Jump to content

Leica Apo-Summicron-SL2.0/35mm - average performer?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The pics here are nice, but resolution is terrible. No way to prove anything here.
I believe only numbers that can be repeated. DXO is not on my list of trustworthy websites, rather of BS websites. But this is only a personal opinion (based on many years of careful observation.)

How many lenses did they test ? On how many cameras ?  (And why not on the SL2 ?)    I would rather trust lensrentals. If they say that it is an average lens, then I would know that they tested a range of them and could present all these results. Not just a single one, which is always prone to hazard. (It's simply not scientifically correct to take a single sample, but dxo does a lot of errors of this type, without ever correcting themselves. Even typos tend to stay on their pages for years. Look at camera specs, they are often wrong in details.)

Personally again, if I would like a lens, then the results could be subterrestrially bad, I would simple not care.

Edited by caissa
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 277
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

One from the 75 APO SL while travelling n Romania.... Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!

Well.. No matter what DxO says, I like the SL-35 mounted on a SL2, at siesta time 😁 Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!

SL2 and the 35 Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, caissa said:

The pics here are nice, but resolution is terrible. No way to prove anything here.
I believe only numbers that can be repeated. DXO is not on my list of trustworthy websites, rather of BS websites. But this is only a personal opinion (based on many years of observation.)

How many lenses did they test ? On how many cameras ?  (And why not on the SL2 ?)    I would rather trust lensrentals. If they say that it is an average lens, then I would know that they tested a range of them and could present all these results. Not just a single one.

Personally again, if I would like a lens, then the results could be subterrestrially bad, I would simple not care.

In what regards is resolution terrible? They look fantastic on my iMac. Would DNG’s be preferable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, otto.f said:

I meant to say that Karbe’s statement that it is the best lens Leica ever made seems exaggerated to me. When I look at #22, #30 and #31, I see very good performance. But in #23 and #26 I think, this can’t be the same lens. This is strange, you can’t put that aside as subjective. 

Karbe's statement is an exaggeration? Karbe, who is probably the world's master lens designer, who has access to over a hundred years of Leica's designs, who designed the Noctilux 0.95, the 50 APO, the last 75mm and 90mm? His statement that the 35SL is the best of the best is an exaggeration? Gee whiz, I shouldn't waste any more time here. I think I'd do better listening to the impeachment proceedings. 

Edited by Agent M10
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ivar B said:

Normally I have found the lens tests of dxomark to be well carried out and trustworthy. However, the Apo-Summicron-SL 2.0/35 is not up there among the best:

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

A Sigma Art 1.4/35mm at 15 % of the cost receives a higher score. The Leica lens is tested on the Panasonic S1R. Can this make such a large difference?

 

That's a very bad beginning of this thread. Because it is exactly the opposite of my experience with dxo. I usually found them not too trustworthy ....   :unsure::rolleyes:

Edited by caissa
Link to post
Share on other sites

friends:

1 - what is Karbe supposed to say? He is head of lens design at Leica! :)

2 - even if it is true, which is possible, that would be within which parameters? best ever made by Leica? best in FF? best 35mm?

3 - I have not tried the 35 SL, but have the 50 version which is a stunning lens. Is it the sharpest 50 I own? Probably. Is it the best? depends on what you are looking for. Is it my favourite? no

4 - in this day and age of baked in software corrections, and more so going forward, these boasts are less and less meaningful. Best before or after correction?

5 - I am not sure how many people on this thread have or have tried one. If not try it (if possible, given that they are hard to find) and see how it works FOR YOU

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jplomley said:

Also, on my Mac, if I click on the Lightbox image it opens into another tab which than allows me to click again for another round of magnified view. This best shows the image as exported. 

Not necessarily I think. If I click twice on a Lightbox image, it will be scaled to about 200 % on my Retina screen because the Mac's user interface is scaled (to make the text legible). So when Safari says an image is 100 %, it is actually 200 %, and hence it will still look a little fuzzy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dxomark… and their list are just… useless. A lens should be judged not by their numbers, there are so many other things more important. But since I was a Nikon user, many years ago, dxomak used to state crazy things at the limit to believe that they are payed by someone to write their lists in those orders. Stating a lens more sharp than another… when just all the rest of the world see the opposite. Not talking about this SL 35mm case, just about dxomark and their often super really (at least) weird results.
Dxomark rated some of the best portrait lenses ever made such as junk glass… My rate of dxomark: below zero.

Edited by giampo
Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to their test, the 35SL is the sharpest at F2 but doesn't improve much when closed down to F4-5.6, where the Sony and Canon yield better peak sharpness away from the center. Is that the trade off for chasing wide open performance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having tried this lens on my SL I believe it definitely is one of the best lenses ever made. I don’t know and don’t really care about technical lens tests but saying it is the sharpest etc wide open and doesn’t get any better when stopped down says something right there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

DxOMark is lying. 

Proably they will object to this statement and there is no evidence to suggest this. We should probably look for the explanation in the design of the test.

Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 30 Minuten schrieb Ivar B:

Proably they will object to this statement and there is no evidence to suggest this. We should probably look for the explanation in the design of the test.

Sure they will object but they are liars.  DxOMark: “A built-in profile that instructs RAW files in supported processing software to make additional adjustments to handle distortion.” This is a blatant lie.  There is no built-in profile to handle distortion. DxOMark: “When the profile isn’t supported, it’s possible that the distortion may be noticeable...”  They are not only liars, they are also too dumb to try to remove the opcodes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 2 Stunden schrieb Fedro:

1 - what is Karbe supposed to say? He is head of lens design at Leica! :)

If you ever have a chance to meet him, you will understand that he is not the type of person who bloats statements just to make his company look good. Rather, he knows what he can do (and Leica lets him do a lot of things) and is proud of a result when there is a reason to be proud. Conversely, he would simply say nothing on the performance of a lens if that lenses' performance is subpar, as there is nobody within Leica forcing him to say anything on any given lens. Coming to think of it, he would most likely not want to have his name associated with any lens having subpar performance, and would therefore advocate against any such lens.

Edited by wizard
Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice after DXO's note that their rendering of test images doesn't include post-processing for distortion, they show that the "distortion" amount for the 35 SL is 0.1%, by far the lowest in the group considered.  And I checked my DNG files from this lens -- there is no distortion correction included.  The WarpRectilinear parameters are set to do nothing.  So they don't know what they are talking about in that sentence. 

More important, as I don't know what DXO's aggregate scores measure, I have never paid attention to them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 14 Minuten schrieb scott kirkpatrick:

[...]
I checked my DNG files from this lens -- there is no distortion correction included.  The WarpRectilinear parameters are set to do nothing.  So they don't know what they are talking about in that sentence.                   
[...]

I find it hard to believe that people who test gear for a living don’t know how to check whether files include a built-in profile/opcodes for distortion correction or not.  DxOMark seems to be catering to the large advertisers on their sites and simply makes sh!t up in order to please them, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, snooper said:

Well.. No matter what DxO says, I like the SL-35 mounted on a SL2, at siesta time 😁

Well, I´d say the subject matter is the dominant aspect of this photograph. The lens may be regarded as secondary .... is it not? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...