Well that is a lot of info on MTFs, but as far as I am aware most manufacturers do not test the real MTFs for lenses, they are mostly theoretical, and when they do, they cherry pick. I don’t doubt that the APO is an extraordinary lens, but remember, Leica are salespeople, trying to sell high quality lenses and a myth to those with deep pockets.
Looking very closely at Fred’s testing on a large screen, it is hard to see how the GM could be bettered - and I trust my eyes. Even if the APO does turn out to be better ‘off axis’ which from looking at the GM results I very much, doubt, it will very definitely not result in the GM ‘not coming close’, and that is exactly hyperbole.
When I see how often it’s discussed over in the Leica forum that a brand new M lens (for example the 35mm Apo) needs to be adjusted by Leica Service (some even three times) before it produces clean images… I wonder how generous Leica’s manufacturing tolerances are…
wolfloid wrote:
Well that is a lot of info on MTFs, but as far as I am aware most manufacturers do not test the real MTFs for lenses, they are mostly theoretical, and when they do, they cherry pick. I don’t doubt that the APO is an extraordinary lens, but remember, Leica are salespeople, trying to sell high quality lenses and a myth to those with deep pockets.
Looking very closely at Fred’s testing on a large screen, it is hard to see how the GM could be bettered - and I trust my eyes. Even if the APO does turn out to be better ‘off axis’ which from looking at the GM results I very much, doubt, it will very definitely not result in the GM ‘not coming close’, and that is exactly hyperbole....Show more →
For some reason you seem illogically stuck on the work "hyperbole" which is again a subjective not objective term. Yet you don't apply that to Fred's equally strong statement. Also remember that Fred was referencing only resolution, while I was referencing the overall characteristics of the lenses. One person's hyperbole is another's opinion. I think we can move on from that and just discuss the lenses.
Bad lenses look good on screens. On screen video is even worse for this. That is not a good way to try and judge a lens. Better a a starting point. Especially when considering that actual data from highly credible sources proving to the contrary exists. Screens are relatively low resolution devices. Also, keep in mind that the images Fred posts are jpegs, and highly reduced in resolution to fit the screen and website resolutions. Not exactly a good set of circumstances to make the kind of judgements you are claiming is it. Better to work with the RAW data I think. However, even better when working with prints. Differences really stand out when an image is printed. The bigger you print, the more they are visible. Having printed from both lenses, I have seen the differences clearly.
I love the Sony 35mm GM. I made some very nice images with it. But under some conditions it did suffer rather badly from aberrations like CA. The Leica has virtually none. As an obvious example, look at this 35mm GM image from Dustin Abbot's testing. You will never see anything like this with the Leica APO-SL. This is just one aberration. One has to consider many things when evaluating a lens as I have pointed out.
wolfloid wrote:
Well that is a lot of info on MTFs, but as far as I am aware most manufacturers do not test the real MTFs for lenses, they are mostly theoretical, and when they do, they cherry pick. I don’t doubt that the APO is an extraordinary lens, but remember, Leica are salespeople, trying to sell high quality lenses and a myth to those with deep pockets.
Looking very closely at Fred’s testing on a large screen, it is hard to see how the GM could be bettered - and I trust my eyes. Even if the APO does turn out to be better ‘off axis’ which from looking at the GM results I very much, doubt, it will very definitely not result in the GM ‘not coming close’, and that is exactly hyperbole....Show more →
The Leica SL APO 35 really is one of the best of the best. As we learned, the modern Leica APO is a big factor in why the SL 35 APO reaches the nosebleed MTF measurements that it does even with potential of diffraction at F8. Mr. Karbe also mentioned he had plenty of room in the SL APO prime standardized lens barrel to work some magic on the 35 APO lens formula.
With that said, and since I shoot both SL APO primes and Sony GM primes, when comparing the GM 35 with one of perhaps the best FF 35mm primes, I am impressed with what Sony has done and continues to do with their GM 35 and other GM lenses.
In one of your previous comments on this thread you wrote "The [SL] Apo Summicrons are monsters" Just for fun, here is another perspective and yes, the Sony GM is a 1.4 lens and the other is an F2 lens. So you might say the SL APO 35/2 is a large F2 lens, but again we all know why:
LBJ2 wrote:
The Leica SL APO 35 really is one of the best of the best. As we learned, the modern Leica APO is a big factor in why the SL 35 APO reaches the nosebleed MTF measurements that it does even with potential of diffraction at F8. Mr. Karbe also mentioned he had plenty of room in the SL APO prime standardized lens barrel to work some magic too on the 35 APO lens forumula too.
