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

meerec · January 4, 2017

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And how would the Leica store manager have any knowledge of this?

From experience, I know more than the average Leica store manager...and thats not saying much.

He goes to Wetzlar for training. And works with Leica Australia technical rep all the time.

January 4, 2017

Hi meerec,

Take a look here Image thread for the Leica Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!

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

Donzo98 · January 4, 2017

I owned the Nikkor 24, 35 and 58 all 1.4 lenses. They where all ok or good from 2.2 up but below very soft - to say it in nice words.

It makes no sense buying expensive 1.4 lenses when you have to close aperture to get proper iq. So I sold all my Nikon gear and switched to SL - I can´t wait to get my SL Lux.

In addition to the SL I bought the Q as a walk around camera and I´m very impressed what that lens delivers at 1.7! Hey Nikon, Canon .... it´s possible to build lenses that can be used wide open.

Best,

Peter__

I did the exact same thing... bought a Q first, and then added the SL + 24-90.

In the 6 weeks or so since I have had it.. I have never shot the Q at anything but 1.7. Outstanding!!

That's from the Q...

Edited January 4, 2017 by Donzo98

meerec · January 4, 2017

The zoom is actually quite zippy ....... even at low light levels...... 95+% of the time...... with single point AF.

It is however more intolerant of low contrast subject matter than the other zooms ...... with a tendency to hunt or just sulk and give up with flat featureless surfaces, especially close up, and I suspect this is a result of it using AF wide open at 1.4 and with a much narrower DOF.

Shifting to 'Field' focussing substantially increases the 'lock' rate but is a little bit slower. 'Zone' ditto ...... but I have never seen the point of this as it never chooses what you want .....

None of this comes as a surprise ....... and with single point AF you soon automatically just use the nearest contrasty thing that you know will lock focus and work around the potential problem situations. It is plenty fast enough for most that you will encounter.

As for those who have 'trialled' the lens ...... this is usually in camera shops with crappy lighting and not a lot of suitable subject matter to try on ...... particularly in the typical black and red gloomy Leica boutique with staff all done out in black, so if there ever was a situation more unsuited for testing AF lenses I have yet to find it. Leica Mayfair is even worse as it is in a narrow glorified alley with b*ugger all outside you can photograph apart from bins (if you are lucky)...... or the occasional Bentley (parked illegally) when one of the Peers of the Realm comes to collect his repaired Leica ....... and the staff ignore the common unwashed proles like myself ......

Good technique can get you better results, and seems that what you do effectively. This is more important with the CDAF implemented by Leica, as opposed to PDAF in traditional DLSRs.

As for Leica Mayfair, I visited it once in summer when I was on a business trip to London, and there was a lively pub next door with people spilling outside but maybe it's not functioning in s***y winter weather ...?

meerec · January 4, 2017

I did the exact same thing... bought a Q first, and then added the SL + 24-90.

In the 6 weeks or so since I have had it.. I have never shot the Q at anything but 1.7. Outstanding!!

That's from the Q...

Sharp steering wheel

LD_50 · January 4, 2017

It that I've noticed. There again I really don't pay attention to that shit....... I look at the pictures

You haven't noticed the autofocus speed differences between zooms and primes and don't pay attention to "that shit" but you posted about it. You look at the pictures, and somehow that's going to give insight on AF speed?

I get the whole "all I care about is the photos" shtick in forums, but when comparing performance between lenses the resulting photos can only be used to properly judge if there are controlled tests performed. If all you care about is the photos (without viewing comparisons shot with alternative gear), and not about the often small differences in the results offered by the various gear, there would be no reason to shoot most of Leica's high-end offerings.

A blind test of a single photo will be prove nearly impossible for anyone to determine which camera or lens was used. That seems often to be the standard here. Post a photo or comment on a photo and state a given lens is better than another without any available comparison. Comparing multiple versions of the same photo shot with various gear will show differences, and it will be subjective whether the differences matter.

eprom · January 4, 2017

I'll repeat what I said above....... it all depends if you know what your doing....... obviously not [emoji30]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trust me, I know what I´m doing and that since 30 year for several clients around the globe;-)

Leicaiste · January 4, 2017

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am wondering if the AF of three future SL Summicron's will be faster.

tom0511 · January 4, 2017

in regards of the Nikon 58...sharpness is not everything. Specially fpr portraits and things like that. A soft roloff to the backgroubd is one of the strong areas of the 58.

The Noctilux 1.0 isnt sharp either wide open and many people like it a lot (including myself)

Peter Karbes comments of a very thin sharp DOF made me somewhat curions. However i find the sample images posted on Leica website look quite good to me.

tom0511 · January 4, 2017

I am wondering if the AF of three future SL Summicron's will be faster.

me too

Donzo98 · January 4, 2017

You haven't noticed the autofocus speed differences between zooms and primes and don't pay attention to "that shit" but you posted about it. You look at the pictures, and somehow that's going to give insight on AF speed?

