Last week, I had a brief experience with the SL Apo 50mm, sparking a conversation with a fellow photographer (with lots of GM lenses) about how good the SL Apo lenses really are – especially compared to Sony’s current GM lenses like the 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4/1.2, and 85mm 1.4 II.
Has anyone here compared them head-to-head at f/2.0 to see if there are any significant differences in pure image quality? SL Apo lenses might not be the fastest in focusing performance, but how do both, Leica SL and Sony GM, stack up in terms of image quality at f/2.0?
Anyone have experience with both lens series? Ideally, on a 61-megapixel sensor.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts 🙂
P.S. Please, no religious wars. Whether it’s Leica or Sony, let’s keep that out of this discussion.
In my personal non-scientific and highly subjective experience, GM 50mm f1.2 and GM 85mm f1.4 II fall between Leica's Summilux and APO-Summicron counterparts. More film-like rendering, sharper than Summiluxes but not as contrasty as APO (in fact, I find Sigma 50mm and 85mm more contrasty than GM). I like both GM and APO SL. I can't pick one over the other just on the basis of rendering and image quality, they both do great job depending on the personal taste. In the end, I stayed with Sony though due to versality and breadth of its ecosystem (more focal lengths, better zooms than Leica, better lighting/flash choices than Leica, etc.). Still look very fondly at the images I have taken with APO-SL and SL2/SL3 when I had them.
gammarART wrote:
What fixed aperture lenses are available in the Leica SL and Sony systems?
Both the GM and SL APO lenses have variable apertures.
Exactly..This was my point. I can say that in the ‘M’ world, my Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM is very very close in resolution to my Voigtlander 35mm APO Lanthar, but it is heavier and has a beautiful rendering at f/1.4. My 90mm XCD can compete with the Leica 75mm APO on my M11M. My A7CR and Sigma/Sony G small lenses provide a compact travel kit that is amazing competent optically. I sold all of my GM glass, except for the 24mm. Not because of optical imperfection, but rather because of size. So, more to lenses than f/2.0…
For years I had a set of Sony GM primes which are very fine lenses. I also have an SL3 and a set of APO-SL primes. I just sold the GM lenses because I ended up using the SL primes instead of the GMs whenever such lenses were called for. I find the APO-SL lenses to be the best I have ever shot with by a good margin. The GM zooms are the best zooms I have ever used when considering performance, optics, and form factor.
stgrove wrote:
Anyone have experience with the SL24-90 compared to a close Sony matched zoom?
Not from owning the Leica 24-90, but I have shot with it a few time. It is a unique focal length/aperture combination, with superb optics, which there is no direct comparison to in a Sony GM lens. So, I will comment from a more general perspective. I prefer the Sony GM zooms in the areas covered by this focal length. Optically the GMs perform with equally acceptable results. But speed, handling, features, and form factor wise, the GMs are much nicer to shoot with. In addition to better, faster focusing, and frame rate capability, the GMs can maintain their 2.8 aperture throughout their FL range. The Leica cannot. This is huge and often results in better image quality overall fo a variety of reasons. It is not just for birds/wildlife/sports, but is equally impactful when shooting events, and outdoor portraits, The Sony just doesn't miss. As a result, I own no Leica zooms. In fact the main reason I own an SL at all are the APO-SL primes. Overall, Sony in my opinion is the best Zoom platform available today.
stgrove wrote:
Anyone have experience with the SL24-90 compared to a close Sony matched zoom?
I tried. I had it, the GM II and Sigma Art II lined up on the bench and ready to go. I turned my back for a couple seconds and, when I turned around, the GM II and Art II were flattened like they been rolled over by a huge weight and the Leica asked, "Haben Sie noch weitere Fragen, die Sie beantwortet haben möchten?"
The GM II and Art II both have significantly less distortion at the wide end, and they correct cleanly. How cleanly the Leica corrects, particularly from 24 through 28, is dependent on how active IBIS was for the shot. After about 30, you get into splitting hair territory. And, of course, the GM II and Art II struggle from 70 to 90. It's like they just give up.
There are plenty of lenses that are as close to the APO SL Summicrons as to be a wash. But there’s no singe set of matched primes as good as the SL APO’s. That’s really their strength. And they’re not relying on software for their APO performance. I think the GM35mm is as good but much bigger. I prefer the Leica 50 over either of the GM’s. There’s no equivalent in a 28 or 21mm. I haven’t had enough time with the new GM85 to form an opinion.
As for the 24-90, the Sony’s are at least as sharp, smaller and faster but I prefer the way the 24-90 draws to the 24-70GM. I find the Sony a bit brutal in its sharpness. The 28-70 f2 is a much nicer lens but bigger and with less range. The 24-90 also has near APO performance throughout the range. But at no time when I use the Sony do I wish I had the Leica. There’s Leica exhibits somewhat lower contrast than the Sony while still retaining very high levels of detail to 80mm. It drops off a tiny bit at 90mm. I haven’t moved on my 24-70GMII and kept the SL and 28-70GM.
Geoff CB wrote:
However, the Sony lenses can let in more light and more importantly autofocus much faster.
As good as the Sonys GM lenses are they don't come close to the APO-SL lenses when it comes to sharpness off axis or managing aberrations. Just look at the MTF charts, the difference is large.
