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

[rouge_homme]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

40 minutes ago, la1402 said:

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.

Agreed and I think that’s the most frustrating part. It feels like a missed opportunity as I know many SL users (myself included) that were hoping for something a bit more innovative from Leica to compete with the third party offerings (and help to justify the price difference).

[rsh]

I have had an SL2-S, 16-35 Vario. 24-90 Vario and 90-280 Apo Vario since 2021.  In December of last year, I purchased a Silver SL2 with the 50 Summicron Asph SL using the Leica voucher and knowing full well the SL3 was on the horizon. 

I have been impressed with the 50  Asph SL.  I like the size, the weight, the auto focus speed  and it is plenty sharp for me, an average photographer.  I think that rebadging is an improper term for the 50 and 35 Asph SL lenses.  I think of them as Re Engineered lenses using Panasonic's original design as a basis.  My first R Zoom for an R8 in 1996 was the 35-70 f3.5 Vario Elmar R with the 67mm filter thread.  As all of you know it was based on Minolta's 35-70 but with far better build quality and the non rotating front element.  It was a fine zoom for me.

I do not think the 35 or 50 Asph SL lenses are overpriced in the Leica world.  I would rather own a lens housed in metal even if today's polycarbonates are quite good and I can own both lenses for less that the cost of one Apo SL Prime and that is important to me as I am retired.  Also, they are either made by Leica in Portugal to Leica specifications and that facility's output quality is, I believe, every bit as good as Wetzlar.

All of this said, the choice of whether to purchase the Leica or the Lumix lens comes down to a personal choice and budget and neither is wrong.

Edited March 19 by rsh

[Advertisement]

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

[Simone_DF]

4 hours ago, BernardC said:

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.

Not at all. There are rebates at least twice per year for these lenses. You can easily find it for 300€ when purchased as a kit, sometimes even for less.

With a quick search in Google I found this. Panasonic S5II + 50mm 1.8 2045$ instead of 2445, a 400$ rebate. https://mikescamera.com/shop/panasonic-panasonic-s5ii-body-with-s-s50mm-lens/e4a02d10-c529-013c-9b56-00163e6c3713?variation=3697281

It's also easy to find for about 300/250€ brand new from people that buy it as a kit then sell it because they don't need it.

As a standalone lens, Amazon sells it right now for about 450€, btw. 

[BernardC]

25 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

It's also easy to find for about 300/250€ brand new from people that buy it as a kit then sell it because they don't need it.

I thought we were comparing actual new prices, not pre-owned. People also re-sell ASPH lenses that came in a kit. My main point was "who's paying 3,000€ for the ASPH, when the list price is 1,000€ less?"

It's a bit much to argue that an anonymous Amazon store has the Lumix for 50€ less (shipped from where?), but then overstate the ASPH price by 50% (or 200% if it's in a bundle).

 

[Simone_DF]

Just now, BernardC said:

I thought we were comparing actual new prices, not pre-owned. People also re-sell ASPH lenses that came in a kit. My main point was "who's paying 3,000€ for the ASPH, when the list price is 1,000€ less?"

1 minute ago, BernardC said:

It's a bit much to argue that an anonymous Amazon store has the Lumix for 50€ less (shipped from where?), but then overstate the ASPH price by 50% (or 200% if it's in a bundle).

Is B&H selling it for 347$ brand new legit enough for you?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1641351-REG/panasonic_s_s50_lumix_s_50mm_f_1_8.html

[BernardC]

9 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Is B&H selling it for 347$ brand new legit enough for you?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1641351-REG/panasonic_s_s50_lumix_s_50mm_f_1_8.html

I thought we were discussing € prices? The ASPH lenses are also cheaper in the US. Shall we discuss HK prices next? Don't forget that EU buyers will need to pay shipping and VAT if they buy overseas, and they may not get a full warranty.

I understand your main point: you can get a Lumix 50 or 35 for less than the equivalent Leica ASPH SL lens. Everyone here knows that. The other thing everyone knows is that the Lumix and ASPH are physically different lenses, not a simple re-badge where the only difference is silk-screening or filter ring (like old store-brand lenses). All of that is off-topic at this point. What people want to know is "what are actual physical differences?" and "are the optics the same?"

[rsh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From my post above: "I think of them as Re Engineered lenses using Panasonic's original optical design as a basis."

