On the fence about buying the 50 SL Summilux…..

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have to kind of agree, as much as I do not want to. I am a big proponent of putting optical performance over size in the L and S mount (I think the compactness is a true feature in the M, and should be more of a compromise), but there is a point at which a lens is large and heavy enough to be impractical. I think this is one of those cases. This is what I think the summicrons do so well. They are clearly big compared to many other lenses (particularly the 35mm) of their focal length and speed, but they are still fairly compact and manageable. In return they give you absolutely perfect performance. At least for me, the 50mm 1.4 was never a consideration as it was just too big for what it was (which is not quite as good as the summicron at all apertures but 1.4). If my emphasis was more on character than on sharpness, then I think the 50mm Summilux ASPH M or 50mm e60 R make more sense. This is not a criticism of the performance of the lens, which seems superb, but it is a case where I think it would have been more practical and perhaps had better differentiation if Leica had made the summilux a bit more practically sized and focused on its speed and character and perhaps let the sharpness slide slightly more in the edges etc, and then there would be a clearer choice: summilux for character, summicron for performance.

All that said, I have not found any real shortcoming in the character of the summicron. When it comes to character none of them can really stand up to older lenses for larger formats, like the 110mm f2 planar (a lens that was considered big for 6x6, which is smaller and lighter than this 50mm 1.4) or many 4x5/8x10 lenses, but those lenses cannot approach the sharpness or freedom from aberrations when compared to an equal sensor area. The lens I use for portraits on 8x10 is a 450mm and takes a 52mm filter thread, weighing 1/3rd as much as the Leica 50mm for 35mm and covering literally over 100 times the film area, albeit a very slow f12.5 lens! I realize this is not a particularly helpful comparison, just something that is interesting to note...just how huge lenses have gotten while trying to correct themselves enough to keep up with contemporary resolution requirements.

[lx1713]

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I have to kind of agree, as much as I do not want to. I am a big proponent of putting optical performance over size in the L and S mount (I think the compactness is a true feature in the M, and should be more of a compromise), but there is a point at which a lens is large and heavy enough to be impractical. I think this is one of those cases. This is what I think the summicrons do so well. They are clearly big compared to many other lenses (particularly the 35mm) of their focal length and speed, but they are still fairly compact and manageable. In return they give you absolutely perfect performance. At least for me, the 50mm 1.4 was never a consideration as it was just too big for what it was (which is not quite as good as the summicron at all apertures but 1.4). If my emphasis was more on character than on sharpness, then I think the 50mm Summilux ASPH M or 50mm e60 R make more sense. This is not a criticism of the performance of the lens, which seems superb, but it is a case where I think it would have been more practical and perhaps had better differentiation if Leica had made the summilux a bit more practically sized and focused on its speed and character and perhaps let the sharpness slide slightly more in the edges etc, and then there would be a clearer choice: summilux for character, summicron for performance.

All that said, I have not found any real shortcoming in the character of the summicron. When it comes to character none of them can really stand up to older lenses for larger formats, like the 110mm f2 planar (a lens that was considered big for 6x6, which is smaller and lighter than this 50mm 1.4) or many 4x5/8x10 lenses, but those lenses cannot approach the sharpness or freedom from aberrations when compared to an equal sensor area. The lens I use for portraits on 8x10 is a 450mm and takes a 52mm filter thread, weighing 1/3rd as much as the Leica 50mm for 35mm and covering literally over 100 times the film area, albeit a very slow f12.5 lens! I realize this is not a particularly helpful comparison, just something that is interesting to note...just how huge lenses have gotten while trying to correct themselves enough to keep up with contemporary resolution requirements.

Not just resolution I believe but a whole bunch of corrections that isn't feasible without a chip and a sensor to do the refinements optically and computationally. Just a bunch of hacks to get at the final output image.

[trickness]

On 5/28/2022 at 11:54 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

I have to kind of agree, as much as I do not want to. I am a big proponent of putting optical performance over size in the L and S mount (I think the compactness is a true feature in the M, and should be more of a compromise), but there is a point at which a lens is large and heavy enough to be impractical. I think this is one of those cases. This is what I think the summicrons do so well. They are clearly big compared to many other lenses (particularly the 35mm) of their focal length and speed, but they are still fairly compact and manageable. In return they give you absolutely perfect performance. At least for me, the 50mm 1.4 was never a consideration as it was just too big for what it was (which is not quite as good as the summicron at all apertures but 1.4). If my emphasis was more on character than on sharpness, then I think the 50mm Summilux ASPH M or 50mm e60 R make more sense. This is not a criticism of the performance of the lens, which seems superb, but it is a case where I think it would have been more practical and perhaps had better differentiation if Leica had made the summilux a bit more practically sized and focused on its speed and character and perhaps let the sharpness slide slightly more in the edges etc, and then there would be a clearer choice: summilux for character, summicron for performance.

