Sigma 50mm 1.2 DG DN L mount v Leica SL 50's

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Ning Ning said:

 

I was merely stating that I am (!) satisfied with the results of my Sigma and that I think it is a bit exaggerated to speak of the SL as being in a "league of its own".

I might be biased, but to me, the SL lux is a league of its own. I bought it earlier this year and it is my portrait lens, period. It is slow, big, etc, but it delivers. Session after session.

Looking images on the forum doesn’t justify the subtile differences, but once printed it does.

For sure, the sigma is great as well, and if I would have to choose now, it would be a viable option. That said, a second hand lux isn’t that far out of financial reach vs a new sigma.

 I wont be buying another portrait lens, except when Leica will bring out a SL 75/90 Lux or Zeiss a SL 50 sonnar…

[Advertisement]

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

[Ning Ning]

I can well understand the decision. When I switched to the SL system, I was also faced with the decision of which normal zoom to use for my daily work. Contrary to rational considerations, because the customer in the press sector normally doesn't see the differences and if he does, he doesn't want to pay more for an SL photo, I decided on the SL 24-90. Because I take 70-75% of my (working) photos with it and, in fact, you can't see the difference in the online edition of newspapers. In print, if not printed as a stamp, definitely. At least with some motifs. In any case, the act of taking photos with the SL is a lot of fun.

I have to admit though, you probably already guessed it when you read what my main field of activity is, that I bought the Sigma 1.2 50 mm mainly because of its speed. 50 mm is not my preferred focal length as a fixed focal length. More like 28 downwards or 80 upwards. But it was just so in between (and only costing 1/4) when I can no longer cope with the 24-90 in poorly lit halls. With an SL 28 Lux I could become weak and at the same time I would probably have to be very stubborn because of the price. Until then, the Q2 will help me.

Edited August 18, 2024 by Ning Ning

[Sohail]

3 hours ago, Ning Ning said:

Please read my post again. You will notice that I did not claim that the SL 50 is bad in any way (quite the opposite), nor that the Sigma is the best 50 mm lens on the market.

I was merely stating that I am (!) satisfied with the results of my Sigma and that I think it is a bit exaggerated to speak of the SL as being in a "league of its own".

A lot of such comparisons are based on the “feeling” that is triggered by photographing with a particular lens. And that's all right. I know that about myself too. However, I find myself unable to convey this feeling in a forum-sized image on the Internet. But I like photos that appeal to me. It doesn't matter to me what name is on the lens.

Your original post was clear enough. I read it exactly as you explain it here. So, please show us the photos you like "that appeal to you". Yes, agreed, it doesn't matter which lens they come from. But you're talking here about the Sigma that you're "satisfied" with. Please share some of the results with your Sigma so we too can appreciate why you make the claims you make.

[Sohail]

2 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I might be biased, but to me, the SL lux is a league of its own. I bought it earlier this year and it is my portrait lens, period. It is slow, big, etc, but it delivers. Session after session.

Looking images on the forum doesn’t justify the subtile differences, but once printed it does.

For sure, the sigma is great as well, and if I would have to choose now, it would be a viable option. That said, a second hand lux isn’t that far out of financial reach vs a new sigma.

 I wont be buying another portrait lens, except when Leica will bring out a SL 75/90 Lux or Zeiss a SL 50 sonnar…

Like you, I find the SL 50/1.4 a special lens, but you might want to consider the 75 Noctilux. 

[Olaf_ZG]

57 minutes ago, Sohail said:

Like you, I find the SL 50/1.4 a special lens, but you might want to consider the 75 Noctilux. 

Now you sound like @trickness…

[trickness]

3 hours ago, Sohail said:

Like you, I find the SL 50/1.4 a special lens, but you might want to consider the 75 Noctilux. 

The irony is thick in this post 😂

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, trickness said:

The irony is thick in this post 😂

You and @Sohailshould get banned from this forum….

Last year, I was in doubt about the 75, but my mind was not yet made up what to photograph. Nowadays I now this will be mainly portraits, so both my 50 lux’s (m/sl) have great usage. A 75 noctilux for portraits seems to be a great addition, but oh so expensive. One can’t just try it out where I live.

I will shoot some months with the VL nokton 75/1.5, simply to see how my focussing capabilities are. This is my biggest worry, will I be able to nail down focus?
 

To be continued…

[trickness]

52 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

You and @Sohailshould get banned from this forum….

Last year, I was in doubt about the 75, but my mind was not yet made up what to photograph. Nowadays I now this will be mainly portraits, so both my 50 lux’s (m/sl) have great usage. A 75 noctilux for portraits seems to be a great addition, but oh so expensive. One can’t just try it out where I live.

I will shoot some months with the VL nokton 75/1.5, simply to see how my focussing capabilities are. This is my biggest worry, will I be able to nail down focus?
 

To be continued…

Before my MP film camera $hit the bed and had to be sent off for repair, I used the 75 Nocti on it. Focus was close enough to look really good. On an SL body it’s a piece of cake.

[Sohail]

5 hours ago, trickness said:

The irony is thick in this post 😂

You take things too personally, mate.  For what it's worth, there were a few images that you took with it that I quite liked and were part of my decision to get the lens. There aren't many out there who have the lens. I got a really good deal and jumped at it.

