Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tried 'Tracking' AF on the SL-50 whilst out with the dog .... and worked fine on him, although the photos of him running about 60m away on a 50mm lens are a bit pointless. I can't see me using it much.

 

Out of interest it also worked on this .... which was a surprise.......

 

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 by thighslapper
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there is any point. With the zoom you are using f3.6 at 50mm ....... and I think you probably have to go back 150 years to find a prime lens with that specification as its widest aperture. 

 

Leica deliberately did this to keep the image quality as high as possible. I suspect there will be no, or minimal difference between them at this aperture. 

 

Otherwise it's like comparing driving a Landrover (go anywhere, do anything) with a Maserati (go very fast and pose a lot).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the SL and the 24/90 - and some special lenses of Canon. And I think about buying a fast 50 mm

lens for use with quite open aperture. Therefore I am considering the new 50/1,4. On the other hand in former times when I used Canons in addition to my gone M 240, I had a Canon 50/1,2 which was not the

sharpest one lens but had a wonderful bokeh, which is important for me. Theoretically I could use this lens with AF together with my Novofelx adapter, I already have. According to my information the AF of

the Sigma Art 50/1,4 does not work with the adapter - therefore this is no alternative for me. Do you think it would be a wise decision to buy the Canon lens again or should I go for the Summilux ?

Edited by HeinzX
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

..... well the Canon would be a far cheaper solution .... and if bokeh is what is important go for that.

 

you could always try a cheap used one and be prepared to sell it on at a small loss if it proves not to be up to what you expect.

 

From my experience the SL 50/1.4 is probably the sharpest 50mm lens .... wide open ... that you are going to find ... anywhere. 

 

If you definitely need AF you have extremely limited choices ...... if you don't mind manual you are spoilt for choices. 

Edited by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the SL and the 24/90 - and some special lenses of Canon. And I think about buying a fast 50 mm

lens for use with quite open aperture. Therefore I am considering the new 50/1,4. On the other hand in former times when I used Canons in addition to my gone M 240, I had a Canon 50/1,2 which was not the

sharpest one lens but had a wonderful bokeh, which is important for me. Theoretically I could use this lens with AF together with my Novofelx adapter, I already have. According to my information the AF of

the Sigma Art 50/1,4 does not work with the adapter - therefore this is no alternative for me. Do you think it would be a wise decision to buy the Canon lens again or should I go for the Summilux ?

 

I like the cheap Canon EF 1.8/50 mm with stepper motor. It works quite well with the Novoflex AF adapter. It is the small AF alternative that will probably never come from Leica. And it is also rather quiet and unobtrusive.

And I also like the Noctiilux, though a different class of investment.

So I would rather go for one of these (well actually I already have them plus several other R and M 50mm lenses   :D  :D. They simply seem to pile up over the years :unsure: .).

With this at the back of my hand, I will wait for a macro lens on the SL system around 50 or 60mm that will probably appear sooner or later. But this is only a personal choice, not necessarily suitable for your needs.

 

Of course the Otus 55mm is always a high-class choice, but so close in price, that I would definitely prefer the Summilux-SL 50.

Regarding Sigma, the 1.4/35 seems to be the most interesting choice for me - though there are many Leica R and M 35mm that are really great. But it is still unclear to me if it works with the Novoflex adapter or not. The description of Novoflex is unclear - and they get probably no money to test this lens thouroughly.

Also the Sigma Art f/2 24-35 zoom is very interesting (also for filming), but again unclear if supported with AF.

 

Back to the EF 1.8/50 STM. If you already have the AF adapter it is well worth testing  - especially regarding its negligible price. It depends if you like to experiment or not. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-STM-Lens.aspx

It is not comparable to the Summicron (my favorite), but still quite ok. - even on the 5DsR . And I like to have a small AF lens from time to time.   ;)

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for having answered to my question. The EF 1.8/50 STM seems to be worthwile to be tested.

The investment is small and therefore the risk very low. And it is a pity, that the situation with the Sigma Art 50/1,4 is not clear. But I remember, that in a list of BH - from which I have read in this

forum, it was claimed, that the AF is not working in contrary to the Sigma Art 35/1,4 which is said theAF should work. Novoflex should really do their work soon and deliver a list of lenses which work, which work not and w´hich work partly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents about the SL 50...

 

Travelled to London and tried the SL 50 at the Mayfair boutique.  Was mentally ready to slap down the credit card, but was very unimpressed by the slow focusing which has been mentioned before.  Had been using my M-Summilux 50 all week so well practiced on the manual focusing.  Slower to focus than even the slow SL50 but much lighter and easier to handle - and I have already made the investment in this lens.

 

Some may disagree, but my review of 10-15 or so images with same subject matter from both lenses after the fact showed them to render very similarly in terms of bokeh and colour from jpegs.  This surprised me...enough to make me put my credit card back in the wallet.

 

Has anyone else had a similar experience?  

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents about the SL 50...

 

Travelled to London and tried the SL 50 at the Mayfair boutique.  Was mentally ready to slap down the credit card, but was very unimpressed by the slow focusing which has been mentioned before.  Had been using my M-Summilux 50 all week so well practiced on the manual focusing.  Slower to focus than even the slow SL50 but much lighter and easier to handle - and I have already made the investment in this lens.