All that said, I have not found any real shortcoming in the character of the summicron. When it comes to character none of them can really stand up to older lenses for larger formats, like the 110mm f2 planar (a lens that was considered big for 6x6, which is smaller and lighter than this 50mm 1.4) or many 4x5/8x10 lenses, but those lenses cannot approach the sharpness or freedom from aberrations when compared to an equal sensor area. The lens I use for portraits on 8x10 is a 450mm and takes a 52mm filter thread, weighing 1/3rd as much as the Leica 50mm for 35mm and covering literally over 100 times the film area, albeit a very slow f12.5 lens! I realize this is not a particularly helpful comparison, just something that is interesting to note...just how huge lenses have gotten while trying to correct themselves enough to keep up with contemporary resolution requirements.

I took this shot with the 50 Lux M ASPH. I’m sure if I used the SL 50, it would’ve been way sharper, and possibly had better color. But the trade-off in those incremental improvements would’ve been that running and gunning on the Coney Island boardwalk would’ve been pretty painful after a while given the size and heft of the SL Lux. 
 

In a way, the M Lux is a gas killer. It’s so relatively affordable & lightweight compared to the various Noctis & the SL Lux, that is hard for me to justify dropping coin on any of those lenses with a rational mind. And with the focus tab and the size of it I can just focus on the image, it gets out of my way and just let me take better pictures. It’s really the one Leica lens that I never wanna have to do without.

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!

[tom0511]

Am 28.5.2022 um 05:31 schrieb trickness:

What makes you think I wanted to get the eyes in focus? Point of focus is a creative decision, a picture should be viewed as a whole. It’s not a competition to see how sharp you can get the eyes

 

Lets say you decide to want to have eyes in focus, its easier to succeed with an AF lens. When using an M lens on the SL I find it a bit slow for shallow DOF shooting...press button to magnify, focus, get back to framing, hope subject hasnt moved / changed distance, take image.

If I want to manual focus I prefer M-body. If I use SL I prefer AF, specially for shallow DOF images of non-still subjects.

[trickness]

1 hour ago, tom0511 said:

Lets say you decide to want to have eyes in focus, its easier to succeed with an AF lens. When using an M lens on the SL I find it a bit slow for shallow DOF shooting...press button to magnify, focus, get back to framing, hope subject hasnt moved / changed distance, take image.

If I want to manual focus I prefer M-body. If I use SL I prefer AF, specially for shallow DOF images of non-still subjects.

I don’t agree that it’s easier to get eyes in focus with an auto focus lens. I can zoom in and magnify with the SL EVF on my 75 Noctilux and focus on capillaries in seconds if the subject is stationary. Meanwhile the autofocus lens is trying to decide what to focus on.

Everybody is entitled to like what they like of course. Personally I don’t see the obsession with focus and sharpness as being a superior concern to composition and content. I would always rather see an interesting photograph that doesn’t have perfect focus than something boring or clichéd that’s razor sharp. Forget about sharpness, what’s in the picture?

Also, I have both the 35 and 75SL lenses, which I enjoy quite a lot for their image quality, but I would absolutely not say that they are faster to focus than an M lens. Autofocus decides where it wants to focus, which often times is different than what I want. Of course I can use the joystick to move around the focus point, but in practical reality that is way slower than just turning the focus tab on an M Lux. I shoot in street situations multiple times a week with a variety of lenses and truth be told, the fastest and most reliable way to get a sharp image is with zone focusing. 

Auto focus has a place, but it’s a tool, not a substitute for any photographer who understands what they’re trying to accomplish creatively, where often sharpness is not the primary consideration.

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by trickness

[MakinMemories]

I am new to the Leica family (though have lusted over Leica it seems forever) and also new to AF and digital. Shot a lot of film years ago using SLR's with motor drives and heavy lenses but the past 20+ years have just been laser focused (pun intended) on building my business.

Anyway I am also looking to add a fast prime lens to go with my new SL2 and Leica 24-70, 90-280 lenses. I am not concerned with size/weight, just pure performance and all things equal-would like to maintain AF. So it's down to the SL50 1.4 or the SL50 2.0, while I have read many, many articles on both-like politics, seems to be a split decision...Just thinking in terms of speed, it is hard to rationalize the expenditure when gaining just one F stop over the 24-70 at 50mm. I know this is apples to bananas, but coming (a long time ago) from 35mm film when all top 50/55mm lenses were F1.2 or faster, even F1.4 does not seem fast. As one can tell from this post, I am leaning towards the SL50mm 1.4...If Leica offered an F1.2 SL 50mm, it would be a no brainer!

