“Image quality” - SL2+M lens vs S1R+SL lens?

[Archiver]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you for your conclusions from testing the S1R and SL2. I'm in a similar boat, looking for a decent mirrorless alternative to a M body for M lenses (and possibly R), but with a good complement of native autofocus lenses. On one hand, I don't like the idea of losing the edge of M lens quality, but I don't like lugging around heavy gear, either. I'm wondering 'how good is good enough' for you with regard to M performance on the SL2 body. I'm sure that combination is decent enough with most lenses.

[Jon Warwick]

So as the OP,  i thought i'd give another update.

I've already written that I decided to get the SL2 rather than the S1R.  The SL2 works very well with my M 75mm Summarit.

But i recently decided to get a "native" lens for the SL2 in the form of an SL 50mm Summicron APO.  

My thoughts on the lens ... wow, just wow. The imaging chain of the SL2 + SL Summicron is now perfection for full frame. It is a substantial upgrade from the M lens in terms of image quality. The SL prime has incredible depth from micro contrast, incredible ability to capture fine detail ..... but (very importantly for my taste) also with a smoothness and gentleness to it. Some people say some modern ASPH lenses are clinical, i'd certainly say my eyes would agree with that comment when i look at my images from M 35mm ASPHs or even the M 50 APO.  But with the SL Summicron APO, I see images that are technically perfect in terms of what has been recorded on the sensor, but also in combination with (if you forgive the expression) a "cinematic" gentleness. It could be the lack of aberrations makes it appear less digital and less harsh, to my eyes at least ....just such a beautiful look.  

Edited June 28, 2020 by Jon Warwick

[jplomley]

7 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

So as the OP,  i thought i'd give another update.

I've already written that I decided to get the SL2 rather than the S1R.  The SL2 works very well with my M 75mm Summarit.

But i recently decided to get a "native" lens for the SL2 in the form of an SL 50mm Summicron APO.  

My thoughts on the lens ... wow, just wow. The imaging chain of the SL2 + SL Summicron is now perfection for full frame. It is a substantial upgrade from the M lens in terms of image quality. The SL prime has incredible depth from micro contrast, incredible ability to capture fine detail ..... but (very importantly for my taste) also with a smoothness and gentleness to it. Some people say some modern ASPH lenses are clinical, i'd certainly say my eyes would agree with that comment when i look at my images from M 35mm ASPHs or even the M 50 APO.  But with the SL Summicron APO, I see images that are technically perfect in terms of what has been recorded on the sensor, but also in combination with (if you forgive the expression) a "cinematic" gentleness. It could be the lack of aberrations makes it appear less digital and less harsh, to my eyes at least ....just such a beautiful look.  

My same experience with the 35 APO SL and 75 APO SL lenses. Careful, these lenses are awfully addictive. Prints I've made with the L Summicrons are easily a match for MF. And the 16-35 SVE is not that far behind. Don't have the 24-90 or 90-280, so cannot comment on those lenses. Can't wait for the 21/28 APO SL lenses, no doubt they will be class leading.

[Reddy]

On 2/29/2020 at 5:05 AM, Tailwagger said:

I sadly feel the need to step out of the shadows.

AFAIK, the issue has nothing to do with aperture. Changing aperture might sharpen the result because the lens itself performs better, but otherwise it is not in the equation.  The core problem is a simple one. M lenses were never designed to deal with a piece of glass between them and their point of convergence. Digital change all that. Light striking glass at an angle mean refraction. Thats physics. Any lens, M or otherwise, that projects light onto the sensor at an angle other than perpendicular presents a problem for a digital sensor. The more extreme the angle, the greater the problem. The thicker the cover glass the greater the amount of refraction. Now that I've come to get a laymen's understanding of the issue, I think it's frankly a marvel, all applause to Leica, that the wide M lens work as well as they do on the M.

