Are the 50 SL and 35 SL Non APO primes worth it when the Panasonic Lumix S 50 and 35 f1.8's exist?

[petereprice]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

Was wondering....are the 50 SL and 35 SL non APO primes worth it, when the Panasonic Lumix 50/35 f1.8 primes exist?  I keep reading that they are the same lens from an optical formula perspective and that the only major difference is the build quality, but otherwise the same.  The price difference is astonishing though.  Was curious what the general opinion is, and if I'm missing anything by going with the Panasonic primes as opposed to the Leica SL non APO equivalents.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Geoff C. Bassett]

In my personal opinion, no they are not.
They have better coatings, and better build quality, but are close to the identical optically. Get the Panasonics and save money to buy APO or a Leica zoom used. 

[lencap]

It depends on several things.  If you don’t have a Leica SL body you can buy a Leica “bundle” that includes either the Leica 35 or 50 mm Summicron f/2.0 ASPH lens.  The 50mm lens is $700 more than the body alone to get the bundle.  The 35mm is a bit more.  Either way the lens is less than half the price of buying it separately.  That’s what I did, and I consider it a good value.  

The other consideration is haptics/feel.  You can buy a Toyota and get a fine car.  You can also buy a Lexus that typically has upgraded materials and finish, but often is based upon the same underlying engine/transmission, just modified a bit.  If your preference is Lexus over Toyota your decision was based on your preferences, and the extra cost for you was worth it.

That’s how I view the L mount alliance lens options.  Each is very capable, but there are differences, and you have the choice of picking the best match for your preferences.  

There are also some lenses that have no real competition, they are only available as Leica lenses.  The 24-90 Elmarit zoom, for example, doesn’t have a direct competitor.  I own the Leica SL Summicron 50mm f/2.0 ASPH lens, purchased as part of the SL2-S kit at the discounted price.  I also have the Panasonic 20-60 zoom, a very lightweight and flexible lens for the occasional times I want wider shots.

I owned both the Leica SL 24-90 zoom and the Sigma L mount 50mm f/1.4 ART lenses.  Each was truly wonderful, but eventually the excess weight caused me to use them less and less, and I sold them.  If ultimate flexibility and image quality is your goal you may find them worth owning.

Finally, you can find reviews by MATHPHOTOGRAPHER on YouTube comparing all of these lenses in a very professional manner.  In one comparison he compared the SL ASPH 35&50mm lenses to the APO versions.  While the APO lenses were better, the differences were not really visible in most situations.  The review is here: 

 

Whatever you decide will be a fine choice; the L mount is a wonderful platform.

 

Edited March 18, 2024 by lencap

[rouge_homme]

I have also found myself considering the non-apo 50mm Summicron SL as a lighter weight companion to my new SL3 (and former SL2-S).

From a purely objective standpoint, they are hard to justify given the near identical optical performance to their Panasonic counterparts. However, I also value the improved build quality and Leica design aesthetic (shallow but true).

By most accounts, they are still excellent lenses but at nearly 5x the price of the Panasonic, it’s a tough pill to swallow.

The other major contender for me is the Sigma 50mm F2 DG DN, which is smaller, lighter, has a physical aperture ring and appears to outperform both the Panasonic and Leica.

[la1402]

There is no economical sense in buying into the the SL system anyway, unless you want to use the sharpest lenses on the market (APO) or want a more modern platform for your M lenses.  (For me, it would be the latter). And if you are able and willing to invest so much more money for a design/shooting experience alone, you might as well double down. The Panasonic clones are very nicely made, and they are still better and cheaper than M Summicrons 😉 

[rouge_homme]

22 minutes ago, la1402 said:

There is no economical sense in buying into the the SL system anyway, unless you want to use the sharpest lenses on the market (APO) or want a more modern platform for your M lenses.  (For me, it would be the latter). And if you are able and willing to invest so much more money for a design/shooting experience alone, you might as well double down. The Panasonic clones are very nicely made, and they are still better and cheaper than M Summicrons 😉 

It's a valid point and in reality, the main reason I shoot with Leica is because I enjoy the user experience as much as the output - if price were the determining factor, there are numerous other options available.