[T25UFO]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

38 minutes ago, MakinMemories said:

If Leica offered an F1.2 SL 50mm, it would be a no brainer!

I suppose it would be possible to make a SL autofocus F1.2 lens . . . but when you saw the weight, size and cost I doubt it would be a 'no brainer'.

[trickness]

1 hour ago, MakinMemories said:

I am new to the Leica family (though have lusted over Leica it seems forever) and also new to AF and digital. Shot a lot of film years ago using SLR's with motor drives and heavy lenses but the past 20+ years have just been laser focused (pun intended) on building my business.

Anyway I am also looking to add a fast prime lens to go with my new SL2 and Leica 24-70, 90-280 lenses. I am not concerned with size/weight, just pure performance and all things equal-would like to maintain AF. So it's down to the SL50 1.4 or the SL50 2.0, while I have read many, many articles on both-like politics, seems to be a split decision...Just thinking in terms of speed, it is hard to rationalize the expenditure when gaining just one F stop over the 24-70 at 50mm. I know this is apples to bananas, but coming (a long time ago) from 35mm film when all top 50/55mm lenses were F1.2 or faster, even F1.4 does not seem fast. As one can tell from this post, I am leaning towards the SL50mm 1.4...If Leica offered an F1.2 SL 50mm, it would be a no brainer!

The SL 50 1.4 renders very differently than the SL Crons - the Crons are perfect, superb color, very 3D, very modern. The 50 1.4 SL Lux (which I don't own) focuses slower than the Crons because of all the glass it needs to move. So I don't think "performance" is the primary factor in deciding to get the 50 1.4 SL - it's about the rendering, the look.

If speed is super important to you, I wouldn't be looking at any Leica product honestly, that's more a Canon and Nikon thing. And I say this as a diehard Leica shooter. Leica is about the look and the shooting experience.

 

[MakinMemories]

7 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

I suppose it would be possible to make a SL autofocus F1.2 lens . . . but when you saw the weight, size and cost I doubt it would be a 'no brainer'.

 

 

Yes, I'm sure you are correct! As I am still very new to the SL world, I sometimes still think in terms of 35mm MF film cameras when it comes to lens categories...

[trickness]

Shot this image wide open with the 50 1.4 Lux M ASPH on the SL2 - subject was dancing to house music, I had focus pre-set and was leaning back and forth to catch her in focus. Would have been much harder on an M body, the EVF is an awesome help. With an autofocus SL lens, the camera would have been trying to decide on whether to focus on her hands, her forehead, etc.....I could have set tracking mode with the joystick but by that time, she would have turned and the camera would have lost the tracking subject. Manual focus is not superseded by autofocus in MOST situations.

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!

Edited June 1, 2022 by trickness

[tom0511]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb trickness:

I don’t agree that it’s easier to get eyes in focus with an auto focus lens. I can zoom in and magnify with the SL EVF on my 75 Noctilux and focus on capillaries in seconds if the subject is stationary. Meanwhile the autofocus lens is trying to decide what to focus on.

Everybody is entitled to like what they like of course. Personally I don’t see the obsession with focus and sharpness as being a superior concern to composition and content. I would always rather see an interesting photograph that doesn’t have perfect focus than something boring or clichéd that’s razor sharp. Forget about sharpness, what’s in the picture?

Also, I have both the 35 and 75SL lenses, which I enjoy quite a lot for their image quality, but I would absolutely not say that they are faster to focus than an M lens. Autofocus decides where it wants to focus, which often times is different than what I want. Of course I can use the joystick to move around the focus point, but in practical reality that is way slower than just turning the focus tab on an M Lux. I shoot in street situations multiple times a week with a variety of lenses and truth be told, the fastest and most reliable way to get a sharp image is with zone focusing. 

Auto focus has a place, but it’s a tool, not a substitute for any photographer who understands what they’re trying to accomplish creatively, where often sharpness is not the primary consideration.

 

Why would you let AF decide where to focus? Either I want to focus on eyes and use face detection, or I want to focus somewhere else so I choose spot focus and can focus anywhere in the image. And why would an image with "perfect" focus have less interesting content and composition than an image where focus is slightly off?

