens Plus the 28. 

I know Canon hasn't yet released the Pro level mirrorless until 1st quarter next year (the rumored announcement should be this February).

[Chaemono]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb m9photo:

@Chaemono If you have Canon RF 28-70/2.0 would you care enough to do comparison? this lens has my caught my attention, it's like having 35/50/75 SL in one lens Plus the 28. 

I know Canon hasn't yet released the Pro level mirrorless until 1st quarter next year (the rumored announcement should be this February).

Canon with its RF lenses seems to prioritize optical performance over size/cost and this zoom looks impressive.  The only way, in theory,  to compare the resolving power of the RF 24-70/2.8 to the SL primes right now is to mount these Leica lenses on either the SL or the S1 and the Canon zoom on the 26.2 MPx EOS RP in order to use more or less the same sensor resolution.  However, the RP comes with an OLPF and, therefore, this is no good.

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Donzo98:

35 SL... we all agree... is great. What are you trying to prove by showing more pics? 

The 35 Summicron-SL will give one prints rich in detail and texture, the Nikkor 35 Z 35/1.8 S prints will be more blurry and soft.  Plus, with the Leica lens one can crop to a 50 and 75 mm FOV with no regrets. It’s, therefore, much better value.  Of course, more of limited value on the 24 MPx S1.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Chaemono

[anickpick]

The Canon RF 28-70 2.0 is a beast. No stabilization. In the central part of the frame, the optical performance is on par with most primes. However, the SL Crons are still on a different level.

In the outer part of the frame, the optical performance of the RF 28-70 2.0 is really poor (even stopped down it is not great). No comparison to the SL primes (nor zooms). Imo it is not a versatile lens at all. Forget landscape or architecture photography.

 

The Canon RF 24-70 2.8 offers amazing autofocus performance for moving objects. It is stabilized. A good allrounder for Canon R.  In terms of optical performance however it's way behind Leica's SL lenses, especially in the outer part of the frame.

Edited December 17, 2019 by anickpick

[Agent M10]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, Donzo98 said:

35 SL... we all agree... is great. What are you trying to prove by showing more pics? 

You’re not going to change anybody’s mind by posting more. It’s better... and should be. 

I've appreciated all the work. While I'd never do this myself, I appreciate someone showing us the differences in the performance of the lenses.

[m9photo]

5 hours ago, anickpick said:

The Canon RF 28-70 2.0 is a beast. No stabilization. In the central part of the frame, the optical performance is on par with most primes. However, the SL Crons are still on a different level.

In the outer part of the frame, the optical performance of the RF 28-70 2.0 is really poor (even stopped down it is not great). No comparison to the SL primes (nor zooms). Imo it is not a versatile lens at all. Forget landscape or architecture photography.

 

The Canon RF 24-70 2.8 offers amazing autofocus performance for moving objects. It is stabilized. A good allrounder for Canon R.  In terms of optical performance however it's way behind Leica's SL lenses, especially in the outer part of the frame.

Do you have samples?

[jjvornov]

Interesting to me that this comparison is with what is arguably the best lens Nikon has ever made, made possible by the new mirrorless mount. Over the next few years they’ll fill out the primes and build a nice group.  Its great that these lenses can even be considered competition for Leica because the F lenses were always far, far behind any M lenses. 

[anickpick]

Unfortunately no. A buddy of mine owns the Canon EOS R and tested both lenses and decided on the 24-70 2.8 lens. It's a great allrounder with silent and super-fast autofocus. Great for video too.

[Chaemono]

Canon totally gets it on the mirrorless lens side, IMO.  To quote Steve Huff from his ‘The Mirrorless Camera I recommend the most in 2019, and why’ article: “The thing that I love about the EOS-R system above all other full frame mirrorless systems today are the RF lenses. Sure, they are larger but also some of the best lenses I have come across in mirrorless when it comes to design, function and IQ.”  
 

Eventually Canon will put less dated sensors in their mirrorless FF bodies, too, and become a real competitor to Sony, Nikon, and the L-mount alliance.  To paraphrase James Carville, ‘it’s the lenses, stupid.’ 😁 

[tom0511]

Am 16.12.2019 um 19:18 schrieb m9photo:

What are we achieving by using the more expensive Leica glass?  

