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

[dgktkr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would suggest looking at photographs or test shots to compare lenses rather than trying to make sense of vague and unmeasurable marketing speak.

 

At first, I, too, was thinking Karbe's statements were marketing speak, but after thinking about it and finding the Edmund Optics tutorial, I'm starting to think what Karbe was talking about is real and quantifiable, but is really about a "3D effect" rather than DOF.

 

dgktkr

[LD_50]

Could you be a bit more specific abouth the "AF is unreliable"?

Is this in context of the 50? Given it's size and price I would really expect it to exceed in this regard, otherwise the 50 apo should be the 50 of choice.

 

the 90-280 was quite good, the 24-90 might have some issues. However I'm yet to see a proper AF system for shallow depth of field Portraits(best being Hasselblad truefocus). 

One of the reasons I bought the SL, because it allows to MF properly. Sadly with some limitation, the fuji does it better with a constant focus magnification point. Not sure about the Sony behaviour.

I agree on the shallow DOF issue with AF systems. EVFs are great for fine tuning with magnification, as you said.

 

I have read that the eye recognition from Sony (and I've read with the newer Fujis) is pretty accurate, even with shallow DOF. I've not tested the newest versions of the A7R or the XT2 or XPro 2 so I'm not sure how accurate these reports are.

 

I would like to see the SL incorporate a more effective AF system (via firmware update) to lock onto the closest eye for portraits, especially with the Summilux now available.

[IkarusJohn]

I assume that he is talking about what you refer to as fall off. You can see the effect in one of the M lens forum threads where the 75mm Summilux at f1.4 appears to have a wider depth of field / slower fall off than the 75mm Summicron at f2. It appears to be a good thing because the sharpest point is even sharper. (Which is cause and which effect I'll leave to the physicists. )

I think that's probably right.

[LD_50]

At first, I, too, was thinking Karbe's statements were marketing speak, but after thinking about it and finding the Edmund Optics tutorial, I'm starting to think what Karbe was talking about is real and quantifiable, but is really about a "3D effect" rather than DOF.

 

dgktkr

I have no doubt he is making reference to real and quantifiable design choices.

 

His choice of words though leaves his claims unmeasurable, and therefore marketing speak to me. "Tightened and raised the curve," "will offer a look similar," "unique and special," "greater sharpness," "more pronounced", "very 3D effect"

 

The closest to a quantifiable statement there is "greater sharpness" though he doesn't specify to which prime lenses this comparison is made. Is it all Leica primes? Is it all primes from other manufacturers (Otus comes to mind)?

 

I have no doubt the SL primes will be fantastic. At the price point and the limited market for these lenses I don't think we need the marketing speak. I'm interested in the lenses as part of the system, and based upon photographs and my own testing.

 

The sharpness DOF curve, which you can visualize as a parabola, has been changed from what you have seen in the past. We’ve tightened and raised the curve, so that f/2 will offer a look that is similar to f/1.4. It is very unique and special. And, at the same time, will offer greater sharpness at the point of focus. The contrast of in focus and out of focus will be more pronounced, which produces a very 3D effect.

[John Black]

For me to get a feel of the 50 Lux SL's "character", I'd need to see the same pictures taken with the 50 Lux ASPH M and 50 Lux SL.  Some F1.4 and F2 pictures with a somewhat busy background would help me gauge the new SL's "blurring" capabilities.  As for the "3D" aspect, that's an elusive game that is very dependent on lighting (IMO).

Edited December 17, 2016 by John Black

[jrp]

I've been taking pics while it is dark, or nearly so, in city lights.  About 1/4 shots are out of focus, or blurrier than they could be because my technique is sub-optimal, and because CDAF struggles in such conditions; OIS obviously makes a big difference, because I rarely get blurry shots with the zooms.  Equally, weight must make a difference because I rarely get blurriness with the M lenses, manually focused.  This takes me back to the days of the D3x, when moving up from a D3.  It required much more careful technique.  For all you clamouring after a 36/50Mpx camera, forget about handholding at 1/2f max.

Edited December 17, 2016 by jrp

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You can still handhold with higher resolution cameras and better lenses, even if better technique and stabilization is required to take full advantage. Just sample to the lowest output size that looks sharp. It may still be larger than the 24MP of the SL.