My kids are not staying stationary, and my friends aren't either. I am not obsessed about perfect focus, but It doesn't hurt if the focus is where I want it to be.

We seem to have different skills, I have used Leica M since film times, and I am pretty fast with the rangefinder.For my part I have switched to f2.0 lenses for the M, and if I want to shoot f1.4 or longer than 50mm I prefer AF. As you say, in the end its good to have choices. If you focus faster and more accurate with MF - great. I don't. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't enjoy shooting the M for many things.

Edited June 1, 2022 by tom0511

[robb]

27 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

Why would you let AF decide where to focus? Either I want to focus on eyes and use face detection, or I want to focus somewhere else so I choose spot focus and can focus anywhere in the image. And why would an image with "perfect" focus have less interesting content and composition than an image where focus is slightly off?

My kids are not staying stationary, and my friends aren't either. I am not obsessed about perfect focus, but It doesn't hurt if the focus is where I want it to be.

We seem to have different skills, I have used Leica M since film times, and I am pretty fast with the rangefinder.For my part I have switched to f2.0 lenses for the M, and if I want to shoot f1.4 or longer than 50mm I prefer AF. As you say, in the end its good to have choices. If you focus faster and more accurate with MF - great. I don't. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't enjoy shooting the M for many things.

The reason to MF is that the af box or point is not always as “exact” as you would want it to be.  And when you are getting paid to deliver the goods, “exact” IS required.  Any AF mode you select, the SL cameras can still surprise you and be off like when using an M viewfinder with faces.  But the good news is that when you use the SL2’s excellent EVF, and zoom in, you can see better than the AF system…  so that’s my reason.  I don’t even need to review photos on the back display to check when I MF.  I’ll let others chime in on how the AF works for them, but in most cases, I would guess we try to be in control of most things.

I tried the 50 SL 1.4 and thought it was not as easy to focus AF or MF because of throw and tightness of the ring.  It’s large size def affects this as well.  I picked up a Voigt 50 1.0 and enjoy the MF process with it.  It’s sharp and background (and foreground) bokeh is excellent.  I haven’t stopped down to 1.4 with it much but will look at that more.  I’d like to add the much larger SL 1.4 at some point and give it more time on location, but the M 50 1.4 Is a great fit as well.  Nice to have choices.

Robb

[T25UFO]

3 hours ago, MakinMemories said:

 

 

Yes, I'm sure you are correct! As I am still very new to the SL world, I sometimes still think in terms of 35mm MF film cameras when it comes to lens categories...

It requires a change of mindset.  A fast f1.2 lens might have been necessary for film cameras using 400 ISO film but f1.4 is plenty fast enough for digital cameras that produce excellent results at 6400 ISO and above.  Aperture is no longer about light transmission, it's about depth of field, and you will see little difference in depth of field between f1.2 and f1.4.

[Stuart Richardson]

6 hours ago, trickness said:

 

Everybody is entitled to like what they like of course. Personally I don’t see the obsession with focus and sharpness as being a superior concern to composition and content. I would always rather see an interesting photograph that doesn’t have perfect focus than something boring or clichéd that’s razor sharp. Forget about sharpness, what’s in the picture?

 

 

I feel like this is a straw man argument...I don't see anyone arguing that sharpness is more important than composition or content. That does not mean it is not important to some images. In a joking spirit, I will offer my own straw man argument: I am tired of people who can't focus or use a camera properly telling me how their blurry, shakey photo is "artistic" and profound because it embraces the emotional moment.

Frankly, as a practitioner, printer and teacher, I find that usually people who insist strongly on either camp are wrong. Sometimes misfocus or a lack of sharpness diminishes or ruins a photo that could have been very good, and at other times a technically flawed photo can be brilliant. I think it is better to try to achieve the best technical result one can, while not being too precious with the images in the case that one failed and yet still managed to make a good photo. At the end of the day it is the photo itself that will be the judge. The best photos live lives of their own, outside of any context, connection to author or manner of execution.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[John Smith]

6 hours ago, MakinMemories said:

I am new to the Leica family (though have lusted over Leica it seems forever) and also new to AF and digital. Shot a lot of film years ago using SLR's with motor drives and heavy lenses but the past 20+ years have just been laser focused (pun intended) on building my business.

