nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am surprised by LLL’s Color reproduction. Leicas have always run warm, and the LLL color rendition is quite cool.
That's also true for their LLL 28/2.8 9-element and LLL 50/2 Rigid versions. The coating tends to produce a cooler color tone. Of course, that's just how it looks straight out of the camera...adjusting it in post is really easy.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's also true for their LLL 28/2.8 9-element and LLL 50/2 Rigid versions. The coating tends to produce a cooler color tone. Of course, that's just how it looks straight out of the camera...adjusting it in post is really easy.
Have you tried matching it so that they’re the exact same warmth and then looking at their color rendition?
I have done that with many lenses, and even if they are the same corrected warmth, the color can look pretty different. The white balance is the easy part to correct, matching color exactly more difficult in my experience.
Andrew CD wrote:
One further question, if I may: which of the colour renditions would you say is the most accurate? If anything, I prefer the Summarit’s, but I obviously can’t tell which is closest to reality. (The fact that I’m viewing this on an iPad may make my impression somewhat meaningless, anyway.)
I am not sure how accurate the colors are, but you can tell from the sky that the photos were taken around sunset, in the shade, which usually results in cooler tones. I would say the Summarit has a pleasant color rendering. The Leica 50/1 Noctilux follows that same color temperature but with higher contrast, which makes the colors appear more vibrant. The Light Lens Lab version is cooler and probably the most accurate, but not necessarily the most pleasing, at least in a subjective sense.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Have you tried matching it so that they’re the exact same warmth and then looking at their color conditions?
I have done that with many lenses, and even if they are the same corrected warmth, the color can look pretty different. The white balance is the easy part to correct, matching color exactly more difficult in my experience.
That's interesting. I think lens coatings mainly affect the color temperature and tint rather than the actual colors themselves. Once you adjust for white balance and exposure, the colors should look pretty similar unless contrast is also changing the way we see saturation or color intensity.
That said, I would not count on the Sony A7CR for accurate color in this case, since mmy Leica M might render things differently. Looks like I've got a good excuse to test them on the Leica now.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's interesting. I think lens coatings mainly affect the color temperature and tint rather than the actual colors themselves. Once you adjust for white balance and exposure, the colors should look pretty similar unless contrast is also changing the way we see saturation or color intensity.
That said, I would not count on the Sony A7CR for accurate color in this case, since mmy Leica M might render things differently. Looks like I've got a good excuse to test them on the Leica now.
You would be surprised! Or I often am.
When I profiled the CV 35/1.7 and the 35 Lux FLE, the FLE had higher contrast (deeper shadows), higher saturation of all colors, was a little bit softer on highlights (probably cause it has some SA) and the greens were less yellow and the orange is lean to pink. Now the CV files look so much better—not more accurate, just not as cool and lower micro contrast l like the CV 35/1.7.
To match lens WB, I include something white and adjust that white point to be the same neutral white on both lenses and even the luminosity of white. I make sure it is in the middle of the frame so we are not having vignetting or any effects like that. Lastly, I always make sure they’re shot on the same body when I profile.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
You would be surprised! Or I often am.
When I profiled the CV 35/1.7 and the 35 Lux FLE, the FLE had higher contrast (deeper shadows), higher saturation of all colors, was a little bit softer on highlights (probably cause it has some SA) and the greens were less yellow and the orange is lean to pink. Now the CV files look so much better—not more accurate, just not as cool and lower micro contrast l like the CV 35/1.7.
To match lens WB, I include something white and adjust that white point to be the same neutral white on both lenses and even the luminosity of white. I make sure it is in the middle of the frame so we are not having vignetting or any effects like that. Lastly, I always make sure they’re shot on the same body when I profile....Show more →
I actually agree with you...lens coatings can absolutely influence spectral transmission, and that can lead to real hue shifts like you described. Aside from color temperature and tint, factors like SA, flare, and micro-contrast also affect color directly, or at least how we perceive it. (We can see that pretty clearly in the 3-sample comparison I posted above)
What I meant earlier is that we should be cautious about drawing conclusions from these particular samples. They were not taken with a Leica M, and the Sony sensor was modified, which introduces another variable. I'll re-test this on my Leica M, keeping color specifically in mind. This initial run was just a quick check to compare overall rendering and structure between the lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I actually agree with you...lens coatings can absolutely influence spectral transmission, and that can lead to real hue shifts like you described. Aside from color temperature and tint, factors like SA, flare, and micro-contrast also affect color directly, or at least how we perceive it. (We can see that pretty clearly in the 3-sample comparison I posted above)
What I meant earlier is that we should be cautious about drawing conclusions from these particular samples. They were not taken with a Leica M, and the Sony sensor was modified, which introduces another variable. I'll re-test this on my Leica M, keeping color specifically in mind. This initial run was just a quick check to compare overall rendering and structure between the lenses....Show more →
Ah I see. Well, the point of your exercise to show the rendering differences was well done with your sample photos. It’s always interesting to see how old lenses do in harsh light too lol
Here are a few more shots from the Sony A7CR (Kolari modded) with the Leica 50/1.5 Summarit taken on the same day I did the comparison with the other lenses. Same processing as before, nothing added to the images except sharpening and the Adobe Standard profile.
The Leica 50/1.5 Summarit might just be the most underrated Leica lens. It’s definitely one of my favorites.
ILCE-7CRLeica 50mm f/1.5 Summarit lens50mm1/800s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7CRLeica 50mm f/1.5 Summarit lens50mm1/2500s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7CRLeica 50mm f/1.5 Summarit lens50mm1/500s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7CRLeica 50mm f/1.5 Summarit lens50mm1/1600s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7CRLeica 50mm f/1.5 Summarit lens50mm1/2000s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7CRLeica 50mm f/1.5 Summarit lens50mm1/3200s100 ISO0.0 EV
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Have you tried matching it so that they’re the exact same warmth and then looking at their color rendition?
I have done that with many lenses, and even if they are the same corrected warmth, the color can look pretty different. The white balance is the easy part to correct, matching color exactly more difficult in my experience.
---------------------------------------------
Fred Miranda wrote:
I am not sure how accurate the colors are, but you can tell from the sky that the photos were taken around sunset, in the shade, which usually results in cooler tones. I would say the Summarit has a pleasant color rendering. The Leica 50/1 Noctilux follows that same color temperature but with higher contrast, which makes the colors appear more vibrant. The Light Lens Lab version is cooler and probably the most accurate, but not necessarily the most pleasing, at least in a subjective sense.
Once again, thanks for an interesting response. There is lots of good food for thought in what you and @nehemiahphoto are saying in these posts. Given the number of variables (not least the camera itself), I certainly couldn’t claim to understand how one can easily make an objective comparison of colour rendering (if at all), and I’m not even sure that I’m too worried about that, but I do think that the effect of lens coatings is an interesting factor. I’d quite like to be able to make a comparison of the differently coated versions of old Sonnars, for example.
In any event, I do very much agree, the 50/1.5 Summarit is greatly underrated. It and a v2/v3 ‘Lux are right at the top of my lens wish list. (I hope these discussions don’t push the prices up …. )
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here are a few more shots from the Sony A7CR (Kolari modded) with the Leica 50/1.5 Summarit taken on the same day I did the comparison with the other lenses. Same processing as before, nothing added to the images except sharpening and the Adobe Standard profile.
The Leica 50/1.5 Summarit might just be the most underrated Leica lens. It’s definitely one of my favorites.
I have always liked the 50/1.5 Summarit files— at some point I will get my hands on one. I also really like the files from the Summarex 85/1.5.
The problem for both of these lenses for me is that the 80 Lux and the 50/1 Noct exist. In the case of the Summarit, it’s much smaller and cheaper so I could rectify owning both.
The Summarit has been on my list as well; I almost got one for a recent trip but got the rare (and pricey) Voigtländer 50/2 Heliar LTM instead...and now wish I'd gotten the Summarit.
A couple of fun articles about this lens by Johnny Martyr, a wedding photographer who only shoots B&W film:
Andrew CD wrote:
---------------------------------------------
Once again, thanks for an interesting response. There is lots of good food for thought in what you and @nehemiahphoto@ are saying in these posts. Given the number of variables (not least the camera itself), I certainly couldn’t claim to understand how one can easily make an objective comparison of colour rendering (if at all), and I’m not even sure that I’m too worried about that, but I do think that the effect of lens coatings is an interesting factor. I’d quite like to be able to make a comparison of the differently coated versions of old Sonnars, for example.
In any event, I do very much agree, the 50/1.5 Summarit is greatly underrated. It and a v2/v3 ‘Lux are right at the top of my lens wish list. (I hope these discussions don’t push the prices up …. )...Show more →
Glad you found it interesting. I don’t think many shooters find the particularities of color important or interesting.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here are a few more shots from the Sony A7CR (Kolari modded) with the Leica 50/1.5 Summarit taken on the same day I did the comparison with the other lenses. Same processing as before, nothing added to the images except sharpening and the Adobe Standard profile.
The Leica 50/1.5 Summarit might just be the most underrated Leica lens. It’s definitely one of my favorites.
Fred,
At the risk of being a nuisance, I wonder if I might ask one further question:
Did you ever have a chance to directly compare the Summarit with the Cv 50/1.5 Heliar?
I was interested to see some of the observations you made in the Heliar review thread, but couldn’t find any comparison images (sorry if that’s me being dim and simply failing to find them). I must confess, I’m quite tempted to,pick up a copy of the 50/1.5 Summarit, not least because I’d like to compare it with my old and new Sonnars, but I suppose I ought not to ignore the Heliar (it’s not a design I’m at all familiar with).
At the risk of being a nuisance, I wonder if I might ask one further question:
Did you ever have a chance to directly compare the Summarit with the Cv 50/1.5 Heliar?
I was interested to see some of the observations you made in the Heliar review thread, but couldn’t find any comparison images (sorry if that’s me being dim and simply failing to find them). I must confess, I’m quite tempted to,pick up a copy of the 50/1.5 Summarit, not least because I’d like to compare it with my old and new Sonnars, but I suppose I ought not to ignore the Heliar (it’s not a design I’m at all familiar with).
Andrew,
That would definitely be instructive ...I'll try to put it together soon. From what I recall and see with my own eyes, their rendering is quite distinct:
CV 50mm f/1.5 Heliar:
Higher resolution and contrast at close distances, especially at minimum focus. This is pretty unique behavior.
Resolution drops at mid and long distances as aberrations increase.
Shows glow wide open: The farther the focused subject, the more pronounced the glow.
Bokeh balls have a uniform outlining and tend to stretch into an oval shape toward the edges, similar to the Leica 50/1.4 pre-ASPH v2 and v3.
Very good flare resistance.
______________
Leica 50mm f/1.5 Summarit:
Lower contrast and resolution at all distances, especially at MFD (1m).
Beats the Heliar in resolution at mid and long distances.
Similar glow wide open, possibly a bit more at all distances.
Bokeh balls take on a conical shape toward the edges. (Similar to Leica 50/1.4 Pre-apsh v1)
Also has outlining, but it only partially wraps the highlights... more irregular and patchy, like what you see in MS Optics Sonnetar designs.
Very susceptible to veiling flare.
Nick YR wrote:
Size comparison of 50 lux V3 vs 50 lux BC and 35 SRR.
All are focused at infinity (at shortest length).
filter on the V3 looks crooked, or maybe its the hood. I find the black chrome most aesthetically pleasing of the 50 Lux's. I think the new CF 50 Lux ASPH is hideous...yet that's the price you pay for additional features
rsolti13 wrote:
filter on the V3 looks crooked, or maybe its the hood. I find the black chrome most aesthetically pleasing of the 50 Lux's. I think the new CF 50 Lux ASPH is hideous...yet that's the price you pay for additional features
)