I used the Leica SL2-S and later the SL3 with a full kit: 21, 28, 35, 50, 75 APOs, the 90–280, and the 24–90. They served me well for event, wedding, and corporate work, but I switched to the Sony A7R V earlier this year and haven’t looked back.
Autofocus, video performance, color science, metering, and even Flash TTL are just better on the Sony—it’s simply a more capable tool for getting the job done.
Lens-wise, I was never blown away by the 24–90. The Sony 28–70 f/2 renders better and is noticeably sharper. Cropping to APS-C actually improves its performance further. While the APOs are impressively sharp, I prefer the rendering of the Sony 35 GM and 85 GM II over the 35 and 75 APOs. That said, the APOs do perform better in low light, and I found the SL3 to have slightly better dynamic range.
Still, Leica really dropped the ball with the SL3. The beta firmware lost some of my files, and their response was dismissive—pretty unacceptable. If the Q4 shows up with a 28 APO equivalent and Sony-level autofocus, I’d consider returning to Leica. Until then, I’m out.
Interesting. I don't think I would get rid of my Super APO 21 and probably not my 24-90. I can understand sour grapes over losing files with that beta FW. Totally inexcusable.
Why I have an SL3 and APO-SL Primes. This shot of a girl dressed for her quinceañera was made as I was passing by. The pro photographer was shooting her, but she reacted wonderfully to my "stealing" a quick shot. No lights, no staging, almost straight out of camera. Wide open at F/2.0, Field AF, Auto WB, and just nice colors, and incredible detail. I love this setup for people.
1bwana1 wrote:
As good as the Sonys GM lenses are they don't come close to the APO-SL lenses when it comes to sharpness off axis or managing aberrations. Just look at the MTF charts, the difference is large.
As I stated the Leica's are better, I own the APO lenses. I no longer own the GM.
Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM
• Mount: Sony E (Full-frame)
• Weight: 524 grams (18.5 oz)
• Length: 96 mm (3.78 in)
• Diameter: 76 mm (2.99 in)
• Filter thread: 67 mm
⸻
2. Leica APO-Summicron-SL 35mm f/2 ASPH (L-mount)
• Mount: Leica L (Full-frame)
• Weight: 750 grams (26.5 oz)
• Length: 102 mm (4.02 in)
• Diameter: 73 mm (2.87 in)
• Filter thread: 67 mm
I had a blast pushing the Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM lens to the limit this month. Overall, Sony once again delivers a top resolution lens, without neglecting rendering. In my opinion, the FE 35mm f/1.4 GM is easily the best 35mm prime on the market today.
I highly recommend the Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM lens. It's the highest resolution 35mm f/1.4 lens on the market today. It also offers a pleasant rendering, very low distortion, low color aberration and well-controlled coma.
This was from our own Fred Miranda’s extensive test.
As good as the Sonys GM lenses are they don't come close to the APO-SL lenses when it comes to sharpness off axis or managing aberrations.
‘Don’t come close”. Given Fred’s extensive and very careful testing of the GM where there seems to be no deterioration noted “off axis”, the above claim about APO-SL lenses seems to be hyperbole indeed.
The huge price difference between the lenses is also hard to ignore.
wolfloid wrote:
This was from our own Fred Miranda’s extensive test.
‘Don’t come close”. Given Fred’s extensive and very careful testing of the GM where there seems to be no deterioration noted “off axis”, the above claim about APO-SL lenses seems to be hyperbole indeed.
The huge price difference between the lenses is also hard to ignore.
As much as I enjoy and respect Fred's reviews, in this case the available data is clear, and doesn't support his conclusion (even though his conclusion only references resolution). Just take a look at the MTF charts for both lenses for confirmation. Realize that Leica's published standard for gauging contrast on the APO-SL primes is 40 line pairs (internally Leica uses 60 LP) while all others including Sony use only 30. But you will see that the chart shows the Leica preforms better at 40LP than the Sony does at 30 LP. Now add the CA performance, vignetting, distortion, other aberrations, the build quality, and the IP54 weather rating of the Leica and you will recognize the differences. I do agree that the Sony system outperforms the SL system by a good margin when it comes to AF. Color is too personal to discuss effectively, I would note that color is one of the most often prised attributes of the SL system, and the most often criticized attribute of the Sony system. LIke I said, to personal to be meaningful to me. Still, it is not at all hyperbole to say that there is a huge margin in total optical performance between these lenses. Price/value is of variable importance between people so no point debating that. I don't know if Fred has done an extensive review of the APO-SL to compare against. If so, link?
Specifically, many consider the 35mm APO-SL to be the best performing full frame lens ever offered at ant FL, by any manufacturer. I have owned both and find the Leica superior. The person who bought my Sony 35mm GM recently sent ma a note saying the lens is perfect. It is a good copy. As I previously posted both are superb lenses.
The best thing is that we can choose one or both if we like.
You may enjoy watching Peter Karbe Leica's Head Optical Engineer discuss his holistic approach to lens design and measurements when building the APO-SL lens system. Not in contrast to other manufactures, but just an interesting learning opportunity.
One thing that struck me is the manufacturing tolerance requirements differences between the compact M lenses, and the larger SL lenses. This must be a significant pricing consideration for the M system. Maybe this is a meaningful factor in copy variation that some other M lens manufactures seem to have.
