SL 50mm S'cron ASPH s/h price too good to be true?

[Dave in Wales]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/27/2023 at 9:59 AM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

 

Actually it's a Leica made lens, made in Portugal.

The design is the same as the Panasonic lens but the ASPH elements are ground, per Leica's standards, and not moulded like the Panasonic version. It also has a different build quality and outer shell. Info straight from Leica.

Gordon

The video states the same.

[Stuart Richardson]

Sample variation can be very real. I have experienced it on several occasions, but it is very hard to test, as you really need access to at least two or three copies of each lens. In this case, I am inclined to believe that there is not real optical difference, but I am also inclined to believe that the higher end materials and potentially better testing may give the Leica the advantage of consistency. That said, personally I don't think that would sway me so much for the following reasons. The seeming purpose of the 50mm Summicron ASPH is to be lighter, smaller and less expensive than the 50mm APO Summicron. The 50mm APO Summicron is a better lens optically in every objectively measurable way. If you are going to get a lens which is smaller, cheaper and lighter, the 50mm Panasonic...the one with the same or nearly the same optical formula is 1/4 of the price, at 450 dollars. It does that "job" better. It is lighter, cheaper and smaller, while largely optically equivalent to the Leica version whose purpose was to be lighter, smaller and cheaper. In this sense, the Leica seems a bit strange to me...if you want a superlative Leica lens, a lightly used 50mm APO Summicron is a much better buy, but if you want a lighter, cheaper, smaller lens, the Panasonic does that a lot better.

It seems to me that Leica did this primarily so that they could steer price sensitive buyers into the SL system with a "cheap" lens that they could give away for free with bundles. What makes me a little uncomfortable about it is situations like these...where they confuse buyers into thinking it is something it is not. I do not mind Leica using other lens makers designs...they have a long track record of doing that, particularly with zooms and tilt shift lenses, and many of those are superb. Here it just feels a little uncomfortable because you can buy essentially the same lens for a quarter of the price. Fine if you make an informed decision, but I wonder how many of the people steered into buying one of these lenses know that they could get essentially the same lens in a different package for a quarter of the price?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ivar B]

20 hours ago, BernardC said:

That was 30 years ago (1994)! I'm sure they've had enough time to improve the process for grinding aspherical surfaces since then. The 1994 molded ASPH was replaced in 2010.

Do you have any links? I haven't seen any comparative tests.

Here is an interesting video - including several other comparisons. The APO-SL lenses are in a class of their own. Easily outperforming most M-lenses as well.
It`s been a while since I saw the video, but as I recall the non-apo SL and Pana S lenses are identical when it comes to performance. 

[BernardC]

15 hours ago, goodbokeh said:

Alex Barrera ascribed the Summicron's sharper corners to the higher construction quality-less sample variation. That seems reasonable to me.

I can think of many reasons why a different lens, built in a different factory, by a different company, to different cost targets, using different materials, might perform noticeably better.

It's not a subtle difference either. It jumped-out at me right away, even on a smartphone screen at low resolution. I was thinking "Those edges look blurry, I wonder if he'll acknowledge that?" as soon as the shot came-up. To his credit, he did.

Often you'll read an article, or view a video, where the author has to admit that "the difference is too small to be visible in a JPEG, or in a compressed video, so you'll have to take my word for it." Not the case here, by a long shot.

Anyway, it is interesting that one comparison video found an obvious difference between the two lenses, and that it appeared exactly where you would expect to find such a difference (outside of the central area). I don't think it was a thorough test, but at least we weren't looking at a brick wall.

[w44neg]

On 8/28/2023 at 9:45 PM, goodbokeh said:

Alex Barrera ascribed the Summicron's sharper corners to the higher construction quality-less sample variation. That seems reasonable to me. He mentioned in the video there was a link to full resolution Raws. Here is the link to those Raws: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dlwu5am169ws4cd/AACKxFyR0QZ9MnF_SbkwTrbfa?dl=0

 

The thing for me is I’d rather take a “true” leica lens on a Panasonic body vs the other way around. I’ve just bought an SL2S but the lens is by far the more important item. 