The user interface of the SL(2) fits me better than that of Pana or Nikon (I tried both for some weeks).

The colors out of camera from Leica mirrors most what I feel to see.

And the IQ I get from the Summicrons is beautiful (in my view) in regards of depth, sharpness and bokeh.

So as long as I can afford it, why should I use another camera with other lenses?

And I am aware other people might prefer other cameras and lenses.

Our world (and jobs) are cost driven soo much, it sometimes feels just good to not to have to make any personal decision based on cost only.

If I was not in the lucky situation to be able to afford latest Leica gear I am sure I would be fine with a used Canon 5d + 50/1.4 or Nikon D700 + 35/1.8 as well.

 

[m9photo]

30 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

The user interface of the SL(2) fits me better than that of Pana or Nikon (I tried both for some weeks).

The colors out of camera from Leica mirrors most what I feel to see.

And the IQ I get from the Summicrons is beautiful (in my view) in regards of depth, sharpness and bokeh.

So as long as I can afford it, why should I use another camera with other lenses?

And I am aware other people might prefer other cameras and lenses.

Our world (and jobs) are cost driven soo much, it sometimes feels just good to not to have to make any personal decision based on cost only.

If I was not in the lucky situation to be able to afford latest Leica gear I am sure I would be fine with a used Canon 5d + 50/1.4 or Nikon D700 + 35/1.8 as well.

 

I agree, when one can afford the more expensive options it's their rights to do so.

Are the more expensive glass will make you a better photographer? simply not.  The earlier post resounded good also, it's more to personal satisfaction and this goes along with your statement.

I bet in real world, lot more better photographers with cheaper glass.

I love Leica and I can afford Leica but sometimes after using so many different brands (cameras/lenses), many of these comparison shots don't really do any justice.

 

[caissa]

On 12/17/2019 at 4:08 PM, Chaemono said:

Canon totally gets it on the mirrorless lens side, IMO.  To quote Steve Huff from his ‘The Mirrorless Camera I recommend the most in 2019, and why’ article: “The thing that I love about the EOS-R system above all other full frame mirrorless systems today are the RF lenses. Sure, they are larger but also some of the best lenses I have come across in mirrorless when it comes to design, function and IQ.”  
 

Eventually Canon will put less dated sensors in their mirrorless FF bodies, too, and become a real competitor to Sony, Nikon, and the L-mount alliance.  To paraphrase James Carville, ‘it’s the lenses, stupid.’ 😁 

Canon is not as good as usual in the mirrorless area. No IBIS, no 50 Mp semipro camera. The lenses are also a strange selection. The 70-200 is short and light but has problems. The f2 28-70 is bloated and bad in the corners (compare with Sigma f2 24-35).  Their video is kind of bad (crippled to sell dedicated video cameras ?!). They look quite vulnerable right now.  (And Huff is strange and sells strange stuff - and is no serious reference changing his favorite camera all to often, sorry).  🤩👻

I find the Sigma lenses much more interesting. (The large number of primes, the 135mm, the new 2.8/24-70, and hopefully soon the longer zooms.) (even the MC-21 slowly closes the gap to the MC-11)

Edited December 29, 2019 by caissa

[Guest]

1 hour ago, caissa said:

Canon is not as good as usual in the mirrorless area. No IBIS, no 50 Mp semipro camera. The lenses are also a strange selection. The 70-200 is short and light but has problems. The f2 28-70 is bloated and bad in the corners (compare with Sigma f2 24-35).  Their video is kind of bad (crippled to sell dedicated video cameras ?!). They look quite vulnerable right now.  (And Huff is strange and sells strange stuff - and is no serious reference changing his favorite camera all to often, sorry).  🤩👻

I find the Sigma lenses much more interesting. (The large number of primes, the 135mm, the new 2.8/24-70, and hopefully soon the longer zooms.) (even the MC-21 slowly closes the gap to the MC-11)

