Jump to content

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

TheGodParticle/Hari

By TheGodParticle/Hari
in L-Mount Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

stephan_w

stephan_w

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Du musst einen Beitrag eingeben.

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 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 719
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

LocalHero1953
LocalHero1953

SL2-S and Summilux-L 50, all at f/1.4. The subjects are all actors in Martin McDonagh's play 'Hangmen', about the second most famous hangman in Britain on the day that hanging is abolished. We adjou

Olaf_ZG
Olaf_ZG

Sara, SL2, SL lux, one strobe.

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!

Olaf_ZG
Olaf_ZG

On the SL2. Still experimenting with the lens.

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!

Posted Images

  • 2 months later...
geetee1972

geetee1972

Posted
Posted

I am wondering whether anyone has bought the SL50lux and not been as pleased with the results as with a 50lux on M240?

There should be; every example I've seen so far with the SL50Lux are terrible. Am I really the only one who things the images look sterile? I don't quite know what it is, whether it's because there are so many layers of glass to filter through, but the results look so 'digital', nothing like the analogue film feel of the M mount 50mm Lux.

 

I'm sorry but I've spent ages looking at all the examples I can find and I've seen nothing so far that makes me think this lens is anything other than a Sony clone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
eprom

eprom

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

I'm sorry but I've spent ages looking at all the examples I can find and I've seen nothing so far that makes me think this lens is anything other than a Sony clone.

 

 

LOL, SONY would be more than happy if they would come only close to that quality !

Edited by eprom
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There should be; every example I've seen so far with the SL50Lux are terrible. Am I really the only one who things the images look sterile? I don't quite know what it is, whether it's because there are so many layers of glass to filter through, but the results look so 'digital', nothing like the analogue film feel of the M mount 50mm Lux.

 

I'm sorry but I've spent ages looking at all the examples I can find and I've seen nothing so far that makes me think this lens is anything other than a Sony clone.

I agree. As you stated before, most people buy the SL50 just to hang it on their rear-view mirrors.

Edited by Chaemono
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
caissa

caissa

Posted
Posted (edited)

I like the Contax lenses for their cool clean look - very nice for macro, often very strong blue hues.

If anything it could be said that the SL 50 has a similar look. Completely personal if this is an advantage or a fault.

 

I am positively surprised by this lens. Even the close focusing distance of 0.6 m is not so bad. 

I have to buy a close-up lens to see if I can use it instead of a macro lens (?!).

That would be fabulous - with my other Summiluxes 50 (R and M) I would never dare to try that (that's why I like the Summicrons), but the details and quality wide open is a gift. 

Edited by caissa
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
tom0511

tom0511

Posted
Posted

There should be; every example I've seen so far with the SL50Lux are terrible. Am I really the only one who things the images look sterile? I don't quite know what it is, whether it's because there are so many layers of glass to filter through, but the results look so 'digital', nothing like the analogue film feel of the M mount 50mm Lux.

 

I'm sorry but I've spent ages looking at all the examples I can find and I've seen nothing so far that makes me think this lens is anything other than a Sony clone.

 

 

My opinion: just because other lenses like the M 50/1.4 are a little less sharp and show a little less (micro-)contrast doesnt make them look less digital than the SL 50/1.4.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
thighslapper

thighslapper

Posted
Posted (edited)

There should be; every example I've seen so far with the SL50Lux are terrible. Am I really the only one who things the images look sterile? I don't quite know what it is, whether it's because there are so many layers of glass to filter through, but the results look so 'digital', nothing like the analogue film feel of the M mount 50mm Lux.

 

I'm sorry but I've spent ages looking at all the examples I can find and I've seen nothing so far that makes me think this lens is anything other than a Sony clone.

 

You are offering nothing apart from a nebulous subjective opinion with no objective observations or evidence to back up your views. But there again that's what the forum is for ...... :p

 

It's a bit like saying 'all your photos are crap' and when asked why: 'because I don't like them'. 

 

The 50/2 asph is 'sterile' because it acts with almost complete transparency and adds to noticeable aberrations or faults to the resultant image.  'Character' indicates optical issues with the lens, which if you like and want that sort of thing it's fine by me. 

 

The 50/1.4 SL is similar ... but clearly doesn't suit your style of photography......  which is perfectly ok, and you no doubt (from what I've seen) produce fine work with the lenses you prefer ..... but others may choose a different route to the final image. 

 

Personally, I feel the 50/1.4 SL was designed a 'benchmark' lens for Leica rather than an everyday workhorse .......images are spectacularly 'uncoloured' and lacking in any significant optical issues. Some may call this 'perfect' ..... others, 'sterile' .... each to his own. 

 

I suspect the 75/2 AF will be a much better practical option in the long run ..... 

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
geetee1972

geetee1972

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

You are offering nothing apart from a nebulous subjective opinion with no objective observations or evidence to back up your views. But there again that's what the forum is for ...... :p

 

Well that's a fair point; I have previously offered more constructive comments but part of the problem with offering what I think you would find to be a satisfactory response is that ultimately what we're talking about here transcends objectivity.