[Olaf_ZG]

@Sohail and @trickness: please no heated discussion again… just show the best you have with this lens as a kind of challenge, so I can decide if I want to join you 😎🤣🤪

[trickness]

2 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

@Sohail and @trickness: please no heated discussion again… just show the best you have with this lens as a kind of challenge, so I can decide if I want to join you 😎🤣🤪

All good. Happy to see more people appreciate this unique lens.

[thatkatmat]

I always loved the SL-Summilux, but I am starting to really like the Sigma as well. I don't own the Lux anymore, so here are some pics from the f/1.2 on my SL2

Sorry the pics are so huge.

 

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!

Edited August 20, 2024 by thatkatmat

[AdjusterBrett]

Oh how I wish I could justify the SL 50/1.4 - but I'm a weekend hack (and with a nine-year-old attempting to bankrupt me with subscriptions on the iPad/Xbox/switch), thereby - I would love to see the Sig 50/1.2 vs SL 50/1.4 vs the "R" lux vs the Panasonic 50/1.4.  Why...  Seeing the magic of the SL, side by side with the three lenses I can afford would be quite useful.  Unfortunately, the YouTube world isn't very versed in "L" mount - so there are simply no decent comparisons out there.  Hopefully, there is a post Powerball winner on here who might think - that would be cool and go out and buy them all (and then POST)...   Bit of a pipe dream. 

[swatch]

Have M mount 50 Lux and focus isn’t as fast as native SL Lux on SL camera.  When faster speed is wanted, SL Lux is preferred (have been hunting for one but not successful yet in price negotiation with seller).

LUMIX S Pro 50 is what I would avoid because it rely on lens profile correction for heavy distortion (understand softness caused by software correction  isn’t a problem in edges of the frame, moreover I just can’t come over this for its selling price ).  How Sigma 1.2 perform in terms of distortion without lens profile correction?

[thatkatmat]

8 hours ago, swatch said:

LUMIX S Pro 50 is what I would avoid because it rely on lens profile correction for heavy distortion (understand softness caused by software correction  isn’t a problem in edges of the frame, moreover I just can’t come over this for its selling price ).  How Sigma 1.2 perform in terms of distortion without lens profile correction?

Not trying to sound ignorant, but what does it matter what a lens' performance is like without the profile correction? This coming from a guy who shoots RAW and converts to JPEG in LR. I assume most all the lenses in L mount or any mount for that matter have profile corrections.

[hdmesa]

3 hours ago, thatkatmat said:

Not trying to sound ignorant, but what does it matter what a lens' performance is like without the profile correction? This coming from a guy who shoots RAW and converts to JPEG in LR. I assume most all the lenses in L mount or any mount for that matter have profile corrections.

Loss of sharpness and contrast greatly depends on how much software correction is being used. Most 50mm lenses don’t need much correction. 

[thatkatmat]

21 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Loss of sharpness and contrast greatly depends on how much software correction is being used. Most 50mm lenses don’t need much correction. 

I guess I still don't understand. Take my 50/1.2 or 35 APO, I download and preview the files, process them, while processing I zoom in to 100-150% They are both pretty darn sharp, sharp enough to where I don't consider the sharpen tool. If one is corrected more, or less than the other in the software. What's the difference to me, they both look great? (although one is the 35 APO so it is, in fact, superior....lol).

 

[hdmesa]

29 minutes ago, thatkatmat said:

I guess I still don't understand. Take my 50/1.2 or 35 APO, I download and preview the files, process them, while processing I zoom in to 100-150% They are both pretty darn sharp, sharp enough to where I don't consider the sharpen tool. If one is corrected more, or less than the other in the software. What's the difference to me, they both look great? (although one is the 35 APO so it is, in fact, superior....lol).

 

Those lenses don't require much software correction, so you won't see an issue.

But "looking sharp" isn't the determining factor. You'd need to flip back and forth between an uncorrected image and the corrected image to see if you see a difference. I think the latest version of LRC lets you turn off software correction if the images were shot with newer camera models. Capture One will let you turn off correction regardless.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thatkatmat]

The reason I said they both "look" sharp was because you said

"Loss of sharpness and contrast greatly depends on how much software correction is being used"

I understand you can toggle the corrections on and off, just saying, if you download the pics, and edit them and they look great, what's it matter if it's from the baked in corrections or not. Leica and everyone else uses them now, heck we add coding on lenses ourselves to add those corrections so we don't have to deal with it in post. 

Not trying to argue, to each their own, just trying to understand the OP's POV. 

[Virob]

There are pros and cons to lens software correction:

Pros: can significantly reduce distortion eg barrel distortion, a more compact lens design, more economical to make, real-time correction viewable in viewfinder (mirrorless camera)

Cons: software compatibility/raw processing limitations, greater battery consumption, can lower image quality if done poorly.

Overall, I think the pros outweigh the cons. The L mount alliance lens seem to have software correction that is well done, and this is only getting better with time and can be updated by the manufacturer. Photoshop, Capture One, DXO  etc, can use the imbedded lens profiles as does Apple Photos or programs like Nitro that work tightly with the Apple ecosystem. Obviously Leica Photos will recognize L mount lens profiles. Thing is, some editing software can't access these profiles and instead create their own. Many programs use profiles created by LensFun which are often incomplete and therefore of variable quality (darktable, RawTherapee, DigiKam, GIMP, Topaz Studio, Photomatix, ON1, ACDSee, easyHDR, SILKYPIX, AfterShot Pro, Exposure Software and Affinity Photo for example). 

So, Depending on what editing software you are using, the results can be different.