Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, NRKstudio said:

If the 35 APO is sharper (even By just a bit) than the 75 APO, look at the PCMag.com’s test of the 75 APO on imatest and use it for reference.  

 Both pcmag and dxo tested the Nikon Z7 with 50/1.8 (37mpx on dxo and 4500 score for pcmag’s highest imatest), and the Z7 is 46mp vs the S1r and SL2 at 47mp).  The 75 SL showed 4300 on pcmag’s highest imatest result (f2.8) and 32 on dxo was the 35 APO’s sharpness result.  if the 35 is sharper than the 75, even by just a hair, the imatest (75 APO vs. 50Z) 4300 vs 4500 test results are not proportional to the (35 APO vs 50Z) 32 vs 37 dxo test results (almost 15% different on dxo vs 4% different on imatest/pcmag).   
 

tl;dr: use the 75 APO for a stand in test result on pcmag to compare the 35 apo vs the 50Z on DXO and PCMag, to see if the test results are accurate or precise between diff testing outfits. It is neither accurate nor precise. 

 

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/nikon-nikkor-z-50mm-f18-s

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/leica-apo-summicron-sl-75mm-f2-

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-NIKKOR-Z-50mm-F18-S-on-Nikon-Z7-versus-LEICA-APO-SUMMICRON-SL-35mm-F2-ASPH-on-Panasonic-Lumix-DC-S1R__1998_1270_2043_1294
 

One thing unfortunate to see is that the 75 APO SL, when tested by PCMag, is actually less sharp than the 50/1.8 Nikon Z, when both are wide open (and the Z is at f1.8).   The 50/1.8 Z showed 4376 vs the 75 APO roughly 4200 wide open (the 75 APO at 4300 f2.8).  
 

this $600 50/1.8 Z is sharper wide open than the 75 APO is through any of its f stops.  
 

i am hoping the 75 APO SL is the weakest SL lens and not as sharp as the 50 or 35 Cron SL, because it would produce some serious buyers regret for a $4000 50/2 Cron SL lens that is no where as sharp as the $600 50/1.8z.  Also it’s about half the size and weight.  

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

10 minutes ago, NRKstudio said:

One thing unfortunate to see is that the 75 APO SL, when tested by PCMag, is actually less sharp than the 50/1.8 Nikon Z, when both are wide open (and the Z is at f1.8).   The 50/1.8 Z showed 4376 vs the 75 APO roughly 4200 wide open (the 75 APO at 4300 f2.8).  
 

this $600 50/1.8 Z is sharper wide open than the 75 APO is through any of its f stops.  
 

i am hoping the 75 APO SL is the weakest SL lens and not as sharp as the 50 or 35 Cron SL, because it would produce some serious buyers regret for a $4000 50/2 Cron SL lens that is no where as sharp as the $600 50/1.8z.  Also it’s about half the size and weight.  

I have the used the 75 SL quite a bit... it is incredible. No buyer's remorse on my end at all.

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

One thing unfortunate to see is that the 75 APO SL, when tested by PCMag, is actually less sharp than the 50/1.8 Nikon Z, when both are wide open (and the Z is at f1.8).   The 50/1.8 Z showed 4376 vs the 75 APO roughly 4200 wide open (the 75 APO at 4300 f2.8).  
 

this $600 50/1.8 Z is sharper wide open than the 75 APO is through any of its f stops.  
 

i am hoping the 75 APO SL is the weakest SL lens and not as sharp as the 50 or 35 Cron SL, because it would produce some serious buyers regret for a $4000 50/2 Cron SL lens that is no where as sharp as the $600 50/1.8z.  Also it’s about half the size and weight.  

I object to the notion that the sharpness is the only factor that determines the quality of a lens. While it makes the tester's life easier as they do not need to use the lens before publishing a review ;-), it is not as relevant for the buyers who will be using the lens instead of only testing it.

To clarify, I am not saying that sharpness does not matter. Also, I am very happy with both the 75 APO SL and the Z 50mm f/1.8 S.

