Image thread for the Leica Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hmmmm....I'm not seeing any of the clarity or sharpness being talked about above. This review is quite perplexing too.

 

http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/

 

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Paul J

[Advertisement]

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

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

Seems to be a competition of who can write a worse review, accompanied by <very interestingly> very uninteresting sample images

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul J]

Well to be fair I guess the problem at this point is pre-production samples and people not having enough time to try them out properly. But yes, overall quite uunderwhelming. What I find most troubling about the review I posted is that the distortion is terrible, complex and uncorrectable, the CA is pretty significant, the flare resistance is low, the vignetting heavy, the sharpness OK, it's not at all on par with an Otus. I just hope this is just a non indicative pre production sample.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Paul J

[steppenw0lf]

I have hardly ever seen such an uninspiring  collection of 50mm images.

Too many macro photos with a lens certainly not made for macro. Why ?

Even the photos of the pretty models were  .... bad. Often with an irritating background. And strange clippings.

 

Had a look at my own photos taken with my old Noctilux 1.0 . They seemed much sharper and with much nicer bokeh. even nicer color rendering.

Can this be true ? I don't think so.

Can this only be the missing firmware ? 

 

As an "average" SL user, will I ever see the barrel distortion - or will it automatically disappear when I open the software ?

In the web we probably see only the jpegs - so how were they converted from raw ?

 

It is also interesting that he says he prefers the color rendering of the M240 to the SL's rendering. For me it is exactly the opposite way. I know this is a matter of taste, but what do you think ? Often the Q and SL were praised for their better colors.

But here in these examples I do not really like the colors. For example the second girl has in reality probably a darker/different complexion than what is displayed here. Strange/unfortunate color editing, in my eyes.

Edited December 6, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[ImmerDraussen]

Leica started to ship regular production. I got my lens yesterday.

First impression from a few outside shoots on the street is great.

[thighslapper]

as 

 

Leica started to ship regular production. I got my lens yesterday.
First impression from a few outside shoots on the street is great.

I suspected ...... a trickle before xmas for the keen to try and Leica to test for major missed glitches ...... then the usual hiatus of 6-10 weeks before the next batch appears at the original scheduled time.

 

They have done this consistently now for several years ..... 

 

Looks like it's possible I will be very poor this xmas ...... 

 

UK dealer deliveries are usually late in the week  ....... we will see if my dealer is one of the lucky few .....

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Poor but happy ?   I wonder if Jono has also received one  ....

[steppenw0lf]

Ingo has received one today (yesterday) and posted two photos - mainly to demonstrate automatic eye detection, even in poor lighting conditions. Click on the images to see them in detail. I wonder how he did it (getting the lens and adding the photos in such detail)  

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/264596-neue-objektive-für-die-sl/page-15#entry3161881

 

This could possibly change some minds (that had an aversion against this lens).

Edited December 7, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Chaemono]

I hate to say it but in the images above the eyebrow and the eyelashes are in focus and not the eye itself. Compare to this image http://specphoto.ru/images/specphoto_zeiss_otus_55_1.jpg.

 

I suspect face detection was turned on for Ingo's shots. It would be interesting to see if the eye would be in focus with face detection off. Otherwise one would need to focus this lens manually for this type of shots which sort of negates the purpose of having AF in the first place.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Chaemono

[thighslapper]

having phoned about it appears Leica allocated (allegedly) 2 lenses to the UK .... so the advance delivery is miniscule ... presumably just what was left over from the run for demo purposes. rest will appear in january as indicated. 

 

looks like there will be food on the table in the thighslapper household after all ...... instead of just me with a shiny new toy and everyone else looking grumpy, hungry and cold  .....

Edited December 7, 2016 by thighslapper

[Chaemono]

Low light shot from today. Unfortunately, too strongly compressed here to be able to tell how good the micro-contrast of this lens is.

 

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 December 7, 2016 by Chaemono

[jrp]

The lights seem very clean.

[Chaemono]

The lights seem very clean.

 

Yes, and I just added that the uploaded picture is too strongly compressed here to be able to tell how good the micro-contrast of this lens is.

[jrp]

Put an original on flickr or whatever and link to it to avoid some of the compression, although the browser will still degrade the image.

[Chaemono]

Put an original on flickr or whatever and link to it to avoid some of the compression, although the browser will still degrade the image.

 

Ok, I did a 14 day trial period here. You can download it in full resolution. I hope I find time to add more over the next 14 days.

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-ghS8qq/i-vFCP5CR/A

[jrp]

Thanks.  Looks hyperreal!

[Joshua Lowe]

That "Jupiter Snake" review shows a lot of distortion and purple fringing.  Neither of which should be considered acceptable.

I understand why leaving it to the software to correct some optical distortion may be a necessary evil when it comes to the 24-90, but on a 50 1.4 prime?  No.  

[FlashGordonPhotography]

That "Jupiter Snake" review shows a lot of distortion and purple fringing.  Neither of which should be considered acceptable.

I understand why leaving it to the software to correct some optical distortion may be a necessary evil when it comes to the 24-90, but on a 50 1.4 prime?  No.  

 

I like Adam but he's not a fan of the SL at all and has had some issues with Leica as a company. I am definitely not saying he's not being honest. Just like the rest of us his views are coloured by his experiences with Leica. Other samples I've seen have not shown the issues he sees.

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Joshua Lowe]

I had similar concerns about the image quality of the 24-90 until I used it for myself, however the distortion is a thing.  If the SL 1.4 really does have that natural distortion then I'll probably keep my 50 APO.

[steppenw0lf]

I see no distortion in the photos - only in the examples from jupitersnake.

So I think normally it is not visible, only if you try to trick the software and avoid the automatic correction. But why should I do that as a normal user ?

I see no advantage in doing that.

 

So I see no problem with this lens - the examples look actually great. But if I get one ? I have to wait until January anyway. I think a slower macro lens would be more useful for me. So I probably go on using my R 50mm and 60mm.

Maybe better save the money for the 16-35 or the 2/90. After all it's only a 50mm, which is not the most important focal length for me.

Edited December 8, 2016 by steppenw0lf