I've shot two M lenses side by side with their native equivalents on an SL2. There is no comparison. A 1000 pixels in from the corners, the Pano zoom at 35mm crushes my Zeiss Distagon-M 35mm, the sharpest M lens I own.  And by crush I mean destroys, no comparison, throw the Zeiss in the garbage can. The same is true when comparing the nearly equally sharp SEM 21 to the Pano output at 21mm. Is the same true for all other M lenses? No. My 75mm 'lux, for example seems to be fine and can carry its head high, at reduced apertures, when compared to the incomparable SL-75. Given the 75mm 'lux's rear optic is tucked well up in the barrel, presumably light exiting it moves perpendicular or at least far closer to it, than the others mentioned.  Hence no ill effects.  The 50mm Lux in my opinion is compromised though others report it's fine. The ZD and SEM have concave rear elements that protrude into the camera body. Interestingly, the final element of the 'lux is concave as well, though not as extreme.  Draw your own conclusion on the angle of incidence each of these lenses produce.  All of these optics are fine center frame, the physics tells us why that is so and why they suck in the corners. Leica has done the best they can, but they can not repeal the laws of physics. Why they could not employ the same technology on the SL that they did on the M is completely beyond my understanding, but presumably it introduces some other form of compromise for the native L glass they refused to entertain. Hence the SL2 seems to be a compromise, whereas the M is a specific dedicated, best possible solution. Again, draw your own conclusions.

I'm not an optical engineer, just a logician and a real world user of these lenses. What I can state from my own experience, and Ken can confirm, is that if you shoot with an SL2 using either of the two M lenses I've mentioned ($5600 worth), you risk giving up a significant, visible, clear for anyone to see, amount of performance as compared to a $1500 zoom, let alone the SL35 which I also own, no matter the aperture. If you are unconcerned with the corners, no problem. If you shoot on a CL, likely not a problem. If you shoot landscape... well. My 'experiments' were carried out in actual shooting scenarios, real world shots doing landscape and concerts. I found the results of those two lenses to be completely unacceptable and certainly nothing I would consider to be remotely worth an investment of $9K for camera and lens. I have never seen any such ill effects when using either of those lenses on the M10 and have used both those lenses in the same contexts for many years and many thousands of frames.  

Make of this what you will.  I frankly have no desire to get into any arguments. I discussed this topic with Ken in background at length over several weeks. I carried additional gear, shot a number of additional frames on his behalf to test things as I was well positioned to help him decide if an SL2 + M lenses rather than an M was a sound decision. I'm personally fed up with this topic, which is why Ken did his best to keep me out of it. But in the interest of community, I thought it a responsibility to simply state what I've seen. Bottom line, like Reid and Jono, I shoot M on M, L on SL. Would I shoot my 75 lux on the SL2? If I didn't own a pair of Ms and an SL-75, sure. Focal lengths below that? No. I didn't pay all this money to entertain any additional compromise. YMMV.

 

Very good explanation as I'm looking for an APO 90mm lens for my L system.

From my understanding M lenses can never beat L mount design lenses due to the angle of incoming lighting and flange distance etc. Even M lenses on M camera unless there is a specific curve sensor. 

In that case, can I assume that SL AA90mm > R AA90mm > M AA90mm on SL body, due to the physical limitations. Also regardless the MF focusing issues, R lenses would perform better than M lenses on M digital cameras?

[Photoworks]

8 hours ago, Reddy said:

Very good explanation as I'm looking for an APO 90mm lens for my L system.

From my understanding M lenses can never beat L mount design lenses due to the angle of incoming lighting and flange distance etc. Even M lenses on M camera unless there is a specific curve sensor. 

In that case, can I assume that SL AA90mm > R AA90mm > M AA90mm on SL body, due to the physical limitations. Also regardless the MF focusing issues, R lenses would perform better than M lenses on M digital cameras?

BEAT is not the correct word. they are different.

if you concern about sharpness! the 75 M Noctilux is amazing on the SL2 and so it the 90 M Summilux. this are modern designed lenses and are better on the SL2.
SL lenses open up to 2.0 except one. when you buy Leica you go buy the functionality and the look.