Edited by SrMi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, NRKstudio said:

One thing unfortunate to see is that the 75 APO SL, when tested by PCMag, is actually less sharp than the 50/1.8 Nikon Z, when both are wide open (and the Z is at f1.8).   The 50/1.8 Z showed 4376 vs the 75 APO roughly 4200 wide open (the 75 APO at 4300 f2.8).  
 

this $600 50/1.8 Z is sharper wide open than the 75 APO is through any of its f stops.  
 

i am hoping the 75 APO SL is the weakest SL lens and not as sharp as the 50 or 35 Cron SL, because it would produce some serious buyers regret for a $4000 50/2 Cron SL lens that is no where as sharp as the $600 50/1.8z.  Also it’s about half the size and weight.  

You have sigma art glasses, you know how good those guys can be at around $1K and 1kg a piece. I had them also for my D850. 135 and 40 art are true APO glasses. 

TBH, At this level, the score can easily be skewed with even minor copy variation that many people will realistically facing. And I have three out of 4 Z f1.8S, and I sold 50S sooner than other two (even it is technically better than 35 and has sharper corner than 85 at f1.8 ) but still keep 35 and 85.  Leica 50mm M lenses are so small so good with beautiful rendering and sharp enough for almost anything. 50lux M is just special even Z 50S beat it in sharpness easily especially in "corner" but  I don't need lens any sharper than any of them, period. stop down to f5.6, you'd be challenged to see difference for any of them.  

For modern glasses offered: Compare size, weight, color fidelity and bokeh, sharpness is the least of my worry. (I do need f8 sharpness cross frame and seem all have that other than Pana 16-35f4 I tested recently)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think obsessing over PCMag and DxO tests is a waste of our time. The differences cited are about a percent or so, less than  the accuracy of the test methods.   Both tested the Leica SL-SCs on a Lumix S1R, since they published in mid 2019, and the test consist of shooting special targets at distances of a few meters.  The results for different lenses depend on the camera used in each case, and cameras from different manufacturers have different pixel spacings and different raw or jpeg processing algorithms.  It is difficult to tell. but I suspect both sources are basing their results on jpegs, with unknown in-camera processing.  The resolution reported is pretty close to the pixel spacing.  It is entirely possible that all the lenses discussed can outresolve their current sensors.  Certainly Leica claims that theirs do.  Unless Roger Cicala gets an L-mount set up on his optical resolution test bench, we won't have an accurate test of these lenses standing alone.

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had great results with the 75apo, and am enjoying thoroughly the 50 APO SL.  To be clear, I agree that most of these testers don’t test 10 copies and that many methodologies are seriously skewed.  
 

Manufacturers, even Leica, pimp their MTF charts to rave applause at lens releases.  But it’s not just resolution, it’s whether the lens and camera make you want to get out and shoot.  this is what Leica does best.  My m10 certainly has me out shooting, and my mp240 is what got me into photography to start @ZHNL @Donzo98

 

Also, the 35 SL produced some of my fav shots.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say trust your eyes. I do not have the 35mm APO SL, but I do have the 50mm APO SL and it is probably the sharpest lens I have ever used, and I have used a lot as an S, R and M shooter. On their chart they also have the 35mm Sony Zeiss 1.4 lens. I had that lens for a few days and it was laughably decentered...so bad that the entire left side was soft when wide open and there was enormous field curvature such that when focused on infinity, the sharpest area towards the edges was at a few meters. I bought it to use wide open at night, and in reading about the lens, I found that this was not an uncommon problem, and the dealer said they could not reassure me that others would be any better. I returned it and gave up...

Two main takeaways I have:

1. Sample variation is real, and a problem even in great lenses.

2. Lens quality is not well represented by charts alone, even if they can be very useful. Trust your eyes. I know that buying a Leica lens to try is not really possible for most people, so in this case it is better to listen to user reports by people you trust who use the lens in a similar way to you. If you are a landscape user, don't ask a portraitist or street photographer etc. 

