35mm and 50mm prime with 24-90mm zoom

[Gavin Cato]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd skip the summicron & get the 50 lux. It has such a shallow look versus the zoom, and quite different to the 50/2. 

Just a bit different, so to me I think there's more use in it being a bit more unique.

 

[Einst_Stein]

19 hours ago, Gavin Cato said:

I'd skip the summicron & get the 50 lux. It has such a shallow look versus the zoom, and quite different to the 50/2. 

Just a bit different, so to me I think there's more use in it being a bit more unique.

 

Have you really tried both 50mm? Or just jump in for the paper specs? 

[Dr. G]

8 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Have you really tried both 50mm? Or just jump in for the paper specs? 

I'm not the one who posted about the 50 lux vs the 50/2, but I did have both at the same time and can give a little insight.  The 50 1.4 has a very unique rendering, background blur and subject separation that I do love.  It is not quite as sharp as the APO 50, but it is still very sharp.  I do a fair amount of high contrast monochrome conversions as well as photograph subjects that can show a fair amount of CA if not well controlled.  The Lux isn't bad at all here, but the APO 50 definitely shines (I've always found that APO lenses provide better results than non-APO lenses when converting to black and white).

[Einst_Stein]

It is interesting some people choose a lens for  how blur it is over how sharp!

 

[thatkatmat]

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

It is interesting some people choose a lens for  how blur it is over how sharp!

 

(I am one of those people) I wonder just how sharp a lens needs to be? These days, nearly all premium lenses are very sharp in the center. I own the Summilux 50 SL (and M and Noct f1) I never bought the 50 APO, but I had the 35 and have the 75....Both are AMAZING for sure, but they are also f2. Right now I have the new Sigma 85. I shot it against the 75APO SL, guess what, the 75 is sharper, but the Sigma, wide open at 1.4 to me is sharp enough and also turns everything in the BG to a beautiful mushy colorful watercolor painting. So, yeah, I stopped testing as much for sharpness and more how the lens renders the rest of the photo. CA, Bokeh, field curvature etc... 

F2 is nice, f1.4 is nicer.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, thatkatmat said:

(I am one of those people) I wonder just how sharp a lens needs to be? These days, nearly all premium lenses are very sharp in the center. I own the Summilux 50 SL (and M and Noct f1) I never bought the 50 APO, but I had the 35 and have the 75....Both are AMAZING for sure, but they are also f2. Right now I have the new Sigma 85. I shot it against the 75APO SL, guess what, the 75 is sharper, but the Sigma, wide open at 1.4 to me is sharp enough and also turns everything in the BG to a beautiful mushy colorful watercolor painting. So, yeah, I stopped testing as much for sharpness and more how the lens renders the rest of the photo. CA, Bokeh, field curvature etc... 

F2 is nice, f1.4 is nicer.

Hard to know exactly what you are talking about. Show us some pictures. 

[thatkatmat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Hard to know exactly what you are talking about. Show us some pictures. 

I'm not a lens tester, I don't post test shots, I was just stating my opinion as I've been trying to decide which lens to keep and to me, both are very sharp until you zoom into 200-400%...But I don't typically zoom into 200-400% so that level of sharpness isn't as important to me as it is to someone else perhaps. So then you shoot both extensively and decide which one gives you the most keepers (overall character coupled with precision) 

Cheers !

Edited October 15, 2020 by thatkatmat

[Gavin Cato]

On 10/14/2020 at 2:57 PM, Einst_Stein said:

Have you really tried both 50mm? Or just jump in for the paper specs? 

Yes, I own the 50/1.4 SL and borrowed the 50/2 recently out of curiosity. Happy now?

 

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, thatkatmat said:

I'm not a lens tester, I don't post test shots,

Never mind. A lot of "lens testers" posts do not tell much anyway.  Except usually they do show crappy photos that explains why the reviews are so crappy! 

[Einst_Stein]

1 minute ago, Gavin Cato said:

Yes, I own the 50/1.4 SL and borrowed the 50/2 recently out of curiosity. Happy now?

 

More than that, I am amused.

[northernlights]

I came across a few stunning photos on Flickr and clicked on the ‘i’ (info). Canon Rebel T3 and 18-55mm was the gear. 
Simple enjoyment producing all good photos, a stark contrast with discussions between 50 APO vs 50 Noct 0.95 vs 75 Noct etc. Ahem.