I too use the SL system as a modern platform for my M lenses but still hope that Leica will one day release a truly compact series of autofocus lenses to rival the Sigma I series and Sony G series primes.

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have many SL-apos, and my 50mm Apo is been repaired.

I went and got the Panasonic 50mm 1.8 on sale for $350 on sale. Panasonic has many bundles and offers discounts.

The lens is quite good and nobody who is looking at your images is going to see much difference.
I enjoy the AF-MF switch on the lens as I try to understand the AF performance of the SL3 in video.

This series of lenses is made with a photo-video hybrid shooter in mind.

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!

crop

 

the lens wide open

 

[BernardC]

8 hours ago, rouge_homme said:

From a purely objective standpoint, they are hard to justify given the near identical optical performance to their Panasonic counterparts. However, I also value the improved build quality and Leica design aesthetic (shallow but true).

The ASPH lenses are such a touchy topic.

On the one hand, everyone wants Leica to produce cheaper/smaller series of lenses, on the other hand, they get a huge amount of static every time they do what "everyone wants!"

As far as anyone can tell, they are based on Panasonic designs (which may well have originally been Leica designs), but with better aspherics (ground instead of moulded), better casings, and tighter QC criteria. They are what hot-rodders would call "blueprinted:" they offer the best possible performance from a simple design, rather than using state-of-the-art technology. Philosophically, they are the SL equivalent to the Summicron-M 50mm (non-APO), which is an old-school design, but one that has stood the test of time.

It's up-to everyone to decide if they are "worth it." Their price is a good indication of where they stand. If you want the very best, you can get the APO-SLs. If you want the cheapest, you can get the Panasonics. If you want a slightly different features set, you can get the Sigmas. As others have pointed-out, the asking price becomes very reasonable if you buy these lenses with a new camera, so not everyone is arguing from the same position.

The other issue is that it's very hard to tell the difference between a good lens, a great lens, and an outstanding lens, in many cases. The APO lenses make sense if you need wide-open sharpness, if you print very big, and if you have good technique. Frankly, you'll be hard-pressed to see a difference at F:8.0, shooting "street," and letting AF choose your focal plane. Maybe you'll see some higher contrast, or every once in a while you'll hit the sweet spot with focus, but most of the time you won't. We don't all aspire to be the next Ansel, some of us would rather be Weegee... You need to figure-out what makes the most sense for your visual narrative (and budget).

[Simone_DF]

4 hours ago, BernardC said:

but with better aspherics (ground instead of moulded)

Do you have proof of this?

[BernardC]

7 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Do you have proof of this?

Proof? No, I am not an insider. Several people here reported hearing this from Leica representatives. 

Perhaps they will comment. 

[Photoworks]

4 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Do you have proof of this?

Leica never talks about that, even in private.

but there are different contraction differences in material and Leica uses a lens coding that keeps water and dust off.
the 50 mm is 300g with Panasonic and 440g with Leica.

[schaffi]

This is a good comarison in my opinion, including any samples.

 

[huwm]

I looked at a load of You tubes as well

I have owned the Sigma 35 f2, sigma ART 35 f1.4, Leica 35 non APO and currently own the 35 APO which is my only APO and is marginally superior to the others (potential confirmation bias here as all were great lenses but I felt the ART and APO stood out)

In 50 mm I have only owned the 50 APO and currently own the Lumix 50 as the Sigmas were not available at the time made the decision the Lumix was good enough for me in this fl which is not my favourite. Selling the 50 APO funded the 35. Again the APO was the superior lens but having it on the shelf made no sense.

[rouge_homme]

18 hours ago, BernardC said:

The other issue is that it's very hard to tell the difference between a good lens, a great lens, and an outstanding lens, in many cases. The APO lenses make sense if you need wide-open sharpness, if you print very big, and if you have good technique. Frankly, you'll be hard-pressed to see a difference at F:8.0, shooting "street," and letting AF choose your focal plane. Maybe you'll see some higher contrast, or every once in a while you'll hit the sweet spot with focus, but most of the time you won't. We don't all aspire to be the next Ansel, some of us would rather be Weegee... You need to figure-out what makes the most sense for your visual narrative (and budget).