A small third observation...DxO has never really seemed to get it right in my experience...I trust them about as far as I can throw my 8x10 camera and 240mm lens, which I am sure they would say is inferior to the latest Sigma or Nikon wonder lens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also noted an interesting blog by Erwin Puts - comparing the 50mm Summilux-M and the 50mm Summilux-SL on the SL2. It appears that performance was more or less at the same level. Furthermore, it seems that the Summilux-M performance is better on the SL than on some M-models and better than he has seen before, so his guess is that there is quite a bit of optimization happening through the SL2 software. If this is so or not I don`t know, but if it is, performance may vary quite a bit depending on which camera body is used. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding DxO's habit of combining some sort of sharpness measure at f/5.6, hoping that all lenses are best there, Here's Roger Cicala on his approach to testing --

<<<<So what’s the takeaway message here? Well, one is about evaluating lenses; I insist all lenses are tested wide open, stopping down a bit makes you miss some things. Some manufacturer’s standard testing (‘in spec’, if you will) is done stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4.>>>>

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there is focus shift, I don't think this lens will not be a top performer at f5.6.  

The focusing method implementation of Panasonic and Leica are vulnerable in this case that they both use focus at WO, which I personally prefer but may not be the best way for technical(pixel PP) test, especially at this level of requirement. 

SL2 even prevent you do it manually at shooting aperture less than WO. and Panasonic do allow with manipulating setting but I doubt DXO can figure it out in short term. 

No matter what, this lens should be the top performer in 35mm focal based on Leica MTF. I have no doubt about its superiority. It is very rare to have performance this high in 35mm focal, much less so in 50mm-90mm range, especially considering all modern day introductions from other manufactures.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that SL-75 what a hunk of... I'm so damn angry that I didn't have something further up the DXO ladder for this shot.  

Why did I spend all that extra money??? For stuff like this????

Ah... Hell, yeah!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - mine's a waste of time too.

To be honest, I suspected that the DXO discussion was a storm in a teacup.  You either buy your equipment, work out its strengths, like it or sell it.  What you don't do is look at endless, pointless and frankly badly done technical reviews and then either pat yourself on the back for the fabulous lens you fondle or feel angst because your latest expensive purchase scores badly on some crap internet review ...

When this thread started questioning the 75 Summicron-SL, it lost any credibility.  That lens is superlative, in my experience.  I would expect the 35 & 50 Summicron-SLs to also be fabulous. I'm not a 35 user (pondering the possibility of the 28 Summicron-SL when it breaks cover), and I already have the fantastic, but heavy 50 Summilux-SL.

My advice to anyone considering these lenses would be that if you love photography, the SL primes are amazing and won't disappoint.  However, if you prefer to photograph brick walls and fret over tiny details, and you religiously follow internet reviews (including pages and pages of badly done raw comparisons), then the SL system is not for you - the other recently released darling of the internet is preferable and you're certainly better not to waste your time on this forum.

That sounds harsh, but the answer to your question is in the images you take - Tailwagger's photo above is proof of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, I don’t see anyone question 75cron? it does not perform badly to any means, Do we need to have it have to be number 1 on paper? score 3400 or 3500 doesn’t make or break an image. Do you guys really think whoever tested them didn’t give high score either have poor technics or agenda against Leica? Common guys.

There are many good performers out there offer good performance and I know many such glasses personally.

Many glasses outperform my S and M glasses in one field or the others. Who care anyway, ( I tested them myself. ) I won’t lose sleep over it or defend them this way.


Just saying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Am 3.2.2020 um 21:26 schrieb Tailwagger:

Yeah that SL-75 what a hunk of... I'm so damn angry that I didn't have something further up the DXO ladder for this shot.  

Why did I spend all that extra money??? For stuff like this????

Ah... Hell, yeah!

It's too blurry at the point of focus for my taste. 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2020 at 6:50 AM, ZHNL said:

TBH, I don’t see anyone question 75cron? it does not perform badly to any means, Do we need to have it have to be number 1 on paper? score 3400 or 3500 doesn’t make or break an image. Do you guys really think whoever tested them didn’t give high score either have poor technics or agenda against Leica? Common guys.

There are many good performers out there offer good performance and I know many such glasses personally.

Many glasses outperform my S and M glasses in one field or the others. Who care anyway, ( I tested them myself. ) I won’t lose sleep over it or defend them this way.


Just saying. 

Objectivity on a Leica board? Come on now.... 

Honestly all modern lenses are good enough for my photography. I don't care for the Summicron-SL's at all though..... they're too big, too heavy and too expensive for a slow F2 lens. That's just me though.

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...