Edited March 19 by rsh

[huwm]

It seems the answer is yes, no, maybe

[petereprice]

Hi all - appreciate all the perspectives shared here, as that is exactly what I was looking for.  Being a new owner of the SL3 (not new to Leica however), I have been trying to figure out if I should go with Lumix lenses or spring the extra cash to go with the SL ASPH primes instead.  

Despite the high-quality results that the Panasonic Lumix S Primes can produce, and arguably the best budget f1.8 primes I've ever used, I decided to opt for the SL Primes instead.  This is in no way a knock on the Panasonic lenses, because they truly are fantastic, and despite the back and forth, mostly the same quality as the more expensive SL series Leica primes.

But what drove me to go with the Leica's was mainly build quality and design.  Unlike the 24-70 which is a rebadged Sigma zoom, these lenses although with similar optical formulas are slightly different.  

- For instance, the Panasonic is f1.8 while the Leica is f2.  When testing with wide open at f1.8, I noticed that the lens would get soft and slightly ghosting, at certain far distances.  Naturally, this improved when stopped down to f2 and above.  My suspicion is that Leica made the decision to ensure optical excellence by making the lens an f2 instead of matching it to the f1.8.

- The Panasonic is manufactured in China using conventional volume production of those lenses, while the SL primes are hand built in Portugal.  I have no concerns with the Panasonic lenses and how they are manufactured, but I think one of the attractions to buying into Leica is their craftsmanship to their lenses, and it appears these SL lenses still uphold the excellence offered in most Leica lenses, through their unique manufacturing process.  And as a Leica user you have to ask yourself if you want to buy into that.  In my case I found that appealing. 
I know there are debates on whether there are lens coating differences to the optics and I have to believe they are.  Although these Lumix primes and SL primes may share the same optical glass formula, they are assembled differently and I think that alone drives the cost delta between these two lenses

- Lastly, is weather sealing and build quality.  I actually found the Panasonic primes to have sufficient build quality, but I was worried about the caliber of weather resistance a $350 lens would have compared to a $1899 lens.  We already know the SL3 has the best WR in the industry so I can trust that the native SL lenses would share in that WR quality since those lenses are built specifically for the SL series, and that was ultimately the turn for me, to spend the extra money and I can't say I regret it at all.  The SL primes are awesome and I couldn't be happier.  But if you want to keep your budget manageable, you are 90% there with the Lumix primes.  But for those interested in the higher priced SL equivalents, they are delivering improvements the Panasonic doesn't have, and you just have to decide if that's worth it to you.

 

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, petereprice said:

Hi all - appreciate all the perspectives shared here, as that is exactly what I was looking for.  Being a new owner of the SL3 (not new to Leica however), I have been trying to figure out if I should go with Lumix lenses or spring the extra cash to go with the SL ASPH primes instead.  

Despite the high-quality results that the Panasonic Lumix S Primes can produce, and arguably the best budget f1.8 primes I've ever used, I decided to opt for the SL Primes instead.  This is in no way a knock on the Panasonic lenses, because they truly are fantastic, and despite the back and forth, mostly the same quality as the more expensive SL series Leica primes.

But what drove me to go with the Leica's was mainly build quality and design.  Unlike the 24-70 which is a rebadged Sigma zoom, these lenses although with similar optical formulas are slightly different.  

- For instance, the

- The Panasonic is manufactured in China using conventional volume production of those lenses, while the SL primes are hand built in Portugal.  I have no concerns with the Panasonic lenses and how they are manufactured, but I think one of the attractions to buying into Leica is their craftsmanship to their lenses, and it appears these SL lenses still uphold the excellence offered in most Leica lenses, through their unique manufacturing process.  And as a Leica user you have to ask yourself if you want to buy into that.  In my case I found that appealing. 
I know there are debates on whether there are lens coating differences to the optics and I have to believe they are.  Although these Lumix primes and SL primes may share the same optical glass formula, they are assembled differently and I think that alone drives the cost delta between these two lenses

- Lastly, is weather sealing and build quality.  I actually found the Panasonic primes to have sufficient build quality, but I was worried about the caliber of weather resistance a $350 lens would have compared to a $1899 lens.  We already know the SL3 has the best WR in the industry so I can trust that the native SL lenses would share in that WR quality since those lenses are built specifically for the SL series, and that was ultimately the turn for me, to spend the extra money and I can't say I regret it at all.  The SL primes are awesome and I couldn't be happier.  But if you want to keep your budget manageable, you are 90% there with the Lumix primes.  But for those interested in the higher priced SL equivalents, they are delivering improvements the Panasonic doesn't have, and you just have to decide if that's worth it to you.