Very true and I’m quite sure that if the Panasonic versions didn’t exist, these Summicrons would be lauded as solid performers at a good price point (for Leica).

[Simone_DF]

2 hours ago, rouge_homme said:

Very true and I’m quite sure that if the Panasonic versions didn’t exist, these Summicrons would be lauded as solid performers at a good price point (for Leica).

But they do. And they cost 300€, not 3000€ 

[la1402]

1 hour ago, rouge_homme said:

Very true and I’m quite sure that if the Panasonic versions didn’t exist, these Summicrons would be lauded as solid performers at a good price point (for Leica).

Still this is not M World. This is a competitive market. You get stellar sharpness from f 1.8 Z lenses from Nikon, for instance, at a much lower price point. It is ok to pay a bit more for the Leica logo and nicer housing, but 4x? But I guess it is a mute point. I am less concerned about the price as such, but the lack of ambition to do more than rebadging and rehousing for such a premium uplift. I don't believe for a second that they apply different coating.

[BernardC]

9 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

But they do. And they cost 300€, not 3000€ 

Perhaps that's a bit exaggerated? Advertised prices are 500€ and 2000€. The Leica lens goes down to 1000€ when purchased as a kit. That's not nothing, of course, but it's 1:2, not 1:10.

[Richardgb]

Comparing the MTF curves of the Lumix 50/1.8 and the Leica-SL Summicron 50/2, not to mention the outline lens element diagrams, any reasonable person (i.e. not a Leica fanperson, orthodox or lay) would say that both lenses are based on the same optical formula and construction.

Bear in mind that the (slight) differences in the MTF curves are likely to be down to the way the results are measured: Lumix at 10 and 30lp/mm, Leica at 5, 10, 20, and 40lp/mm plus the maximum aperture is slightly wider in the case of the Lumix. This is as near to the horse's mouth as you're likely to get.

Slight differences perceived in (image) test results, as has been said, reduced tolerances by housing in metal rather than plastic, but to be sure you'd have to test numerous examples, not just the single ones typical in the published lay tests. Given these practically-identical results (allowing for the slight differences mentioned above), the YouTube video summed it up well (I paraphrase) by saying it's a subjective feeling of whether the extra cost of the Leica lens is worth it to the photographer.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Photoworks]

11 minutes ago, la1402 said:

Still this is not M World. This is a competitive market. You get stellar sharpness from f 1.8 Z lenses from Nikon, for instance, at a much lower price point. It is ok to pay a bit more for the Leica logo and nicer housing, but 4x? But I guess it is a mute point. I am less concerned about the price as such, but the lack of ambition to do more than rebadging and rehousing for such a premium uplift. I don't believe for a second that they apply different coating.

all leica L have the "Hydrophobe Aqua-Dura® coating"

[BernardC]

13 minutes ago, Richardgb said:

Comparing the MTF curves of the Lumix 50/1.8 and the Leica-SL Summicron 50/2, not to mention the outline lens element diagrams, any reasonable person (i.e. not a Leica fanperson, orthodox or lay) would say that both lenses are based on the same optical formula and construction.

Bear in mind that the (slight) differences in the MTF curves are likely to be down to the way the results are measured: Lumix at 10 and 30lp/mm, Leica at 5, 10, 20, and 40lp/mm plus the maximum aperture is slightly wider in the case of the Lumix. This is as near to the horse's mouth as you're likely to get.

Nobody claims that they are not based on similar designs. The curves show better performance in the corners for Leica, and less spread between tangential and sagittal. That's exactly what you would expect if Leica had replaced Panasonic's aspherics with their own. It's not a huge difference, of course, and as I said earlier it might not be important to a particular photographer's imaging style.

I think that's what any reasonable person would find: there's a notable difference between both sets of curves. We can either dismiss it as measuring error (as-if those two companies don't know how to measure MTF), or we can take the curves at face value.