So I’d only choose an APO or Summilux SL. The ASPH is a great entry point for new buyers, but I doubt it will provide great colours or typical Leica IQ.

I’m not aiming this comment specifically at yourself of course, rather just adding the to conversation. 

[Simone_DF]

1 hour ago, w44neg said:

but I doubt it will provide great colours or typical Leica IQ.

Panasonic lenses are great, go have a look at the various image threads on this forum. The point is why would somebody pay 2000€ instead of 500€, unless you really really want that metal body - which would be a valid reason of course.

As for "typical Leica IQ", it depends on what do you mean, because lately Leica doesn't seem to be on top of their game, given the M11 and Q3 freezes, the "battery is too low" message on the SL2s etc etc. 

[w44neg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

Panasonic lenses are great, go have a look at the various image threads on this forum. The point is why would somebody pay 2000€ instead of 500€, unless you really really want that metal body - which would be a valid reason of course.

As for "typical Leica IQ", it depends on what do you mean, because lately Leica doesn't seem to be on top of their game, given the M11 and Q3 freezes, the "battery is too low" message on the SL2s etc etc. 

My point was more related to the lenses at all from Panasonic. Nobody is ever going to talk about a Panasonic 35 mm lens like they will a Leica summicron, Sp forget the Panasonic and Leica ASPH lenses, and move to APO etc.

Spend on a Panasonic body and achieve the better image via the lens  

In regards to the Leica IQ comments, I clearly meant image quality. Leica lenses are some of the best in the world so why would you want something inferior?

Theres too much emphasis on the bodies these days imo. 

Edited August 31, 2023 by w44neg

[Simone_DF]

3 hours ago, w44neg said:

In regards to the Leica IQ comments, I clearly meant image quality. Leica lenses are some of the best in the world so why would you want something inferior?

Leica thinks the Pana and Sigma lenses are good enough to be resold with a Leica badge though. If it's good for Leica, it should be good for everybody else too.

As for the lenses, there are many reasons why a user may prefer one or the other. I own the APO 90 and 50, but I'm considering getting the Sigma 50/2 and 90 for when I don't want to lug around the other two.

[w44neg]

3 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Leica thinks the Pana and Sigma lenses are good enough to be resold with a Leica badge though. If it's good for Leica, it should be good for everybody else too.

As for the lenses, there are many reasons why a user may prefer one or the other. I own the APO 90 and 50, but I'm considering getting the Sigma 50/2 and 90 for when I don't want to lug around the other two.

Leica is a business and they needed a cheaper line of lenses. It’s a great thing for their bottom line, and the future of the brand, but these are not Leica glass… just my opinion. 

Any lens these days is great, but when you’ve used Leica glass, and then used the supposed best that other brands such as Sony, Panasonic, Sigma and so on have to offer, I personally find there’s usually a trade-off. It might be colours, rendering, light transmission etc. 
 

You get what you pay for, but again, just my opinion and in no way am I attempting to debate or argue ☺️

[BernardC]

3 hours ago, w44neg said:

In regards to the Leica IQ comments, I clearly meant image quality. Leica lenses are some of the best in the world so why would you want something inferior?

You have the same choice in the M lineup: a no-compromise APO 50/2.0, or a cheaper/simpler non-APO at a fraction of the price. Both offer the same high level of build quality.

The "basic" Summicron has been in the lineup for 70+ years now, so it's hard to argue that it clashes with the brand's identity.

[w44neg]

1 minute ago, BernardC said:

You have the same choice in the M lineup: a no-compromise APO 50/2.0, or a cheaper/simpler non-APO at a fraction of the price. Both offer the same high level of build quality.

The "basic" Summicron has been in the lineup for 70+ years now, so it's hard to argue that it clashes with the brand's identity.

