Jump to content

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


TheGodParticle/Hari

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That "Jupiter Snake" review shows a lot of distortion and purple fringing. Neither of which should be considered acceptable.

I understand why leaving it to the software to correct some optical distortion may be a necessary evil when it comes to the 24-90, but on a 50 1.4 prime? No.

This has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253063-summilux-sl-50-mm-f14-asph/page-24

 

In the limited number of test shots I've taken I can't see the purple fringing. Even in the Jupiter Snake review, Adam mentions that sometimes he sees it and sometimes when he expects to see it he doesn't.

 

As far as the digitally corrected distortion is concerned, I'm quoting thighslapper from the thread that the link above leads to. I fully agree.

 

thighslapper 20 Oct. 2016 - 16:24:

........ and the trade off they have made to achieve greater sharpness, almost full correction of chromatic and other aberrations, plus fast AF is some barrel distortion - which is corrected in firmware with allegedly no perceptible loss of image quality. If you read up on optics you will find that optical correction of barrel distortion tends to reduce resolving power and sharpness.

...

How you feel about all this depends entirely on what elements of 'optical performance' you value you most highly and how nit-picking you are about what you feel is acceptable in achieving it.

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

This has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253063-summilux-sl-50-mm-f14-asph/page-24

 

In the limited number of test shots I've taken I can't see the purple fringing. Even in the Jupiter Snake review, Adam mentions that sometimes he sees it and sometimes when he expects to see it he doesn't.

 

As far as the digitally corrected distortion is concerned, I'm quoting thighslapper from the thread that the link above leads to. I fully agree.

 

thighslapper 20 Oct. 2016 - 16:24:

 

........ and the trade off they have made to achieve greater sharpness, almost full correction of chromatic and other aberrations, plus fast AF is some barrel distortion - which is corrected in firmware with allegedly no perceptible loss of image quality. If you read up on optics you will find that optical correction of barrel distortion tends to reduce resolving power and sharpness.

 

...

 

How you feel about all this depends entirely on what elements of 'optical performance' you value you most highly and how nit-picking you are about what you feel is acceptable in achieving it.

Agreed. If people wish to have a lens that produces no distortions and requires no correction, then that is entirely their choice. They may wish to use the lens on a film body (I'm not sure how, in this case) or on another body that doesn't make it easy to make make the corrections. But I don't see that as a rationale for declaring this to be a poor lens, just that Leica's design choices are not theirs. For me, it is the corrected performance on the SL that matters, and I am still waiting to hear definitively about that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

some of this evening, I'm just to tired to do more.

 

So far:

 

- yes this lens is VERY big and VERY heavy. You really need or want to shoot with it. But it handles well on the SL, which is heavy itself

- it performes very very well, probably the best I have seen wide open. no fringing, but a bit flare (the Nikon 56/1.4 is better in this respect).

- AF performance is solid, but not stellar like the zooms

- bokeh is fantastic imho

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 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. If people wish to have a lens that produces no distortions and requires no correction, then that is entirely their choice. They may wish to use the lens on a film body (I'm not sure how, in this case) or on another body that doesn't make it easy to make make the corrections. But I don't see that as a rationale for declaring this to be a poor lens, just that Leica's design choices are not theirs. For me, it is the corrected performance on the SL that matters, and I am still waiting to hear definitively about that.

 

While it might not bother a casual user, distortion corrections degrade sharpness and can cause false colour and artefacts. It's a essentially a computer painting by numbers.

Edited by Paul J
Link to post
Share on other sites

While it might not bother a casual user, distortion corrections degrade sharpness and can cause false colour and artefacts. It's a essentially a computer painting by numbers.

I agree it can do this. But, as I said, it is the actual corrected performance that matters. And it is not just "casual users" who are interested more in the actual output than how it got there.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

While it might not bother a casual user, distortion corrections degrade sharpness and can cause false colour and artefacts. It's a essentially a computer painting by numbers.

 errr ........ but optical corrections are just manipulation of light waves by judicious changes in the shape and physical properties of the component lenses and are subject to similar trade-offs .....

 

the alternative is manipulation of the values of pixels read off the sensor using specific algorithms...... just different ways of solving similar problems.

 

Leica have chosen to use both and whether you like their particular balance of optical versus digital correction is more matter of opinion...... as we are unaware of the consequences of, and the possible alternatives that Leica considered.

