Summilux 21 M not very sharp...is it normal?

[L_lover]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello!

 

I recently bought a summilux 21 M/f1.4 to use it with my Leica SL2 (pre-owned one..bought at Leica Mayfair in London).

The main reason was that the SL24-90 was way too heavy to carry around during long journeys. I have also a summilux M 50/f1.4 I compared to the 21M.

 

Well...it is a fantastic lens..but when I look at the shots I take on the Imac, the image is not sharp at all...especially distant objects.

I tried to shoot using the focus peaking but I noticed it not very precise; I mean the peak stays on the object even though I change the focus on the lens...

So I tried to shoot using manual settings on the lens...but still it seems that I can't get a fully sharp image (from the near object to the horizon)..

 

I tried to take the same picture with the SL24-90 and it is much sharper...(same with the 50M summilux).

 

So my question is....is it normal that the SL24-90 is sharper than the 21 summilux M?

 

I attached a photo taken this morning...the distant monuments aren't very sharp (unfortunately the quality gets worse once the photo is uploaded).

 

 

Thank you!

 

 

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!

[SARobinson]

I used M lenses on a CL and found that the focus peaking was no good for obtaining accurate focus. I found that the best method was to zoom in as much as possible in the viewfinder and focus on the subject that way. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Joakim]

What aperture did you use and could you perhaps post two crops from the two lenses for easier comparison.

[jaapv]

If you click the photo to full size the quality is fine. Hard to tell on a processed and BW converted image.

[TomB_tx]

12 minutes ago, jaapv said:

If you click the photo to full size the quality is fine. Hard to tell on a processed and BW converted image.

Agree - I wouldn't complain about this, although I've heard comments that the 21 'Lux is not the sharpest compared to other 21s. But then I've always preferred slower lenses like the 21 Super Elmar.

[ckuwajima]

29 minutes ago, SARobinson said:

I used M lenses on a CL and found that the focus peaking was no good for obtaining accurate focus. I found that the best method was to zoom in as much as possible in the viewfinder and focus on the subject that way. 

Agree. Depth of field is very wide on ultra wide lenses, that's why focus peaking is no good.

[L_lover]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

37 minutes ago, SARobinson said:

I used M lenses on a CL and found that the focus peaking was no good for obtaining accurate focus. I found that the best method was to zoom in as much as possible in the viewfinder and focus on the subject that way. 

thanks for the advice....I noticed it too; focus peaking was perfect on the Leica Q but on the M lenses using the SL/SL2 is actually not very precise.
I will try with the zoom method.

On the other hand..I would have expected a sharp picture using manual settings on the lens ring...

 

 

Here is another example (not processed...directly from the camera); can you see that the leaves of the bush on the front of the image are perfectly on focus..while the monuments aren't sharp?

The picture was taken with f8; not focus peaking but adjusting the infinite on f8 on the ring of the lens.

 

The 50 summilux is way sharper than the 21...as this is my first wide lens I don't know if that's normal...

 

PS: unfortunately I did not have the 24-90 with me

 

thanks!

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!

[Jeff S]

I don’t use peaking on my SL2; far prefer magnification, if any aide needed. But I stick with native lenses.

Jeff

Edited May 3, 2020 by Jeff S

[L_lover]

here is another example....low light (3200 ISO, f5.6).. and the Tower bridge is not perfectly sharp.

 

I am starting to think that maybe the SL2 sensor is "too much" for the 21 M summilux....the 24-90 is on the other hand much sharper; unfortunately it lacks (in my opinion) the "M look" on the colors and blacks...

 

 

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!

[jaapv]

27 minutes ago, L_lover said:

thanks for the advice....I noticed it too; focus peaking was perfect on the Leica Q but on the M lenses using the SL/SL2 is actually not very precise.
I will try with the zoom method.

On the other hand..I would have expected a sharp picture using manual settings on the lens ring...

 

 

Here is another example (not processed...directly from the camera); can you see that the leaves of the bush on the front of the image are perfectly on focus..while the monuments aren't sharp?

The picture was taken with f8; not focus peaking but adjusting the infinite on f8 on the ring of the lens.

 

The 50 summilux is way sharper than the 21...as this is my first wide lens I don't know if that's normal...

 

PS: unfortunately I did not have the 24-90 with me

 

thanks!

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!

If the leaves are sharp and the subject not that means that you front focused. Focusing by the ring, maybe even by zone is even worse than peaking . Has the SL2 not got magnification?

let me quote Günther Osterloh: If you want your horizon sharp focus on the horizon. If you want a landscape sharp from front to back, the only way is to focus stack. Or use a  smartphone  

[jaapv]

22 minutes ago, L_lover said:

here is another example....low light (3200 ISO, f5.6).. and the Tower bridge is not perfectly sharp.

 

I am starting to think that maybe the SL2 sensor is "too much" for the 21 M summilux....the 24-90 is on the other hand much sharper; unfortunately it lacks (in my opinion) the "M look" on the colors and blacks...