 

Andrea Pacella is probably padding himself on the back right now!

 

1 hour ago, petereprice said:

Panasonic is f1.8 while the Leica is f2.  When testing with wide open at f1.8, I noticed that the lens would get soft and slightly ghosting, at certain far distances.  Naturally, this improved when stopped down to f2 and above.  My suspicion is that Leica made the decision to ensure optical excellence by making the lens an f2 instead of matching it to the f1.8.

Very much possible, but I wouldn't disregard this. It is like using a Summilux lens, glow at 1.4 and sharp at 2.8, 2 lenses in one.

[o2mpx]

In reading this thread, can’t help thinking the L mount alliance has produced duplicative lenses that are not thoroughly clarified - from an intended use case perspective, and leaving us consumers with compromises and trade offs  

We could have a maximum of 6 options within a prime focal length- Leica has 2: APO, ASPH. Panasonic could have 2: the S and regular. Sigma has their Contemporary vs Art. I maybe missing others. Zooms have duplicative models as well, albeit not as bad as primes. 

This isn’t consumer or customer friendly at all. Despite the wide range of options, use cases are not comprehensively covered. The photographer who wants to shoot wide open likely can get all APO lenses, but suffers with weight and bulk - and there is no solution to one who wants a travel-friendly setup, and must trade off resolution? Same if one has the 16/35 (know many think this isn’t a good lens), plus the 24-90 heavy weights. 

For me, very frustrated at the scenario as landscapes typically at mid F range such as F8 etc would be 90% of what I shoot. My use case is light weight AND resolution. Is the latter condemning me to carry the heaviest? Or can I make do with Contemporary zooms at F8 on a 60mp sensor?

I’m very happy with the HB X2D files relative to resolution, it is better than files from a 24mp sensor, so will keep that setup. But for lighter carry, likely will pickup a SL3, but if I can switch out the 16-35/24-90 zooms, they’ll finance lighter weight (less good?) lenses that might be similar when shot at mid F ranges?

[rouge_homme]

Does anyone know the correct weight for the 50mm ASPH? According to Leica’s dedicated page, it is 370g but others have stated 402g or 440g.

https://leica-camera.com/en-int/photography/lenses/sl/summicron-sl-50mm-f2-asph

[Photoworks]

13 minutes ago, rouge_homme said:

Does anyone know the correct weight for the 50mm ASPH? According to Leica’s dedicated page, it is 370g but others have stated 402g or 440g.

https://leica-camera.com/en-int/photography/lenses/sl/summicron-sl-50mm-f2-asph

that is probably a mistake

Ca. 402 g/446 g (ohne/mit Gegenlichtblende)

[rouge_homme]

2 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

that is probably a mistake

Ca. 402 g/446 g (ohne/mit Gegenlichtblende)

Thanks, the difference is minimal but quite odd from Leica as they really push the ‘only 370g’ as one of the key selling points. 😅

[Ghiry6591]

I own a Panasonic 50/1.8, paid around 360 euros and in my opinion it is worth all the money, i.e. 360 euros. I believe that we often stop to evaluate things (and even lenses) emotionally, without objective analysis. In direct comparison with my Apo Summicron SL 35/2 Asph. the difference (apart from the obvious one of the focal length) is abysmal; not so much in terms of sharpness, but in terms of color science and overall crispness, which I instantly recognize in the wonderful Apo. Perhaps the Leica branded "cousin" will be significantly better, I hope so with what it costs, but I haven't had the opportunity to try one (and I don't have the slightest curiosity to do so). Apo SL for life!

[Richardgb]

On 3/19/2024 at 1:00 PM, BernardC said:

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.

'Notable' difference in the MTF curves? Nope - please re-read my remarks about how they are measured and displayed by the respective companies. No-one is dismissing anything as a measuring error.

As for Leica grinding aspherics for the lens, this is just hearsay (but will nevertheless be believed by those who want to do so). Leica may be more choosy about which of the moulded variety it selects, but I suggest - even if they do so, and even for the difference in price - that would be as far as it goes. At least with glass, any rejects can be thrown back into the pot.

[BernardC]

57 minutes ago, Richardgb said:

'Notable' difference in the MTF curves? Nope - please re-read my remarks about how they are measured and displayed by the respective companies. No-one is dismissing anything as a measuring error.

If you show both sets of curves to someone who is familiar with MTF, and ask how they differ, they would say "both are very good, but one has less astigmatism and more contrast in the corners." That's the extent of information available. Any additional interpretation is up to you.