 

I think the first point to make is that talking about a lenses performance is pointless especially if all you're going to do with it is shoot snaps of flowers, horses and buildings. It's even more pointless, perverse even, when you're spending $5000+ on a lens. If you're spending that much money on your kit I'd really hope you were genuinely searching for something meaningful rather than dealing in superfice and artifice. I've not yet seen any images made with the SL50mm that go beyond these principles so perhaps that is why I am being so negative about the lens. If there were some body of work that made me draw breath, think about some fundamental governing truth or offer a profound insight into the nature of our existence or the beauty of the world, then perhaps I would be more able to engage with what this lens does. So far, that is utterly lacking.

 

The second point to make is that the pursuit these days with lens performance of lenses seems incredibly focused (if you'll pardon the pun) on absolute optical perfection at the expense of 'character'. Nature is very far from perfect and the human experience of that beauty is even less so. The beauty in something like the structure of a crystal or the petals of a flower may well follow fabulously structured laws and scientific principles (like the Fibonacci sequence) but they aren’t millimetre perfect in their structure; they have flaws and inconsistencies. Aesthetically speaking, a lens or camera that introduces some noise (as a more general term I mean, rather than the specific effect of SNR) has the potential to create a more human and engaging image.  It is why people still love shooting with film, especially B&W film (think about that in particular; B&W is a reductionist technique, it removes information and yet in doing so it – potentially – heightens our emotional experience of the image) or listening to vinyl; the imperfections in both create a closer and more meaningful engagement with the person experiencing the medium. That is more likely to result in an emotional experience. That is what I think is missing from all the example images I’ve seen with the SL50mm so far.

 

I’ll stick my neck out here a little because in truth, I don’t yet fully understand enough about this element of lens performance to know that what I’m about to say is right, even if I know others are saying it. The difference between what I see as being aesthetically pleasing and what I see as sterile is about MTF graph performance (sharpness and aberration) and micro contrast. I’ve been reading that the trend lately is towards absolute objective, measurable performance because that’s what sells lenses; how sharp is it, how many line pairs can it resolve, is it completely free from CA (I’ve never seen CA in any of my images but that might be because the kit I’m using myself is far from cheap!) But the aesthetic performance of a lens, its ability to produce an image that is resonant with the human experience of the world is more down to the infinitely less measurable concept of micro-contrast. Have a look at anything shot on a large format film camera for example. Even when the image is just a snap shot, it looks utterly sublime. Look at some work of a truly profound nature and the result, in me at least, is goose bumps, a lump in my throat and moisture in my eye. Take this for example!

 

Sally_Mann_Family_Pictures_16.jpg

 

or this:

 

Sally_Mann_Family_Pictures_09.jpg

 

It would seem that chasing optical perfection also comes at the expense of micro contrast and is the reason so many people dislike the Zeiss Otus for example. It is perhaps why I do not like the SL50mm. But to reiterate, I’m not convinced in my knowledge of that subject so if disagree with what I’m saying there it would be understandable. My other points though I will stand by all day long.

 

Show me some examples of the SL50mm where the images themselves offer some profound insight – truth, beauty and love rather than, well, meh – and I will gladly have my mind changed.

Edited by geetee1972
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
LocalHero1953

LocalHero1953

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think the first point to make is that talking about a lenses performance is pointless especially if all you're going to do with it is shoot snaps of flowers, horses and buildings. It's even more pointless, perverse even, when you're spending $5000+ on a lens. If you're spending that much money on your kit I'd really hope you were genuinely searching for something meaningful rather than dealing in superfice and artifice. I've not yet seen any images made with the SL50mm that go beyond these principles so perhaps that is why I am being so negative about the lens. If there were some body of work that made me draw breath, think about some fundamental governing truth or offer a profound insight into the nature of our existence or the beauty of the world, then perhaps I would be more able to engage with what this lens does. So far, that is utterly lacking.

I don't spend $5000 or £5000 on a lens in order to search for something meaningful. Good lenses help, but I suspect the answer is to be found in the six inches behind my sensor rather than in front. I think this leads to another factor you might consider. You say you have seen nothing to inspire you (I paraphrase) in the 50SL images you have seen, but I don't think you have the lens yourself (nor do I). Don't you think that in a random collection of photographers who want and can afford this lens, the chances are pretty low that you will see images that meet your standard of quality and inspiration? Before judging this lens (any lens) in the terms that you did you might find it more helpful either to do your own shots or to find images by a photographer you already respect. Your own images look fine to me, but they give me no goosebumps (I'm not sure if you expected them to), and frankly I wouldn't expect to get goosebumps created by the lens quality from an image at this resolution - my response might be different if I saw them as high quality large prints.

 

But perhaps I have no soul :(!

 

Edit: despite my remarks in disagreement to yours, I very much appreciate you taking time to express them as clearly as you did.

Edited by LocalHero1953
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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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