Most brands have sub-brands. They allow cheaper production and aren’t to the same quality level. It’s just business. 
 

If this lens is the same as the Panasonic, as confirmed by multiply YouTube videos, then it’s a great lens, sure, but it’s a sub-brand product. 
 

You don’t get a Rolex for £500, but you get a great Seiko. 

[BernardC]

1 minute ago, w44neg said:

f this lens is the same as the Panasonic, as confirmed by multiply YouTube videos, then it’s a great lens, sure, but it’s a sub-brand product.

The one YT video linked here showed that it is built better, and performs better than the Panasonic. Are there multiple other videos that show different? I am asking because people keep referring to these videos that I haven't run across, so I would like to see them. Lens tests aren't among my favoured YT topics, so that explains why they don't show-up in my feed, I guess.

[w44neg]

2 minutes ago, BernardC said:

The one YT video linked here showed that it is built better, and performs better than the Panasonic. Are there multiple other videos that show different? I am asking because people keep referring to these videos that I haven't run across, so I would like to see them. Lens tests aren't among my favoured YT topics, so that explains why they don't show-up in my feed, I guess.

I’ve seen three but watched them too many videos back to easily link. Build is great on the ASPH lenses, but optically they’re just “good enough” to carry the badge imo. 
 

This is all conjecture but I look forward to finding more out when I visit Wetzlar soon. However imo this is a great business move, but very much akin to Toyota Vs Lexus. Still great, but a lesser product overall. 

[Simone_DF]

17 minutes ago, w44neg said:

Most brands have sub-brands. They allow cheaper production and aren’t to the same quality level. It’s just business. 
 

If this lens is the same as the Panasonic, as confirmed by multiply YouTube videos, then it’s a great lens, sure, but it’s a sub-brand product. 
 

You don’t get a Rolex for £500, but you get a great Seiko. 

I totally agree with you, but the problem is that the 50 and 35 ASPH non-APO are labelled and sold as "Leica", not another sub brand 🤷‍♂️

[Stuart Richardson]

I think it is just best to be agnostic, and evaluate each lens on an individual basis. Leica is not the only company that can make great lenses, it is just easier for them because they are willing to charge 5-10 times as much for incremental gains. I tend to suck it up and buy a used lens to access that or new if there are no used, but at times it is better to just open your mind/heart and wallet to things which may not carry the label, but do perform. For example, the current Sigma L mount lenses are in general better than most of the M lineup, aside from the APO lenses. I know this because I have used both. I also know that the Q2 became less "necessary" to me when I realized that the 550 dollar Sigma 24mm 3.5 was equally sharp. Similarly, the Sigma 14-24mm wide angle zoom seems to be the sharpest ultrawide available in L mount, not withstanding Leica's own 16-35mm entry. I have also found that the 105mm Sigma Macro is essentially identical to my 120mm APO Macro Summarit S, a lens which cost nearly ten times as much new. Whats more, the Sigma focuses to 1 to 1 instead of 1 to 2, while weighing roughly half. More recently I found that the Leica performed a little bit better in some extremely esoteric areas (the specular highlights had slightly less color fringing when used at high degrees of macro reproduction), but that is not a difference worth 7000 dollars for most sane people.

Sigma, especially, has shown great pride in their work, and a responsiveness to customers that puts them high in my esteem at least. I truly love Leica lenses and I do value what Leica does in terms of lens making, but it is a bit short sighted not to recognize that they do not have a monopoly on quality. Thinking that there is some great mysticism in German engineering is at best chauvinistic and at worst racist. I am not accusing you of that at all, but it is something that is certainly found on the fringes of this forum and is always a bit repellent. 

Edited August 31, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[w44neg]

2 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

I totally agree with you, but the problem is that the 50 and 35 ASPH non-APO are labelled and sold as "Leica", not another sub brand 🤷‍♂️

Maybe I’m not making my point clearly, which is fine but I’m sure you can understand the intonation here. 
 

