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

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Currently I have the same impression of the SL 50 (preferable to Apo 50 or Nocti), but if the SL 75 is smaller and AF is faster, and also with a similar bokeh (that is what Mr. Karbe hinted at), then I feel tempted to replace the SL 50 by the SL 75. And if the SL 75 also has a closer minimal focusing distance, then it is obvious what I will do.

 

Strange that no "demo" SL 75 have turned up, yet. But maybe tomorrow is the big day ....  (firmware and 75 ?)

Sorry, no, it's TODAY. (already after midnight)

Edited May 30, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[Alistairm]

And here is an image shot with the lens. 

 

1/60, f/1.4, ISO 6400

 

 

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!

[cbayon]

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!

[cbayon]

50 SL at f1.4 ; 1/16000 shutter speed.

[blacksinner]

Amazing lens... i actually believe this is the king of 50mm. 

[Vogelweide]

Leica SL ⎢ SUMMILUX-SL 1:1.4/50 ASPH ⎢ ISO 140 ⎢ f/1.4 ⎢ 1/250 sec.

This picture is part of an Engagement Session.
This lens is stunning!! I mean this is fully open and look at the details. wow :-)
For me it's worth every single Cent!

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!

[Joeri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In case you haven't seen it yet: http://joerivanderkloet.com/leica-summilux-sl-501-4-asph-review/

[dancook]

Lou Crop by dancook1982, on Flickr

[Vogelweide]

using a prism...

Leica SL ⎢ SUMMILUX-SL 1:1.4/50 ASPH ⎢ ISO 50 ⎢ f/1.4 ⎢ 1/1000 sec.

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!

[Vogelweide]

Leica SL ⎢ SUMMILUX-SL 1:1.4/50 ASPH ⎢ ISO 50 ⎢ f/1.4 ⎢ 1/250 sec.
Once more I'm in love with this special "3D Pop"
 

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!

[geetee1972]

Leica SL ⎢ SUMMILUX-SL 1:1.4/50 ASPH ⎢ ISO 50 ⎢ f/1.4 ⎢ 1/250 sec.

Once more I'm in love with this special "3D Pop"

 

 

There's nothing special about it; don't get me wrong it's a perfectly fine image and as a client I would be happy, but that image is not showing anything special and certainly not '3-D Pop' - the background is as saturated and contrasty as the foreground and the only thing separating the subjects from it is the shallow depth of field. It could have been made with any Nikanon + 50mm 1.4 for a quarter of the price.

 

I know that this '3-D pop' thing can be a bit of a woolly term but i would suggst it looks more like this:

 

L-Zee - The Politics of Experience by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

You don't need an expensive lens to create this effect, you just need to use the right lighting.

[thighslapper]

Don't see '3D Pop' with this image either   

 

Not a clue what this term means. 

 

High micro-contrast and very narrow DOF subject isolation does create a particular look ...... which is difficult to achieve at wide apertures with most 'standard' focal length lenses which tend to be softish sub f2. Leica doesn't have a monopoly on these but does specifically design some lenses with this clearly in mind .....

Edited June 14, 2017 by thighslapper

[geetee1972]

 

Not a clue what this term is means.

 

It is an over used term; I'm not 100% sure myself but I've come to understand it as the degree of separation between subject and background, as if the subject is superimposed or cutout and stuck onto a faded or lower contrast background (as in the image I posted above).

 

Whether that is the product of micro contrast or low lens element count I couldn't tell you but, yet again, I see nothing extra ordinary about the SL Summilux to conclude it's astronomical price is justified. It does remind me of the Zeiss Otus, which is also horrible even before you see the price tag.

[LD_50]

Price of a good rarely is going to be "justified" by some level of performance.

 

Certainly we would like some sort of linear relationship between performance and price (for those who can afford higher priced goods) but it just doesn't work that way.

Edited June 14, 2017 by LD_50

[geetee1972]

Price of a good rarely is going to be "justified" by some level of performance.

 

Certainly we would like some sort of linear relationship between performance and price (for those who can afford higher priced goods) but it just doesn't work that way.

 

Certainly I think the more expensive something gets the less linear the relationship between price and performance (indeed I would suggest it becomes deeply regressive) but to suggest that there is no linear relationship at all is just not true. I would suggest it is very linear for the majority of products that people buy including camera equipment.

 

Brand is the 'x' factor that changes things and is the reason Leica products are priced as they are (keep in mind I am a very happy Leica owner myself). The 50SL is over priced, plain and simple and the only reason people are prepared to pay the premium being charged is because they want the Leica brand name on an AF fast 50. Fair enough really, it doesn't bother me whether they chose to buy it or not.

 

Claiming it is superlative in performance to the degree that it's performance can justify the price though is crazy. It's just not that good, indeed it's a lot like the Zeiss Otus, excellent on graphs and charts and crap everywhere else.

[Chaemono]

The SL50 costs the same as any Sony crap, the market rate.

[LD_50]

Certainly I think the more expensive something gets the less linear the relationship between price and performance (indeed I would suggest it becomes deeply regressive) but to suggest that there is no linear relationship at all is just not true. I would suggest it is very linear for the majority of products that people buy including camera equipment.

 

Brand is the 'x' factor that changes things and is the reason Leica products are priced as they are (keep in mind I am a very happy Leica owner myself). The 50SL is over priced, plain and simple and the only reason people are prepared to pay the premium being charged is because they want the Leica brand name on an AF fast 50. Fair enough really, it doesn't bother me whether they chose to buy it or not.

 

Claiming it is superlative in performance to the degree that it's performance can justify the price though is crazy. It's just not that good, indeed it's a lot like the Zeiss Otus, excellent on graphs and charts and crap everywhere else.

I agree the 50SL (and the entire SL and S systems really) is priced too high. I would like to see the prices much lower to ensure the long term viability of the systems.

 

That said I don't agree at all that price/performance is linear in the majority or even much of what consumers buy. It could be cameras, computers, automobiles, motorcycles, wristwatches, phones, musical instruments, etc etc. Brand, cost of manufacturing, profit margin, scale of manufacture and sales, marketing, etc all play much more of a role than outright performance in my opinion. The build quality and haptics are where I typically find value that justifies a higher price point. This is of course subjective.

 

I also don't see the Otus (presumably referring to the 55mm) as being "crap" outside of test charts. In fact I think the performance is exceptional. I don't have any experience with the 50SL and photos are harder to come by so I can't comment much on it. I do enjoy some more characterful lenses (flawed in other words) like the newest Nikkor 58 f1.4, but I can see some value in a very highly corrected cost is no object type of lens. That said I probably won't buy it as I'm pretty happy with the diminutive 50 Summilux M's results.

[thighslapper]

 

 

Claiming it is superlative in performance to the degree that it's performance can justify the price though is crazy. It's just not that good, indeed it's a lot like the Zeiss Otus, excellent on graphs and charts and crap everywhere else.

 

you certainly have a way of pushing the right buttons to get people going 

 

please indicate precisely what is 'crap' about the Leica SL 50/1.4 ...... presumably based on your extensive usage of this lens which has given you insights into the optics that simple folk like me have missed ......

 

...... and if you are so concerned with the expense/performance equation I'm surprised you use any Leica products at all ...... I've never seen a single one get 5 stars for VFM in any review ...... anywhere ..... ever ....

[Chaemono]

...the only reason people are prepared to pay the premium being charged is because they want the Leica brand name...

 

Actually, the only reason I'm prepared to pay the premium for the SL is because sometimes it's capable of producing really nice tomato like skin tones.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[geetee1972]

you certainly have a way of pushing the right buttons to get people going 

 

please indicate precisely what is 'crap' about the Leica SL 50/1.4 ...... presumably based on your extensive usage of this lens which has given you insights into the optics that simple folk like me have missed ......

 

...... and if you are so concerned with the expense/performance equation I'm surprised you use any Leica products at all ...... I've never seen a single one get 5 stars for VFM in any review ...... anywhere ..... ever ....

 

OK clearly 'crap' is incorrect - apologies that was troll like of me. The lens isn't crap and the images it produces aren't 'crap'; it's very sharp clearly and I'm sure it's incredibly free of CA and distortion etc. But they just look, well, horrible over saturated and cloying as do almost all the images I've seen from the native SL lenses. They're all just so sacharine, sugary brittleness. They look very digital and lack the magic film like feel that the M lenses have.

 

This is based on every image by these lenses that I've seen, although that is almost entirely on here.

 

BTW I'm not really that concerned about expense/performance, it was merely an observation but keep in mind that all of this is relative. I bought into Leica and the SL in particular for two reasons. FIrst, M lenses, which really are sublime and they do have a different feel to them, being very small for a start and producing lovely results that don't feel digital. Second, the EVF in the SL, which means I could manual focus really precisely with M lenses. Everything else about the SL is lovely also; the build quality, funtionality of the controls in particular I love the big dial and the shutter noise and overall it just feels right in the hand. But it is crazy expensive. If you couldn't mount M lenses on it though, I wouldn't even have considered it.