 

With a long track record of optical excellence and respected lens designers I would put my money on their choice being 'right', considering price, size and other constraints ......

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When you take an exisiting digital file and fill in pixels and/or remove them, which is essentially what happens with digital lens correction, then it degrades the image because a computer is figuring out what to put where. It's just calculated guessing.. I leave them turned off unless I specifically need them, because it softens the image. Same goes for if you Liquify, Transform, Rotate an image around (especially more than once) in photoshop you are softening the image - just another reason why we need more megapixels and as many as possible.

 

Optical corrections are obviously another thing entirely. All i have seen is pictures with extreme, complex and asymmetrical distortion which even after corrections is still visible.

Edited by Paul J
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you take an exisiting digital file and fill in pixels or remove them it, which is essentially what happens with digital lens correction, then it degrades the image because a computer is figuring out what to put put where. It's just calculated guessing.. I leave them turned off unless I specifically need them, because it softens the image. Same goes for if you Liquify, Transform, Rotate an image around (especially more than once) in photoshop you are softening the image - just another reason why we need more megapixels and as many as possible.

 

Optical corrections are obviously another thing entirely.

You wouldn't be the owner of a digital M camera, by any chance? If so, what would be your feelings about all the number crunching going on in order to correct the artifacts produced by the oblique rays of light in the corners of the image?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is simply calculation - no guessing. That would require much more intelligence.

Optics are usually calculated. Lenses are often simulated. This is all equivalent to "physical" optics. So artefacts can come from digital or physical optics. It is only important which combination of both produces the smallest amount of artefacts.

The full resolution images I have seen in the forum - that have been removed in the meantime - did not show any artefacts AFAIK.

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't be the owner of a digital M camera, by any chance? If so, what would be your feelings about all the number crunching going on in order to correct the artifacts produced by the oblique rays of light in the corners of the image?

 

 

Well, I have avoided the M lenses that need the most correction but the corrections you speak of in the M are less complex and work sufficiently. They are not as extreme or complex as distortion correction, they are not shifting pixels around like this in the context of image composition. It is far less involved to change rgb levels of a pixel to something calculable and measured than it is to guess it as something else entirely and replacing it with one from another area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

some of this evening, I'm just to tired to do more.

 

So far:

 

- yes this lens is VERY big and VERY heavy. You really need or want to shoot with it. But it handles well on the SL, which is heavy itself

- it performes very very well, probably the best I have seen wide open. no fringing, but a bit flare (the Nikon 56/1.4 is better in this respect).

- AF performance is solid, but not stellar like the zooms

- bokeh is fantastic imho

 

 

Thank you for the samples 

 

The first image seems, to my eyes, to appear similar to what i'd see from the P9 or the Apple 7 phones ... it looks artificial somehow

 

Did you process the image for this look?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have avoided the M lenses that need the most correction but the corrections you speak of in the M are less complex and work sufficiently. They are not as extreme or complex as distortion correction, they are not shifting pixels around like this in the context of image composition. It is far less involved to change rgb levels of a pixel to something calculable and measured than it is to guess it as something else entirely and replacing it with one from another area.

You make it sound like there are portraits out there with two left ears, selected by the software.

Me, I'll keep to the real world of what I can see in the final image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of these digital manipulations has been discussed and looked into with several recent Leica cameras .... and as it invariably involves barrel distortion the areas affected are the peripheries, often with the extremes cropped out. As these are usually zoom lenses with edge performance that is already somewhat compromised I have yet to see any examples where the resultant effects are in any way noticeable. 

 

If the end result is overall improvement with minimal or imvisible effects on the periphery of the image I can't see what the problem is .... apart from an aesthetic one ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You make it sound like there are portraits out there with two left ears, selected by the software.

Me, I'll keep to the real world of what I can see in the final image.

 

The real world and the world of the working professional are two separate things I'm afraid. It would be much less of an issue of the camera was 50MP. See, there really are reasons why people need more megapixels other than stupidity, marketing victims, bragging rights etc and some which remain mystery to those who have not discovered the need.

Edited by Paul J
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Like your new avatar mate :D

 

I'm impressed you fit into them? :) :) :)

its tough at my age to tuck all the tackle away but anything for a laugh :) :)
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...