I don't believe Canon is vulnerable at all.  I spoke to a few dealers recently and they al confirmed the same, the Canon EOS R was not selling well initially, since the new firmware upgrade it is selling really well (FWIW, the same dealers called Nikon "dead in the water").  The Canon EOS R Mk II is also rumored to already be in its testing phases which probably explains the rebates over the holiday period (B&H had the R for $1,299, through targeted emails).  Specs wise it is not an impressive camera (which is why it was so badly received by the YouTube crowd) but it does everything I need and it does it well.  For me personally literally the only advantage the Leica SL has over the R is the design, it is simply a much better looking camera, especially when coupled with the Summicron lenses, but otherwise I like the ergonomics of the R better, the colors, the AF is super fast, eye/continuous AF is very good (with the firmware upgrade), etc.  About the Canon RF lenses, I really like the 28-70mm f2 and the 50mm f1.2.  The Leica glass might be more perfect optically, but I really like the way the Canon glass draws, especially people, I will take the R w/ 28-70 over the SL w/ 24-90 any day of the week.  I also like the fact that Canon has a "take anywhere" lightweight 35mm lens, I waited 4 years for such a lens from Leica, it never came and it will also not come during the next 2 years...  About the 70-200, a firmware fix has already been announced.  I personally probably won't upgrade to the SL2 but I won't sell the SL either, I will just keep it with the lenses that I already have (24-90, 35 and Sigma 14-24) without making new investments.   

[Chaemono]

vor einer Stunde schrieb SlowDriver:

The Leica glass might be more perfect optically, but I really like the way the Canon glass draws, especially people, I will take the R w/ 28-70 over the SL w/ 24-90 any day of the week.

See in the video below starting at about 6:30 on flaring and chroma smearing with the Canon RF 28-70/2.  The VE-SL 24-90/2.8-4 will give you none of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuBq_Z_wuDs

vor einer Stunde schrieb SlowDriver:

I also like the fact that Canon has a "take anywhere" lightweight 35mm lens, I waited 4 years for such a lens from Leica, it never came and it will also not come during the next 2 years.

I'll take the 35 Summicron-SL over any other 35 mm lens on the SL2.  The last three in the gallery here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-7qQZzW/ are with this lens wide open.

[BernardC]

Yes, the Canon macro 35 is the only compelling reason to get into their RF system, just as the EF-M 28 macro is the best reason to get into their APS-C mirrorless system. That being said, what's the point of discussing this on a Leica board? If the 35 macro is the lens you need, go for it. You can pick-up that lens, with a camera attached, for an insanely good price.

The rest of the RF system is nothing special. Lenses are reportedly good, but nothing head and shoulders above the competition. The lack of features is balanced-out by the very competitive pricing. I wouldn't want to use that low-res viewfinder and poor ergonomics myself, but it's a choice I could have made in the past, when budgets were tighter. Apparently the new medium tele-zoom is quite something (according to Lensrentals), but I have absolutely no interest in that focal range. Perhaps I was permanently scarred by a Tamron experience in the 1980s!

[Archiver]

On 12/29/2019 at 7:12 PM, SlowDriver said:

I don't believe Canon is vulnerable at all.  I spoke to a few dealers recently and they al confirmed the same, the Canon EOS R was not selling well initially, since the new firmware upgrade it is selling really well (FWIW, the same dealers called Nikon "dead in the water").  The Canon EOS R Mk II is also rumored to already be in its testing phases which probably explains the rebates over the holiday period (B&H had the R for $1,299, through targeted emails).  Specs wise it is not an impressive camera (which is why it was so badly received by the YouTube crowd) but it does everything I need and it does it well.  For me personally literally the only advantage the Leica SL has over the R is the design, it is simply a much better looking camera, especially when coupled with the Summicron lenses, but otherwise I like the ergonomics of the R better, the colors, the AF is super fast, eye/continuous AF is very good (with the firmware upgrade), etc.  About the Canon RF lenses, I really like the 28-70mm f2 and the 50mm f1.2.  The Leica glass might be more perfect optically, but I really like the way the Canon glass draws, especially people, I will take the R w/ 28-70 over the SL w/ 24-90 any day of the week.  I also like the fact that Canon has a "take anywhere" lightweight 35mm lens, I waited 4 years for such a lens from Leica, it never came and it will also not come during the next 2 years...  About the 70-200, a firmware fix has already been announced.  I personally probably won't upgrade to the SL2 but I won't sell the SL either, I will just keep it with the lenses that I already have (24-90, 35 and Sigma 14-24) without making new investments.   