[horlogere]

Here i have written my first impression of the new Summilux SL. 

 

https://norbertwindecker.blogspot.de/2016/12/erster-eindruck-first-impression-leica.html

[Chaemono]

Two more low light test shots with shallow depth of field.

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-ghS8qq/

[jrp]

Thanks.  Shows how clean the images are, although it also shows that narrow depth of field is not always what you want!  

[steppenw0lf]

Two more low light test shots with shallow depth of field.

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-ghS8qq/

 

The areas in focus are great. There is this 3D effect (in my eyes). Very attractive result. (regarding image 2)

Too bad that the bokeh is a bit flawed by the "ugly" shape of the out-of-focus highlights near the border (mainly upper left corner). Could you maybe test, at which aperture this disappears ? I assume it will diminish (getting closer to a circle), when the lens is not wide open.

The older Nocti 1.0 seems better regarding bokeh. (Did not see this "lentil shape" problem with the Nocti, or to a much smaller degree).

Edited December 19, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Chaemono]

The areas in focus are great. There is this 3D effect (in my eyes). Very attractive result. (regarding image 2)

Too bad that the bokeh is a bit flawed by the "ugly" shape of the out-of-focus highlights near the border (mainly upper left corner). Could you maybe test, at which aperture this disappears ? I assume it will diminish (getting closer to a circle), when the lens is not wide open.

The older Nocti 1.0 seems better regarding bokeh. (Did not see this "lentil shape" problem with the Nocti, or to a much smaller degree).

 

Very helpful. Thanks. I have one evening left to redo it before I take a few days off. It was at the Christmas market. By the time I get back, it will be gone. Unfortunately, I won't be able to retry it.

[Chaemono]

Two more at night.

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-ghS8qq/

[jrp]

20161217-184745_L1050884.jpg

[dgktkr]

The areas in focus are great. There is this 3D effect (in my eyes). Very attractive result. (regarding image 2)

Too bad that the bokeh is a bit flawed by the "ugly" shape of the out-of-focus highlights near the border (mainly upper left corner). Could you maybe test, at which aperture this disappears ? I assume it will diminish (getting closer to a circle), when the lens is not wide open.

The older Nocti 1.0 seems better regarding bokeh. (Did not see this "lentil shape" problem with the Nocti, or to a much smaller degree).

 

 

For those of you that are analytic types, you may be interested in a page from Zeiss entitled "Depth of Field and Bokeh" https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln35_en_web_special_bokeh.pdf

 

I believe the lenticular shapes of small bright light sources that are out of focus near the edge of the image are a result of "artificial vignetting" (seen in non central regions of the image where the illumination falloff is greater than cos^4). Another page discussing this is http://toothwalker.org/optics/vignetting.html.

 

dgktkr

[horlogere]

Here are some comparison picture with both Summilux 50 mm.

http://norbertwindecker.blogspot.com/2016/12/vergleich-leica-summilux-sl-11450-asph.html

[jrp]

Thanks (although I can't get the page to translate).  Im surprised that your M lens is quite so poor. I would have expected it to be closer to the SL in sharpness, but with more aberrations.

[eprom]

Thanks for that convincing comparison of these lenses. Maybe the M-Lux would perform better on the M240.

I sold all my (new) M-lenses when I got the SL-Zoom 24-90. Non of these M-lenses performed in a way that I suggested they should on the SL. They where great on the M but only "ok" on the SL in my opinion.

You can use M and R lenses on the SL but when you want top notch performance you should go with the lenses that where designed for the SL.

 

Best,

Peter__

[steppenw0lf]

Here are some comparison picture with both Summilux 50 mm.

http://norbertwindecker.blogspot.com/2016/12/vergleich-leica-summilux-sl-11450-asph.html

 

Thanks for the clean comparison. Really nice results.

Very typical that others talk of poor samples of M lenses, instead of accepting that the new Summilux SL is an extraordinary lens, with high IQ even at 1.4 .

It looks as if the big size has resulted in extraordinary IQ. And the smaller and older M lenses simply are not equal. Exactly as predicted by Karbe.

Edited December 21, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

My dealer offered me one for sale but i'm not interested anymore. Too big and heavy for my taste.

 

If one of you wants it, PM me and I'll get it for you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk