Disappointed with my 10R/50 Sumilux

[Mikep996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I went out this morning with my M10R/50mm current Sumilux and shot a few pics.   A couple of days ago I shot the same scenes with my Q3.  Comparing the DNGs, the q3 pics, cropped to equivalent 50mm had more clarity/sharpness than the 10R, even when zoomed in further.  Both cameras were set at ISO 200, Daylight WB and lenses wide open - 1:4 for the M, 1:7 for the Q3.  I don't understand!  I don't usually have any trouble focusing the M and the subject of the scene was probably 40-50 meters from the camera(s).  After viewing the pics I thought maybe I had misfocused so I tried a couple of shots at home using the viewfinder and then the live view to focus but there was no difference in the pics - still a bit soft compared to the Q3.  I hadn't used my M camera(s) for a while but the weather this AM was one of my favorites for pics - drizzly rain so I thought it would be fun to take the M out!

 

 

[Adam Bonn]

Can it be as simple as the fact that the Q3 has a lot more megapixels, a much shorter lens and more DOF, both from the physical aperture (1.7 vs 1.4) and the inherent differences in rendering between 28 and 50mm?

[irenedp]

6 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

Can it be as simple as the fact that the Q3 has a lot more megapixels, a much shorter lens and more DOF, both from the physical aperture (1.7 vs 1.4) and the inherent differences in rendering between 28 and 50mm?

I agree with Adam. Shooting wide open -more so with a 50 summilux which is a 1.4-means that you got milimeters of focus. If the 28 mm 1.7 was used on af, there’s no question that the sharpness would be greater. Just the focal length has more DOF. The combination certainly adds a lot. 

Other factors affect, too. I obtain consistently more sharpness with the M9 than with the Monochrome 1. That is due to 320 vs 160 as base ISO. And I get much more sharpness out of the Phase IQ4 than of the S3. In that case it is due to the fact that you can focus to 500% on the Phase vs only 100 on the S3:  Potentially too, the Schneider lenses have more acuity than the Leica S ones. 

There are plenty of factors to consider. 
 

 

[Mikep996]

I went out again, took the same shot this time with a 1997 50mm sumicron wide open and the pic is sharper than the 2024 lux.  This time I shot the lux using the live view to be sure I was getting accurate focusing.  Of course the cron is F2 vs f1:4 so I guess that's the difference though I would have expected more from the current Sumilux since Leica lenses are allegedly noted for their wide-open performance!  

In this case the 50mm Cron on the 10R surpassed the cropped Q3 when pixel peeping "deeper"; the opposite occurred with the Lux, it went too blurry before the Q3 pixilated.

Edited April 21 by Mikep996

[Chris W]

I don't understand why people are shooting 'wide open' in daylight. Even at f2 or f2.8 you are getting separation and a nice blurred background, and most lenses perform better.

For me a 1.7 lens is an invitation to shoot happily at f2. With wafer thin focus plane I'd only shoot at 1.4 in a dire emergency (low light wedding or event).

[Fotoklaus]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb Chris W:

I don't understand why people are shooting 'wide open' in daylight. Even at f2 or f2.8 you are getting separation and a nice blurred background, and most lenses perform better.

For me a 1.7 lens is an invitation to shoot happily at f2. With wafer thin focus plane I'd only shoot at 1.4 in a dire emergency (low light wedding or event).

Absolutely. If your subject is 40-50m away there is no benefit of using f1.4. Even the background will not get really seperated, then. Why not just stop down to f5.6 and that´s it.

It´s like "i spent an awful lot of money for the Lux and now i have to stick to f1.4."

Edited April 21 by Fotoklaus

[Mikep996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shoot wide open a lot of the time specifically to isolate the subject.  In fact, that's usually my "default setting" on a camera when I walk out the door.  Of course that changes depending on whether the shutter speed can work with that setting and/or I want more depth of field.  

"It´s like "i spent an awful lot of money for the Lux and now i have to stick to f1.4."" 

Well, I'd change the emphasis:  I spent an awful lot of money for the lux SO I COULD shoot at f1:4!"  

 

Edited April 21 by Mikep996

[darylgo]

23 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

Well, I'd change the emphasis:  I spent an awful lot of money for the lux SO I COULD shoot at f1:4!"  

Early morning shooting at 1.4 renders beautifully.  And the 50 lux asph can certainly give outstanding results.  

That the summicron is sharper indicates the 50 summilux is a poor sample.   

[Fotoklaus]

vor 42 Minuten schrieb Mikep996:

I shoot wide open a lot of the time specifically to isolate the subject.  In fact, that's usually my "default setting" on a camera when I walk out the door.  Of course that changes depending on whether the shutter speed can work with that setting and/or I want more depth of field.  

"It´s like "i spent an awful lot of money for the Lux and now i have to stick to f1.4."" 

Well, I'd change the emphasis:  I spent an awful lot of money for the lux SO I COULD shoot at f1:4!"  

 

Well, you CAN shoot it at f1.4. No doubt about that 🙂

[jaapv]

Maybe you should compare at f 2.0?  Normally the faster the lens, the softer wide open.

[Chris W]

51 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

I shoot wide open a lot of the time specifically to isolate the subject.

Very few lenses perform at their best at their lowest f stop.

The Q series lens is absolutely outstanding. They used to say you paid for the 28mm lens and the Q body came free.

Personally I always shoot at least a stop or two above the minimum, just to make focussing easier and to get the best out of the lens. Portrait-wise, I don't understand having an eye in focus and a nose/ear out of focus. Also, for street and landscape, some context is useful. 

[Mikep996]

I've been using a 50 Cron since my Leica film days so I'm very familiar with it.  The only other Leica 50 I ever owned/used was a Noct which I sold years ago because I didn't care for the size/weight.  But a couple of years ago I decided I wanted more isolation capability than the Cron so I bought the current 50 lux last year.  

"That the summicron is sharper indicates the 50 summilux is a poor sample."

Maybe my Lux is a Monday or Friday production lens and my Cron was a Wednesday lens!  

 

 

 

 

[Chris W]

The Q3 lens is excellent, very sharp.

[irenedp]

It is a simple as this: a Summilux 50 at 1.4 will never have the same depth of field as a Summilux 28 at 1.7. It will be much narrower. 
And hence it will be much easier to miss focus even by a fraction:  

obviously yo can go and complain to Leica because you spent the money…

[darylgo]

1 hour ago, Mikep996 said:

Maybe my Lux is a Monday or Friday production lens and my Cron was a Wednesday lens!  

If only we could know.   There is a way, kindof but not really.  The inspection card that we look at and then toss back in the box has a date of inspection, but alas Leica lenses like Rome are not built in a day. 

1 hour ago, Mikep996 said:

"That the summicron is sharper indicates the 50 summilux is a poor sample."

So, I don't say that lightly and if it is the case, it is, then I would do everything I could to exchange it for another.  I have sent poor sample lenses to Leica twice and they returned each one indicating they were within spec.  Roger Cicala in a post on Lens Rentals stated that a poor performing lens can be improved slightly with a tear down and rebuild but will not perform well.    

Furthermore, the Summicron (1997) has a fair amount of astigmatism wide open, the Summilux doesn't suffer from astigmatism wide open and has greater contrast/sharpness.  The Summilux should be giving you outstanding results.  

[Mikep996]

"t is a simple as this: a Summilux 50 at 1.4 will never have the same depth of field as a Summilux 28 at 1.7. It will be much narrower. 
And hence it will be much easier to miss focus even by a fraction:  "

Yes, I understand that.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, I used a Noctilux for a couple of years so I'm quite familiar with narrow focus depth (!!!) 😱

I don't believe I missed focus since RF and Live view focus produced an identical pic. The (auto) shutter speed was 1/750 so there was no camera shake involved (and I was braced on a concrete railing) as well. But it does look as if it's slightly out of focus!

 

 

[costa43]

Megapixels/DOF/Focal length aside, I would expect the Q3 to be sharper in the centre at f1.7 than a 50mm Summilux will be at f1.4. Especially at 50m, no surprises there for me. Stopped down though, I would think the 50mm Summilux will have a more even performance across the frame if focused accurately with a more pleasant rendering to my eye. With the Q lens, it is also easy to mistake contrast for sharpness. My belief is that Leica bake in a fair bit more contrast/clarity into the DNG files for the Q, they look way more contrasty converted in LR than the M10-R files do. The centre on the 28mm f1.7 is tack sharp at all F stops but detail does fall off as you venture off axis. 

I was curious about the M lens vs Q so ran my own test comparing the 24mm Elmar which is closer to a like for like and it is sharper than the Q lens, resolving more detail at 60mp across the frame to my eye. 

Edited April 21 by costa43

[otto.f]

9 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

1:4 for the M,

1.4 is relatively low in contrast and less sharp than 1.7. Wide open for me with many Summiluxes is 1.7

[Alberti]

Mike, you put the lens central in the argument. " I thought maybe I had misfocused', but even with using 'live view to focus - still a bit soft compared to the Q3'

However, could it [also] be that the M10r has a sensor that at times is more flat, digitally? Than e.g. the Q(4)3? 

The propensity to develop/show grain of this sensor at times does not help imho either. 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Robert Blanko]

I have used my 50 Summilux ASPH quite a bit on my M10R and even at f1.4 the photos are crisp and contrasty, at least in the center. Reportedly, it is even an APO design although it does not have the APO label.

I never had the impression that my Q2 could surpass this level in a crop corresponding to 50mm. And I would not expect this from a Q3 either which has IMHO the same lens and 60 MP instead of 47 MP.