The range of choices we have now is almost unsettling. Recently, I've been shooting promotional images for athletes, sometimes in action, and the M9 isn't quite cutting it in terms of nailing eye focus. So I started using the 5D Mark II again with the 35L and 24-105L, and I'm often astonished at how good the images are with the right processing. The EOS R seems like the logical upgrade as it has face detection and Canon lens compatibility; I already have the lenses, so a EOS R body would save me a bunch of money. But the Nikon Z feels really good in the hand, and user tests show that the native lenses are excellent. Same with the Panasonic L mount lenses, and then the Leica APO Summicrons are a huge step up in price.

Budget wise, if I'm already thinking that the EOS R is the most cost efficient way of getting a high quality mirrorless camera with face detection, that rules out the Leica route for now. But it still leaves the door open for a Nikon Z6 with a native prime or two if I stretch, or a Panasonic S1 with a couple of primes during big sales. In the meantime, I'll keep using  the 5D Mark II with movable AF points, hahaha.

[NRKstudio]

On 12/13/2019 at 10:58 AM, Chaemono said:

Alright, it's not a fair fight simply because with the SL Summicrons, and particularly with the APO 35 Summicron-SL, Leica brilliantly optimized the exponential size/performance equation in order to fully exploit the exponential performance/price equation. 😁 In other words, the Nikkor Z 35/1.8 S only costs one-seventh (1/7) of the APO 35 Summicron-SL and, therefore, one may justifiably ask, is this Nikon Z lens that bad.  The short answer is, wide open it is.  The slightly longer answer is, it depends on whether one wants/needs a lens that is sharp in the center wide open (that's a 'yes' for me), with no color fringing in the bokeh highlights (another 'yes' for me).  I haven't checked yet for CA/PF in borders of extreme dark and bright areas nor extensively for flare (I believe the Nikkor Z 35/1.8 S has none, the 35 Summcron-SL a tiny bit). 

First, on distortion and how distortion-free the APO 35 Summicron-SL is.  I have never seen an image taken with a FF lens 55 mm and wider that doesn’t need corrections for distortion applied in post (Otus 55 pictures need them, APO 50 Summicron-M ones do as well).  The fact that 50 and 35 SL Summicrons don't is absolutely amazing.  Hence, this is not a deficit of the Nikon Z lens here but it's still good to make it transparent. 

To download the RAW file of the Z7 + Nikkor Z 35/1.8 S picture click on this link: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g1060865012-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=69mKAxPezxCRYIbvQzlo6vq-btYhlDDBDKF3bIl60dw=

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

Z7 + Nikkor Z 35/1.8 S with integrated lens profile in LR

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!

And now with the opcodes removed

I just can’t believe how poorly ranked DXOMark measured the 35 Cron SL.  Worse than the 35/1.8 Z and even poorer than the Zeiss/Sony 35/1.4 FE.  This is crazy.  Worse even than the $350 Sony 28/2 FE.  The Sony’s were tested on a 42mp a7r2 sensor while the 35 SL tested on a 47mp S1r sensor.  The 35 Z tested on the Z7 45+ mp. 

https://www.dxomark.com/leica-apo-summicron-sl-35mm-f2-asph-lens-review/

Edited January 22, 2020 by NRKstudio

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Leicaiste]

On 12/29/2019 at 9:12 AM, SlowDriver said:

 

On 12/29/2019 at 9:12 AM, SlowDriver said:

For me personally literally the only advantage the Leica SL has over the R is the design, it is simply a much better looking camera, especially when coupled with the Summicron lenses, but otherwise I like the ergonomics of the R better, the colors, the AF is super fast, eye/continuous AF is very good (with the firmware upgrade), etc

Sorry but in my opinion the ergonomics of the EOS R is terrible. No joystick, the BBF at the wrong place etc. 

All they had to do was to copy the ergonomics of their own 5D Mark IV and they failed.