 

Some may disagree, but my review of 10-15 or so images with same subject matter from both lenses after the fact showed them to render very similarly in terms of bokeh and colour from jpegs.  This surprised me...enough to make me put my credit card back in the wallet.

 

Has anyone else had a similar experience?  

copied from a post I made earlier .....

 

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 ......
 
I agree about the general rendering .... and that is no surprise as Leica have a 'generic' look which they tend to stick to. It is much sharper at a pixel peeping level than any other Leica lens ..... but will this be noticeable in most images ? ..... I think not. Bokeh is like the Apo 50 ....... inconspicuous ... which I prefer. I personally have a downer on the 50/1.4 having had 3 examples ... all of which were maladjusted for use on the M at some point in their focal length, but on the SL this would not be an issue. 4.5k is a lot for the benefit of AF and backache from carrying more weight .... so if the M 50/1.4 suits, you have made the right decision.  :) Personally, the more I use it, the more I like it, and although AF is not 90-280 standard it is fast and reliable when compared to most others I have used .... and more importantly AF is very accurate even wide open.
Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents about the SL 50...

 

Travelled to London and tried the SL 50 at the Mayfair boutique.  Was mentally ready to slap down the credit card, but was very unimpressed by the slow focusing which has been mentioned before.  Had been using my M-Summilux 50 all week so well practiced on the manual focusing.  Slower to focus than even the slow SL50 but much lighter and easier to handle - and I have already made the investment in this lens.

 

Some may disagree, but my review of 10-15 or so images with same subject matter from both lenses after the fact showed them to render very similarly in terms of bokeh and colour from jpegs.  This surprised me...enough to make me put my credit card back in the wallet.

 

Has anyone else had a similar experience?

 

Yes I had similar experience.

 

I don't own the SL-50 or M-50 Lux. I shoot with the M-50 Cron (non-APO).

 

Less than a month ago I spent the entire day with the Leica Akademie at the newly open Sydney Leica Store and had a chance to shoot with all 50's during the Akademie sessions and compare all lenses with regards to ergonomics on the SL and the images that resulted.

 

I didn't enjoy the SL-50, it had no soul, was a clinical lens, and too large for me. [i don't own or like the SL 24-90 zoom either]. Auto focussing was slower compared to my SL 90-280 zoom, which was disappointing too.

Noctilux was a breeze to focus and handle. Perfect size and weight on the SL. And gorgeous look.

To my surprise, I liked the M-50-lux ergonomics the best, as its size, weight, diameter, and short throw of the barrel for the focus, plus the tab, made it a winner for me.

As for the results, they were all very comparable across all lenses with regards to bokeh, colour and overall look (shooting fully open) without going into deep pixel peeping, which I never do. In fact, my best images from the day happened to be from my very own M-50 Cron [non APO].

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, thighslapper.  Your comments make sense to me.  My thinking now is that for situations requiring AF, I'm happy to use my 24-90 which constantly surprises me with the high quality of images produced.  Tough in low light but SL's performance at high ISO has been more than adequate for me.

 

Plan to use the money I would have spent on the SL50 on a Noctilux which I love since I spent a weekend with one at a Leica Akademie course.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm slightly surprised that others have found the various top of the line 50mm Leica M lenses and the SL Summilux and zoom have similar renderings and colour.  Leaving "sharpness" to one side, at or near wide open, I think that they have distinctive drawing characteristics.  The newer lenses are also better corrected (less purple fringing.)  The smaller M lenses are, however, remarkable for their portability, the unique Leica feature.  What takes more experience to judge is which lens is likely to suit which subject type better (which I don't claim to have).  Horses for courses.  Anyway, roll on the next Noctilux :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The same glass of vine can be regarded as half full or half empty. In a similar way you can look for differences or for similarities in the lenses. You will find both. And personal opinion decides which is prevailing/dominating.

 

Leica is celebrating the differences - it is also good for business. In the last 15 years I have mainly been using CaNikon. There the lenses are not such "personalities". So I see mainly the common features. And Thighslapper probably selected the image area used in the comparison also in this regard.

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm slightly surprised that others have found the various top of the line 50mm Leica M lenses and the SL Summilux and zoom have similar renderings and colour.  Leaving "sharpness" to one side, at or near wide open, I think that they have distinctive drawing characteristics.  The newer lenses are also better corrected (less purple fringing.)  The smaller M lenses are, however, remarkable for their portability, the unique Leica feature.  What takes more experience to judge is which lens is likely to suit which subject type better (which I don't claim to have).  Horses for courses.  Anyway, roll on the next Noctilux :-)

I did notice small differences in rendering between 50s in my experience on the day. However the differences were not huge and I came back with excellent shots with my 50 cron, which I liked the best, so this kept my money in the wallet, couldn't justify spending thousands more on buying an 50 APO or a Nocti. But that's my personal view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If anyone is interested ..... the Marumi Macros work well on the 50/1.4 ..... but obviously DOF is razor thin at 1.4 ......

 

does bring the focussing distance down to 10cm or so with the +5 dioptre marumi, which does extend the usage of the lens .... not much about this time of the year to photo though ..... most stuff is dead ... or dying 

 

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 by thighslapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!


  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...