Summilux-SL vs APO Summicron-SL 50 *At F/2*

[antialiasing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have read existing threads here on this popular "vs" topic, but haven't found any info about how they compare at F/2. An MTF chart of the Summilux at F/2 would largely settle the question, I guess, but it doesn't seem to exist on the web, either. Any insights welcome! Thanks,

Harry

p.s. the goal is to add faster lenses to my 24-280 zooms

[rtai]

I can’t answer your question but faced the same dilemma when I had to choose, and after some research bought the Summilux. I also have the 24-90 zoom and this lens is just about perfect except for the weight so I already my sharpness requirement fulfilled. I use the M10M for people/street/travel and the SL2 for all others and also for travel if I want color. Since I already have perfection with the zoom I want a “character” lens for a 50mm when want to shoot street portraits etc. From experience with the 50apo and Asph Summilux in M mount I can say good luck figuring out which photo was shot with which lens at f2. But the 50mm Apo SL focuses faster and lighter, smaller than the Summilux SL. This was what made my decision difficult not any performance difference.

[Advertisement]

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

[antialiasing]

11 minutes ago, rtai said:

I can’t answer your question but faced the same dilemma when I had to choose, and after some research bought the Summilux. I also have the 24-90 zoom and this lens is just about perfect except for the weight so I already my sharpness requirement fulfilled. I use the M10M for people/street/travel and the SL2 for all others and also for travel if I want color. Since I already have perfection with the zoom I want a “character” lens for a 50mm when want to shoot street portraits etc. From experience with the 50apo and Asph Summilux in M mount I can say good luck figuring out which photo was shot with which lens at f2. But the 50mm Apo SL focuses faster and lighter, smaller than the Summilux SL. This was what made my decision difficult not any performance difference.

I appreciate your perspective, rtai. To add a fast lens to accompany the zooms is exactly what I'm looking for. I have realized that Summilux has to be the answer because, if i get the Summicron, I would still be wondering about the Summilux (in particular, wondering if it is indeed the "autofocus Otus"). If size & weight is an issue the M, rather than small-lensed SL2, is a better answer -- on that end I only have a Q2 Monochome at the moment but look forward to the M11.

[robb]

I think it has been stated by Leica that the SL Summicron crushes all from f 2 and on...

So buy the summilux only if you always shoot at 1.4. otherwise save the cash, and weight and enjoy the Summicron perfection.

Robb

[antialiasing]

Yes, follow the advice of Peter "wide open" Karbe...

[robb]

So buy the 50 1.4 and see if you get what you need.  If not sell it for pretty much the same price of the Summicron. You can't lose in this scenario.  the Summicrosn are like 2 stops faster than the 24-90 which is really a practical f4 anyway.  I opted for the 35 and 75 summicrons with a VM 50 1.0 slotted in between...  The 50 Summicron is too close in focal length to my 35 and 75 so I opted for something different but without the weight, bulk, and cost of the summilux.

Robb

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 15 Stunden schrieb antialiasing:

I have read existing threads here on this popular "vs" topic, but haven't found any info about how they compare at F/2. An MTF chart of the Summilux at F/2 would largely settle the question, I guess, but it doesn't seem to exist on the web, either. Any insights welcome! Thanks,

Harry

p.s. the goal is to add faster lenses to my 24-280 zooms

One just has to squint a bit when looking at the 50 Summilux-SL in #11. This emulates f/2.

 

[antialiasing]

Chaemono thank you. The pictures show the difference between 1.4 and 2 clearly. Would you please expand a bit on the relation to the BSI sensor architecture?

I think the comparison is interesting in multiple aspects. The obvious observation is that if background is closer than a certain distance, f/2 wouldn't be sufficient for separation. Overgaard also talked about "shooting a summicron like a summilux" by paying attention to background distance--arrange for enough distance and the summicron looks like summilux. But, since I'm looking at your pictures on the phone, another thing struck me: due to the phone size, the summicron picture has lost most of the background blur, while the summilux one still has evident blur. So the point is, when you look at the pictures at a small size, the difference between 1.4 and 2.0 becomes binary. Given how often we look at images on the phone these days, this is not an idle consideration.

 

[tom0511]

I oWn both, and believe the Summilux renders more special in regards of bokeh and transition. For my taste the Summilux is my prefered lens except sizE and weight. Specially for images including people, portraits etc.

[Gavin Cato]

I don't have both to compare, but I do have the lux and it's really imo probably one of the best 50's on the planet. I recently printed a wedding enlargement for a couple at 45" x 30" from the SL2 (very unusual to get a enlargement request this big but it was a cracker of an image) and it was absolutely pin sharp printed at f/1.8 - there's really no sharpness concerns with the lux. Even if the cron outdoes it on a mtf chart (I suspect it would) it's still capable of extreme detail.

 

[antialiasing]

2 hours ago, robb said:

...  The 50 Summicron is too close in focal length to my 35 and 75 so I opted for something different but without the weight, bulk, and cost of the summilux.

