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

  • 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

alexkmtang

alexkmtang

Posted
Posted

Yes quite a bit larger, although it feels less heavy than its specs in use (without the hood).

 

I've taken some photos indoors yesterday with it. I agree that the look it produces is in the vein of the APO 50 (with a bit of summilux-ASPH thrown in):

 

1.very high resolution to the edges with very fine details up to the corners of the frame

2. relatively speaking low contrast for modern lenses

3. very thin focus plane (in this regard, SL has an advantage over the APO 50 with AF which nails focus at least for static objects)

4. out of focus areas is very neutral - you don't get ultra cream like the Noct 0.95, not to mention swirls etc. of the older lenses - some may say it is transparency (or the "medium format look"), others may find it 'boring' and 'lacking in character'

5. For some reason quite sensitive to underexposure (may be the result of low inherent contrast). I find that, if I do not expose to the right enough, a subject in the shadows that is not well lit would lack contrast and sparkle (although the resolution is there). Pushing up the shadow slider in LR does not help. I sometimes try to use the brush tool to selectively increase exposure (and contrast and clarity), but it isn't perfect and sometimes looks unnatural - still looking for a solution - if anyone knows one let me know!

6. Colour balance skews towards being cold.

 

Overall I am slightly ambivalent over this lens at this stage:

 

1. For indoor/bad lighting use, I prefer the Otus 55 (at least out of camera). It may be lower in absolute resolution (I'm not being scientific but I feel that the SL 50 is quite powerful in this area - probably helped by the accurate AF), have more vignetting, but it provides more "bite", slightly more vivid colours, does not suffer from the sensitivity to underexposure as much, the longer focal length and slightly less neutral out of focus area blurs the background a bit more. Of course it lacks AF and you simply miss quite a few shots with the Otus. 

 

2. It is an improvement over the Summilux - simply outresolves it - although Summilux provides more blur (less neutral).

 

3. It is in my view an improvement over the APO - resolution is probably similar but AF is more accurate than M focusing, one more stop. Of course iti s very much bulkier and heavier, and APO 50 may have slightly better colours (not scientific and conclusive).

 

4. It is not very comparable to the Noct 0.95 - Noct gives you a different look altogether which is attractive in its own right.

 

To sum up, my feeling is that this lens is worth it in the following ways:

 

a. It is the first high res no holds-barred lens (save for the FE 50 which I haven't tried) that has AF, and SL gives accurate AF (for static subjects).

b. In my humble view, its attributes provide a very strong medium format feel esp. when shot at 1.4.   50 APO was getting there but with one stop less it simply doesn't blur enough.  The SL 50, when shot wide open, gives a very modern high-res cinematic look with ultra neutral background. I feel that it produces images quite comparable (of course it can't be the same) to shots taken with the Sony 50MP 44x33 sensor, but with higher light gathering ability and more versatility.

c. Despite being a 1.4, I feel that low light may not be its forte. The goal of transparency and neutrality, ironically, may not lend itself to the best results at least out of camera in bad lighting situations. I see the resolution there - but underexposed areas (esp. faces) are not contrasty enough to give the perception of sharpness, and look flat. I really hope I can find a software fix to that but sofar my skills are not up to par. The colours are also a bit grey-ish in comparison.    

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted

Alex, thanks for the very detailed user review. I'm not sure I agree with everything 100 percent but it's very helpful to go back and check. Just on two points, color and low light. I don't think color is an issue even if it has, as you say, slightly less bite and provides less vivid colors than the Otus 55 (I don't own that one). I use the huelight color profiles with the SL which are wonderful. On low light. I understand your point but as I was using the Summilux-SL inside a church last week I kept thinking what a wonderful combo with the SL sensor it was for such a low light environment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
alexkmtang

alexkmtang

Posted
Posted

I live in Hong Kong. Quite funnily Leica products seem to find their way here quite quickly at (relatively) reasonable prices. I believe the dealer got it UPS-ed from Germany - so I guess the source of the supply is a German dealer? I think he got around 5 although they have been spoken for.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica have put up some professionally shot samples for download: https://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-SL/Downloads

 

Great. Thank you. I've processed one of the DNG files using a different color profile than the embedded or the Adobe Standard one and uploaded it in the link below because Alex made the following points:

 

 

5....I find that, if I do not expose to the right enough, a subject in the shadows that is not well lit would lack contrast and sparkle (although the resolution is there). Pushing up the shadow slider in LR does not help. I sometimes try to use the brush tool to selectively increase exposure (and contrast and clarity), but it isn't perfect and sometimes looks unnatural - still looking for a solution - if anyone knows one let me know!

6. Colour balance skews towards being cold.

 

c....I see the resolution there - but underexposed areas (esp. faces) are not contrasty enough to give the perception of sharpness, and look flat. I really hope I can find a software fix to that but sofar my skills are not up to par. The colours are also a bit grey-ish in comparison.    

 

Here's the link: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-dQxCpG/

Edited by Chaemono
Link to post
Share on other sites
jrp

jrp

Posted
Posted

Not sure which I prefer.  The Huelight gives even brighter reds and so make the reds look flatter (and the hat a bit more purple).  The sky is also a bit cooler / more natural.  I don't think that one image is clearly superior to the other; it's a matter of taste.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted

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.

 

So, the new SL 50 Summilux wouldn't have any of the distortions and other issues if the camera had 50MP?

 

I find that very surprising.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul J

Paul J

Posted
Posted

So, the new SL 50 Summilux wouldn't have any of the distortions and other issues if the camera had 50MP?

 

I find that very surprising.

 

No, after you correct it, you can output it normally at 18-24MP, or whatever, and the damage to the file becomes hidden, or at least far less noticeable. There are lots of very useful reasons for more MP than people realise, or perhaps have or found the need for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jrp

jrp

Posted
Posted

Well, I have had a play with one (late Oct vintage), and this is a pro tool.  It's spanking sharp, even wide open.  I have yet to find any signs of aberrations in my city lights at Christmas type shots.  Astonishing.  Very, very (did I say very) narrow depth of field.  They say that the Summicrons are going to have the depth of field of Summiluxes.  This Summilux doesn't get quite as narrow as the Noctilux, but it's clearly narrower than the M Summilux.

 

Trying to focus on Christmas lights / trees in the semi-dark is a bit of a lottery with the SL, but no worse than other cameras of similar vintage (i.e., at 2-3 years behind the Sony, which has PDAF).  I thought that the M Apo Summicron would spank this lens in such conditions, but I am not so sure.  

 

But you do pay for it in weight and bulk.  Those zooms also have OIS, which makes a big difference.  With the zooms, all shots seem to be good technically.  With the Summilux, 1 or 2 out of 3 are not as crisp as the rest (when shooting without a tripod).  It has always been like this, ever since the great 24Mpix Nikon D3x.

 

Some pics as soon as I can upload them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Posted
Posted

^^^^^^^ Looks to me on my monitor that there is a very strong green and red color case with that lens.............do you get the same when you shoot people ???

Link to post
Share on other sites
jrp

jrp

Posted
Posted

Depends on your illumination, mate.  These are f1.4, but I've adjusted the white balance to my own taste.  There are plenty of portraits here and in the German parallel forum if you want to look.  The original saturation is pretty subdued.  (Ie, it's fairly neutral/natural, but less pleasing than the way that people normally process pics.)

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...