Anyway I am also looking to add a fast prime lens to go with my new SL2 and Leica 24-70, 90-280 lenses. I am not concerned with size/weight, just pure performance and all things equal-would like to maintain AF. So it's down to the SL50 1.4 or the SL50 2.0, while I have read many, many articles on both-like politics, seems to be a split decision...Just thinking in terms of speed, it is hard to rationalize the expenditure when gaining just one F stop over the 24-70 at 50mm. I know this is apples to bananas, but coming (a long time ago) from 35mm film when all top 50/55mm lenses were F1.2 or faster, even F1.4 does not seem fast. As one can tell from this post, I am leaning towards the SL50mm 1.4...If Leica offered an F1.2 SL 50mm, it would be a no brainer!

I have both, and I think Peter Karbe described them best. The bokeh on the Summilux is better. The sharpness of the Summicron is better. If you aren't going to use 1.4, then get the Summicron. The Summilux makes gorgeous portraits at 1.4.

Edited June 1, 2022 by John Smith

[trickness]

22 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I feel like this is a straw man argument...I don't see anyone arguing that sharpness is more important than composition or content. That does not mean it is not important to some images. In a joking spirit, I will offer my own straw man argument: I am tired of people who can't focus or use a camera properly telling me how their blurry, shakey photo is "artistic" and profound because it embraces the emotional moment.

Frankly, as a practitioner, printer and teacher, I find that usually people who insist strongly on either camp are wrong. Sometimes misfocus or a lack of sharpness diminishes or ruins a photo that could have been very good, and at other times a technically flawed photo can be brilliant. I think it is better to try to achieve the best technical result one can, while not being too precious with the images in the case that one failed and yet still managed to make a good photo. At the end of the day it is the photo itself that will be the judge. The best photos live lives of their own, outside of any context, connection to author or manner of execution.

I largely agree with what you’re saying, especially the last sentence. And I’m certainly not insisting that sharpness is a bad thing. Only that an obsession with sharpness is.

[tom0511]

Here is what I did...owned the 50/1.4SL but wasnt too happy with the size. Later, when the 50 Summicron SL came up I bought a 50 Summicron with the plan to sell the Summilux. The Summicron SL is great, but for some reason I prefer the overall look I can get with the 50 Summilux. So now I am lost with both lenses, using the Summicron if I want to have it more compact (for example travel etc.) and the Summilux when weight is not so important. Then there are also moments where the light is lower and f1.4 doesnt hurt.

If I could keep one it would probably be the Summicron because of its smaller size. My impression (and I can not proof this) the Summicron APO 50 M rendering is just in between the 2 SL lenses.

 

[Planetwide]

8 hours ago, tom0511 said:

Here is what I did...owned the 50/1.4SL but wasnt too happy with the size. Later, when the 50 Summicron SL came up I bought a 50 Summicron with the plan to sell the Summilux. The Summicron SL is great, but for some reason I prefer the overall look I can get with the 50 Summilux. So now I am lost with both lenses, using the Summicron if I want to have it more compact (for example travel etc.) and the Summilux when weight is not so important. Then there are also moments where the light is lower and f1.4 doesnt hurt.

If I could keep one it would probably be the Summicron because of its smaller size. My impression (and I can not proof this) the Summicron APO 50 M rendering is just in between the 2 SL lenses.

 

You are not alone my friend!

[Photoworks]

If I can join the 50mm dilemma.

It is good to have choices .

On the SL2 I use Not 0.95, Summilux-M 50, Noct CV 50 1.0, Summicron-SL 50.

my take on this lenses.

Summicron SL is good, sharp and not exiting if you like to shoot wide open. It is safe and AF works.

The CV not 50 1.0 is a modern looking lens and deliver a better corrected image than the N 0.95. I like the lens for factor and it can produce beautiful images.
Vignetting is very strong wide open. When you use it with M camera the lens is great until you get to the 1m focus range, then it starts shifting focus.

The Summilux-M 50 is a gem, it is nice and soft, almost no CA wide open, the transition to out of focus is unmatched with any other brand. at f8 the lens is very close in sharpness to APO-summiconSL 50.

One of my favorite 50mm is the Noctilux 0.95, I got the SL2 camera to use mostly with this lens.
there is no other 50 with this character and effect. there are other noctilux of older generation that are fun but usually softer too.
The characteristic of the Noctilux 0.95 are visible until you get to f4. from 5.6 on the lens is very sharp and clean.

I find it difficult to compare all this lenses. saying f1 or f1.2 is almost the same is incorrect.
The CV 1.0 has extreme vignetting wide open that the image is still darker than the Summilux-M 50 at 1.4

The Noctilux 1.2 is only in focus in the little. the vintage look is very dominant and becomes a normal lens with sharpness to the corner at f4.

if you like the 1.4 look the Summilux-M is very good on the SL2.

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Simone_DF]

So, basically, we can agree that we should buy them all?