Take Nikon. Their 70-180mm is the same as a Tamron, but it’s more expensive. So Tamron likely designed it, and then Nikon rebrand. It saves Nikon R&D costs, and it’s, again, “good enough” to carry the Nikon brand. 
Customers will know the Nikon name and they’ll pay more for it. They might not have heard of Tamron or feel like it’s inferior just because of the name. If there wasn’t a market for this, there would be no reason for the collaboration. 

[w44neg]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think it is just best to be agnostic, and evaluate each lens on an individual basis. Leica is not the only company that can make great lenses, it is just easier for them because they are willing to charge 5-10 times as much for incremental gains. I tend to suck it up and buy a used lens to access that of new if there are no used, but at times it is better to just open your mind/heart and wallet to things which may not carry the label, but do perform. For example, the current Sigma L mount lenses are in general better than most of the M lineup, aside from the APO lenses. I know this because I have used both. I also know that the Q2 became less "necessary" to me when I realized that the 550 dollar Sigma 24mm 3.5 was equally sharp. Similarly, the Sigma 14-24mm wide angle zoom seems to be the sharpest ultrawide available in L mount, not withstanding Leica's own 16-35mm entry. I have also found that the 105mm Sigma Macro is essentially identical to my 120mm APO Macro Summarit S, a lens which cost nearly ten times as much new. Whats more, the Sigma focuses to 1 to 1 instead of 1 to 2, while weighing roughly half. More recently I found that the Leica performed a little bit better in some extremely esoteric areas (the specular highlights had slightly less color fringing when used at high degrees of macro reproduction).

Sigma, especially, has shown great pride in their work, and a responsiveness to customers that puts them high in my esteem at least. I truly love Leica lenses and I do value what Leica does in terms of lens making, but it is a bit short sighted not to recognize that they do not have a monopoly on quality. Thinking that there is some great mysticism in German engineering is at best chauvinistic and at worst racist. I am not accusing you of that at all, but it is something that is certainly found on the fringes of this forum and is always a bit repellent. 

Absolutely. As stated several times, this is just opinion, but at the same time, this brand has been infamous for some of the greatest lenses of all time, so it’s more important that they only sell the best. 

However market forces will mean they need a cheaper option. They can’t survive on the premium market alone. 

[Stuart Richardson]

3 minutes ago, w44neg said:

Absolutely. As stated several times, this is just opinion, but at the same time, this brand has been infamous for some of the greatest lenses of all time, so it’s more important that they only sell the best. 

However market forces will mean they need a cheaper option. They can’t survive on the premium market alone. 

I think the difference is less in what they need in survival, but more in terms of what their newer private equity owners demand in terms of returns. Leica has never been more profitable...their quality and service is perhaps not quite at its peak as compared to the past, but that is another story...

Edited August 31, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[w44neg]

Just now, Stuart Richardson said:

I think the difference is less in what they need in survival, but more in terms of what their newer private equity owners demand in terms of returns. Leica has never been more profitable...their quality and service is perhaps not quite at is peak as compared to the past, but that is another story...

Yeah I’ve heard that about the quality. I hope that isn’t a trend. I’ve just received a D-Lux7 with half a barn find of dust in the lens, but that’s also a rebranded Panasonic lol. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[BernardC]

16 minutes ago, w44neg said:

However imo this is a great business move, but very much akin to Toyota Vs Lexus. Still great, but a lesser product overall. 

I think if you are going to use a car analogy, it's more like the difference between an AMG Mercedes and a regular Mercedes from the same model series. Both have the same branding, same build quality, same ownership experience, etc., but one has more potential performance, which may or may not be exploitable in the real world. Or, with a watch analogy, it's like comparing two different Rolex models that have a huge price difference that isn't reflected in the basic specifications.

I understand why you would prefer one over the other, but that's a personal choice. Leica has always offered multiple price points for their bodies and lenses. The lenses are often distinguished by their maximum aperture, but sometimes by "APO" designations instead. It's not a new thing.