Robb

Indeed, on the Q2 mono I use the 35mm crop quite often, so 35->50 could be just as reasonable. Besides Karbe thinks of the 35 cron as best of the best:)

[Stuart Richardson]

It is really about what you intend to use it for. If you want shallow depth of field and speed and don’t mind a big heavy lens, get the Summilux. If you want the sharpest 50mm lens available, get the APO summicron, especially if you are interested in low light landscapes, aerial imagery, or pro uses like artwork reproduction, copy work or architecture. The summilux is the one for portraits or creative effects with shallow depth of field. Both are extremely sharp and good for general use, but they have different trade-offs. 

[Stuart Richardson]

3 hours ago, antialiasing said:

Indeed, on the Q2 mono I use the 35mm crop quite often, so 35->50 could be just as reasonable. Besides Karbe thinks of the 35 cron as best of the best:)

A 35 summicron cropped to 50mm is not going to give anything close to comparable performance to either of these 50s at 50mm…you drop from 47mp to 30mp or so. Still certainly very usable, but not like a native 50…

[Chaemono]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb antialiasing:

Chaemono thank you. The pictures show the difference between 1.4 and 2 clearly. Would you please expand a bit on the relation to the BSI sensor architecture?

I think the comparison is interesting in multiple aspects. The obvious observation is that if background is closer than a certain distance, f/2 wouldn't be sufficient for separation. Overgaard also talked about "shooting a summicron like a summilux" by paying attention to background distance--arrange for enough distance and the summicron looks like summilux. But, since I'm looking at your pictures on the phone, another thing struck me: due to the phone size, the summicron picture has lost most of the background blur, while the summilux one still has evident blur. So the point is, when you look at the pictures at a small size, the difference between 1.4 and 2.0 becomes binary. Given how often we look at images on the phone these days, this is not an idle consideration.

 

See #30 here:

See #28 in the thread as well.

[antialiasing]

Thanks to everyone who chimed in. I have a summilux-sl 50 on order. Hope to receive it in the next couple of days. I'm likely heading towards "both", which usually happens when I have to choose, but the summilux is good for now.

When pondering on this, I also realize that the trade-offs as Stuart and essentially everyone else mentioned are also perceived quite differently based on personal experiences. If one comes to SL from an M background, he is confronted by a multitude of monstrosities. If he, on the other hand, comes to SL from Nikon SLRs as I did, or Canon, the SL2 is positively slim; the zooms do not stand out in size and weight. My bags are too big (esp in depth) now -- I'm *down*sizing. That said, I looking forward to the impending M11.

[tom0511]

I think  a good choice. For me such a fast lens makes more choice on the sl(2) than on a M camera, because withbface detection and af younare also abke tomprecisly focus it wide open, even for not totally still subjects. Thats why I use a f.2.0 50mm on the M.

the handling of the sl50mm 1.4 is totally fine, itbjust not the lens which you throw in the backpack additionally to 2 or 3 other lenses on a hike !)

let us know how you like it.

[Chaemono]

The 50SL 1.4 has these subdued colors with the Adobe standard profile. Someone called them sterile before which I don’t agree with. Anyway, other profiles will render the colors more punchy in LR. 

[sswee38823]

I much prefer the Summilux. I find it has much more of an M like signature. I had the APO 50 and thought the results were good but not outstanding. As soon as I put the Summilux on my SL2-S, I thought the results were outstanding! I think you made the right choice!!

My Flickr Account

@seansweeney2017 

[BernardC]

21 hours ago, antialiasing said:

Would you please expand a bit on the relation to the BSI sensor architecture?

Sony has made a lot of claims about their BSI fabrication process over the years, but they don't really mean much to photographers.

For instance, they claim that it improves the handling of off-axis light rays, but the best cameras for off-axis rays are Leica Ms. They also claim improvements in dynamic range, noise, low-light, etc. While photographic Sony's sensors are very good, they aren't necessarily leaders in any of these fields. That's not to put Sony down, they make an excellent product, but they also have excellent marketing which makes people repeat claims that don't play-out in real life.

Last I checked, the 47MP sensor in the SL2 and S1H was the highest-rated overall. Canon had the best low-light sensors (in specialized cine cameras), and Leica Ms have the best off-axis response. Arri's sensors were designed more than 10 years ago, and they still have the best dynamic range... However, Leica picked a Sony sensor for the SL2-S, so obviously Sony is doing something right.

None of this should matter at user-level. Leica does their homework and picks the best available sensor for their needs. They have access to much more data than we do, so I doubt that they are influenced by paid influencers and by marketing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Dr. G]

I have a Summilux-SL and should be getting the 50 Summicron-SL tomorrow.  I can take a few images at f/2 with each for you.  I have a product shoot on Friday and will probably use the Summicron-SL as I think it will be the better suited lens for my subject material.  Because the Summicron-SL has a shorter minimum focus distance I can fill the frame better in certain situations, too - but on a tripod using multi shot for static subjects you can get around that.  I’ve owned both lenses in the past and the Summilux-SL definitely has a bit more character and a smoother falloff.  The Summicron-SL is definitely sharper with better contrast and microcontrast to my eye.  I can see situations where I would grab one over the other.  

Edited January 11, 2022 by Dr. G