 

 

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!

The Tower Bridge is out of focus - so you did not focus on it.  That zoom has AF, so it will do it for you.

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Has the SL2 not got magnification?

 

Indeed.  I can't think of a more accurate means of focusing than magnification, off the sensor.  I turn peaking off completely; just adds clutter to the view, and set magnification to the focus ring (with AF lenses, using back button AF and decoupling focus from shutter).

Jeff

[TomB_tx]

1 hour ago, L_lover said:

The picture was taken with f8; not focus peaking but adjusting the infinite on f8 on the ring of the lens.

 

 

Sounds like you are scale focusing by setting infinity at the Depth of Field marks for f8, which means distant items are at the extreme limit if "depth of field". However, the DOF marks mean "acceptable" sharpness in a moderately sized print. If you enlarge more, or are more critical than the definition of DOF, you will see it isn't as sharp as the actual plane of focus (center of the DOF band). If you use zoom when focusing it will be obvious that maximum sharpness occurs at only one distance. Use the DOF tables with care. 

[L_lover]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

The Tower Bridge is out of focus - so you did not focus on it.  That zoom has AF, so it will do it for you.

that picture was taken with the summilux so no AF.

I guess I still have to learn how to use whis lens with the SL2.

The SL1 was easier with M lenses (I tried the 50 summilux and the 28 summilux).

 

I will use the magnification instead of the focus peaking to focus better...even though I thought I could have just set the camera and the lens to take focus depending on the distances written on the lens.

 

 

[L_lover]

8 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

Sounds like you are scale focusing by setting infinity at the Depth of Field marks for f8, which means distant items are at the extreme limit if "depth of field". However, the DOF marks mean "acceptable" sharpness in a moderately sized print. If you enlarge more, or are more critical than the definition of DOF, you will see it isn't as sharp as the actual plane of focus (center of the DOF band). If you use zoom when focusing it will be obvious that maximum sharpness occurs at only one distance. Use the DOF tables with care. 

 

thanks a lot...didn't know that! that explains a lot!

I guess with lens not as wide as the 21 (like the 50 summilux) this problem is less important...

 

anyway I still think the 24-90 SL is much sharper than the 21 summilux with same parameters and same landscape.

Edited May 3, 2020 by L_lover

[jaapv]

18 minutes ago, L_lover said:

that picture was taken with the summilux so no AF.

I guess I still have to learn how to use whis lens with the SL2.

The SL1 was easier with M lenses (I tried the 50 summilux and the 28 summilux).

 

I will use the magnification instead of the focus peaking to focus better...even though I thought I could have just set the camera and the lens to take focus depending on the distances written on the lens.

 

 

That is rather inaccurate.

[mmradman]

All pictures presented look ok to me.

As an owner or Summilux 21mm I can only say praise about its image quality either at maximum aperture or closed down, if you are to use fast lens like that at maximum aperture there is a good reason why, like a low light situation, that’s what his lens is for.  Bit of lack of sharpness here or there is irrelevant. 

Using any M camera* with an aid of EVF or mirrorless camera like SL or SL2 should make focusing easier providing one is realistic about the result and performance, so anyone coughing serious money on expensive Leica lens and and having expectations of perfect focus and sharp image across the frame should perhaps stick to slower lens and maybe a tripod or a good tripod substitute.

*note, nothing wrong with Optical RF to focus and external optical Vf to frame.

 

edit, on any EVF camera the focus peaking is not going to provide best focus, focus magnification will.

Edited May 3, 2020 by mmradman

[spydrxx]

8 hours ago, L_lover said:

Hello!

 

I recently bought a summilux 21 M/f1.4 to use it with my Leica SL2 (pre-owned one..bought at Leica Mayfair in London).

The main reason was that the SL24-90 was way too heavy to carry around during long journeys. I have also a summilux M 50/f1.4 I compared to the 21M.

 

Well...it is a fantastic lens..but when I look at the shots I take on the Imac, the image is not sharp at all...especially distant objects.

I tried to shoot using the focus peaking but I noticed it not very precise; I mean the peak stays on the object even though I change the focus on the lens...

So I tried to shoot using manual settings on the lens...but still it seems that I can't get a fully sharp image (from the near object to the horizon)..

 

I tried to take the same picture with the SL24-90 and it is much sharper...(same with the 50M summilux).

 

So my question is....is it normal that the SL24-90 is sharper than the 21 summilux M?

 

I attached a photo taken this morning...the distant monuments aren't very sharp (unfortunately the quality gets worse once the photo is uploaded).

 

 

Thank you!

 

 

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!

I ran your photo thru my PP program (gimp), added a touch of sharpening and everything looked terrific. I won't speculate on your setup, but I can tell you the underlying image doesn't lack for sharpness.

[L_lover]

17 hours ago, spydrxx said:

I ran your photo thru my PP program (gimp), added a touch of sharpening and everything looked terrific. I won't speculate on your setup, but I can tell you the underlying image doesn't lack for sharpness.

thanks!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M