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

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, thatkatmat said:

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. 

Ignorance is bliss? Not being critical, I'm only saying lots of things look sharp if you don't have something better to compare it to. But by all means, if the results please you, what more do you need to know? I'll have to say it again – the lenses you mentioned don't need much software correction to begin with. I don't think anyone has a problem with minor correction to make the lens perfect – as long as without correction the image doesn't look like it was taken through a funhouse mirror. This is usually the category of budget lenses, particular ultra wide angle primes and super zooms.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Actually the advent of digital lens correction has given lens makers an extra design freedom. Lens correction consists of shifting aberrations into the next level of aberrations and so forth. If you can bundle all residual aberrations into one that can be corrected digitally, normally distortion, your optical design will be better than a traditional lens design. It is not about improving a bad lens, but about using a final digital tweak to be able to have a superior optical part. It is best regarded S an extra virtual element. 

[swatch]

On 8/24/2024 at 1:44 AM, Virob said:

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.

 

Hi Virob,

Thank you for your efforts in explaining the pros and cons of lens profile correction.  
More appreciation to lens designer’s efforts (willing to pay higher price for the lens and lens designer not being lazy to accept short cut) than software engineer’s efforts ⋯⋯as it is being less headaches in choosing raw file conversation software as some don’t have lens profile option (still trying to escape from LrC to find another alternative).

[Olaf_ZG]

Sara, SL2 & SL lux plus reflector.

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!