[Einst_Stein]

55 minutes ago, northernlights said:

I came across a few stunning photos on Flickr and clicked on the ‘i’ (info). Canon Rebel T3 and 18-55mm was the gear. 
Simple enjoyment producing all good photos, a stark contrast with discussions between 50 APO vs 50 Noct 0.95 vs 75 Noct etc. Ahem.

You can use any brand golf club to hit the hole!  A good golf club only affects your score!

Any camera or lens can produce excellent photos. Different camera and lens only affects the image (style?) that you will care.

[caissa]

I like the 1.4/50 better than the 2.0/50. Do I now have to show my passport and the bill for the camera and lenses to the Leica police ? I do not play golf, so maybe I am now disqualified anyway ? And what if I only have rented/borrowed one or both of the lenses ? Probably again disqualified. Or can I show the bill from the renting department ? And what if I use a Lumix camera ...

For “having really tried” how many photos do I need to shoot with each lens ? 10, 100, 1000, 10000 ?

Why do I like it better ? Because it is the best 1.4/50 I have ever used. And the 2.0/50 ? Yes it is excellent. But I compare with my old Summicron R 50, and it is not very different. From f4 or 5.6 I get equivalent results. And for the topics I use it for, I do not use 200% enlargement or produce huge posters. (Family or casual events, also portrait, which I do not enlarge to 2 meters). And the old lens is much smaller and far less expensive. I still hope they will produce a similar lens for SL.

The SL 1.4/50 is the first (1.4/50) lens that showed no flaws wide open. That makes it special for me. The M 1.4/50 Asph is a weak lens in comparison. Also the R 1.4/50 Asph . Compared to other M lenses, the Noctilux at f1.0 has many flaws but is very charming. So I prefer it to the Apo M 50. The SL 1.4/50 is incredibly perfect in comparison to the Nocti.

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by caissa

[Einst_Stein]

Any pictures from the tow lenses?

[Guest BlackBarn]

On 10/31/2020 at 4:43 AM, Einst_Stein said:

 A good golf club only affects your score!

Why doesn’t everybody use the same golf club?  May be because good golfers have a preference. Asking somebody to provide examples from their lens preferences is the same as asking golfers to show themselves hitting balls with a number of different clubs.....and that’s totally meaningless.

 

 

[T25UFO]

15 hours ago, caissa said:

I like the 1.4/50 better than the 2.0/50. Do I now have to show my passport and the bill for the camera and lenses to the Leica police ? I do not play golf, so maybe I am now disqualified anyway ? And what if I only have rented/borrowed one or both of the lenses ? Probably again disqualified. Or can I show the bill from the renting department ? And what if I use a Lumix camera ...

For “having really tried” how many photos do I need to shoot with each lens ? 10, 100, 1000, 10000 ?

Why do I like it better ? Because it is the best 1.4/50 I have ever used. And the 2.0/50 ? Yes it is excellent. But I compare with my old Summicron R 50, and it is not very different. From f4 or 5.6 I get equivalent results. And for the topics I use it for, I do not use 200% enlargement or produce huge posters. (Family or casual events, also portrait, which I do not enlarge to 2 meters). And the old lens is much smaller and far less expensive. I still hope they will produce a similar lens for SL.

The SL 1.4/50 is the first (1.4/50) lens that showed no flaws wide open. That makes it special for me. The M 1.4/50 Asph is a weak lens in comparison. Also the R 1.4/50 Asph . Compared to other M lenses, the Noctilux at f1.0 has many flaws but is very charming. So I prefer it to the Apo M 50. The SL 1.4/50 is incredibly perfect in comparison to the Nocti.

 

I totally concur.  I bought the SL 50 Summilux when it first came out.  The camera and lens combination was quite a contrast to my MD and 50mm APO.  At the time, the auto focus was slow, although since improved through firmware.  I eventually sold the lens and have regretted that ever since.  The rendering from sharp to out of focus at F1.4 is just lovely; yes, I suppose the M 50mm Summilux could do the same but auto focus wide open is definitely a big plus.  

One nice example of my (usually very happy and always smiling) granddaughter attached.  This sad expression is a bit of a collector's item!

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!

[Einst_Stein]

On 11/1/2020 at 4:37 PM, BlackBarn said:

Why doesn’t everybody use the same golf club?  May be because good golfers have a preference. Asking somebody to provide examples from their lens preferences is the same as asking golfers to show themselves hitting balls with a number of different clubs.....and that’s totally meaningless.

 

 

Meaningless!

[lanetomlane]

I have the three SL Vario lenes but wanted a faster lens and bought the 50mm SL Summilux. The Summilux is heavy but the output is worth putting up with the inconvenience. I'm very happy with this combination.