I get the whole "all I care about is the photos" shtick in forums, but when comparing performance between lenses the resulting photos can only be used to properly judge if there are controlled tests performed. If all you care about is the photos (without viewing comparisons shot with alternative gear), and not about the often small differences in the results offered by the various gear, there would be no reason to shoot most of Leica's high-end offerings.

A blind test of a single photo will be prove nearly impossible for anyone to determine which camera or lens was used. That seems often to be the standard here. Post a photo or comment on a photo and state a given lens is better than another without any available comparison. Comparing multiple versions of the same photo shot with various gear will show differences, and it will be subjective whether the differences matter.

I agree 100%... but the truth is viewing on these forums... it's difficult to even see differences in the high end stuff. I mean come on, testing the 50 APO vs the 50SL... probably the two best 50's ever made. Then looking for differences on 72-96 ppi images. The reality is that any "normal" non insane photographer would never complain about most of the things we obsess over .

@Neil D...

if the Nikon prime's AF is fast enough for your needs, that's great, but clearly they are not up to the speed of the newer zooms.

In terms of sharpness... the 58G is noticeably softer wide open (even after calibration) than some of the other Nikon primes like the 200 F2, 105 F1.4. As noted above though, the 58G has that something special that isn't measured by sharpness. Some love... and some don't.

The Sigma 50 and 35 Art are excellent as well... but the QC is not always great... and occasionally calibration is needed. I have taken lenses to Nikon and Sigma, both are local to me, for calibration.

but... now they are mostly sold for my new Leica kit

Edited January 4, 2017 by Donzo98

steppenw0lf · January 5, 2017

Bouquet is in the eye of the beholder, but it also tends to be better (in any lens) a stop or two down, and highly dependent on camera-subject and subject-background distances (obv.).

For those looking for portrait images: http://jarlehagen.no/proof-of-performance-images

Thanks for the link. The portrait images are impressive. But at the same time also "dead cold". Is it possible that they are all flash ?

Very sharp but in a "brutal" way, not exactly what I am looking for. But probably because of the flash, not the lens. I cannot really imagine that this was "natural" lighting. Currently still looking for more appealing fotos.

Find the fotos somehow depressing, but maybe just because of the dark winter. So maybe just my own fault.

Or it is again because of the topic and the season ....

I liked the fotos of the deer better than the portraits - though nothing special, sorry.

And I found the gear terrible (that size !!) - could just as well have used a midrange camera. (probably with better flash support). So sorry, but exactly the opposite of what I expect from the SL. Rather a scenario for the X1D with Nikon flashes.

Still waiting for a Summicron 28. THAT would be a useful lens. For me this 50 is neither fish nor flesh. (as used here)

Edited January 5, 2017 by steppenw0lf

steppenw0lf · January 5, 2017

^{AF speed is not crucial for me - probably we are simply spoiled with the two SL zooms.}

^{The problrm is only the price - hgh price sets high expectations for everything. even for AF speed.}

^{For portrait AF speed is probably the least important point of all.}

^{Simply compare it to the speed of the X1D - and you will not complain anymore.}

^{Being spoiled I still think that I want a smaller, but still fast SL 28-75 lens. (Fast concerning aperture and AF speed).}

^{So I am more interested in the AF speed of the SL 16-35. And also worried about its price - probably the worst obstacle. (Though on the other side, AF is not very important for UWA). As I said, spoiled.}

Edited January 5, 2017 by steppenw0lf

meerec · January 5, 2017

Thanks for the link. The portrait images are impressive. But at the same time also "dead cold". Is it possible that they are all flash ?

Very sharp but in a "brutal" way, not exactly what I am looking for. But probably because of the flash, not the lens. I cannot really imagine that this was "natural" lighting. Currently still looking for more appealing fotos.

Find the fotos somehow depressing, but maybe just because of the dark winter. So maybe just my own fault.

Or it is again because of the topic and the season ....

I liked the fotos of the deer better than the portraits - though nothing special, sorry.

And I found the gear terrible (that size !!) - could just as well have used a midrange camera. (probably with better flash support). So sorry, but exactly the opposite of what I expect from the SL. Rather a scenario for the X1D with Nikon flashes.

Still waiting for a Summicron 28. THAT would be a useful lens. For me this 50 is neither fish nor flesh. (as used here)

There is a video from the shoot, the photog / author is seen with the SL and attached strobe transmitter. All of the images were taken with an external off camera strobe, it seems.

steppenw0lf · January 5, 2017

And ugliness (just as beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. (sorry, related to earlier notes about ugly cameras and lenses)

Edited January 5, 2017 by steppenw0lf

steppenw0lf · January 5, 2017

There is a video from the shoot, the photog / author is seen with the SL and attached strobe transmitter. All of the images were taken with an external off camera strobe, it seems.

I'd like to know more about the flash used (remote units etc.)

That would have made this report quite useful.

meerec · January 5, 2017

^{Being spoiled I still think that I want a smaller, but still fast SL 28-75 lens. (Fast concerning aperture and AF speed).}

http://instagram.com/p/BOzpYt8A_HM/