With that said, and since I shoot both SL APO primes and Sony GM primes, when comparing the GM 35 with one of perhaps the best FF 35mm primes, I am impressed with what Sony has done and continues to do with their GM 35 and other GM lenses.
In one of your previous comments on this thread you wrote "the [SL] Apo Summicrons are monsters" Just for fun, here is another perspective and yes, the Sony GM is a 1.4 lens and the other is an F2 lens. So you might say the SL APO 35/2 is a large F2 lens, but again we all know why: ...Show more →
Pretty much in agreement with everything in his post. Again, those who shoot both recognize both the achievement of the Sony 35mm GM, and the benchmarks set by the Leica APO-SL Summicrons. They also recognize that they are very different lenses in important ways. There are in fact times when the GM would be the prefered tool just based on it's meaningfully faster aperture. Oh darn, I fear I may have slipped into "hyperbole" again....
Also, you posted picture shows that the size penalty of the APO-SL is not that big between these lenses. This does have purpose in the Leica "System". All the APO-SL primes bodies have exactly the same size and build, using the exact same parts. This serves two purposes. It enables the extremely tight build tolerances to be maintained. It also means that the shooting experience remains consistent. Finally, it means that accessories like hoods and filters fit all the lenses. THis is extremely valuable when building an efficient system.
1bwana1 wrote:
Pretty much in agreement with everything in his post. Again, those who shoot both recognize both the achievement of the Sony 35mm GM, and the benchmarks set by the Leica APO-SL Summicrons. They also recognize that they are very different lenses in important ways. There are in fact times when the GM would be the prefered tool just based on it's meaningfully faster aperture. Oh darn, I fear I may have slipped into "hyperbole" again....
Also, you posted picture shows that the size penalty of the APO-SL is not that big between these lenses. This does have purpose in the Leica "System". All the APO-SL primes bodies have exactly the same size and build, using the exact same parts. This serves two purposes. It enables the extremely tight build tolerances to be maintained. It also means that the shooting experience remains consistent. Finally, it means that accessories like hoods and filters fit all the lenses. THis is extremely valuable when building an efficient system. ...Show more →
And let's not forget just how small the Sony GM 35 1.4 actually is in this comparison--the GM is quite a small/compact form-factor accomplishment for a full frame F1.4 lens with this level of IQ and snappy autofocus. Which to me makes the size comparison to the SL APO 35 even more interesting.
LBJ2 wrote:
And let's not forget just how small the Sony GM 35 1.4 actually is in this comparison--the GM is quite a small/compact form-factor accomplishment for a full frame F1.4 lens with this level of IQ and snappy autofocus. Which to me makes the size comparison to the SL APO 35 even more interesting.
Yes, it is small compared to other AF lenses of its FL and aperture. The size challenge of course is about much more than optics. Compare the size of other 35mm f/1.4 lenses of extremely high quality that are MF. They are generaly much smaller. AF has some hefty size requirements.
For some reason you seem illogically stuck on the work "hyperbole" which is again a subjective not objective term.
I think we come from completely different directions, and I disagree with much of what you say.
It is up to individuals to recognise hyperbole, obviously, and your phrasing ‘not coming close’ is a prime candidate in most or even all debates about super high quality lenses. You may not like the accusation but to me it sticks and is completely appropriate.
Then like other individuals who like to hold strong opinions over minutiae, you become defensive when it is pointed out. I trust Fred’s long experience and careful, transparent, visible testing (even with its theoretical flaws or limitations), not in any absolute sense, but more than abstract measurement for comparison wherein we do not even have full transparency over the methodology. You may take comfort in MTFs, I am more sceptical. I trust my eyes, and trust Roger Cicala’s independent testing of multiple copies of lenses, especially in the context of grammarArt’s reference, above, to criticisms on the Leica Forum of the myth of Leica’s claims to higher tolerances and reliability. I also trust Fred’s broad, obviously systematic testing more than people who have bought into the Leica ‘premium’ and invested their own money. We all know the phenomenon of self-justification once money has been spent.
It was only your hyperbolic response that even prompted me to reply at all, otherwise I would not have bothered, as I expect the APO lenses are great - I suppose it irks me when people seem to use them as ‘magical’ trophies or totems, or to emphasise rare exclusivity, or perhaps even bragging rights.
My use of ‘monsters’ to describe the APOs was also hyperbole, but I would never deny that. It was meant to point out, humorously, one of the main reasons why I would be unlikely ever to want to use such a large 35mm f2 lens, no matter how good. Of course, others need to decide for themselves about that.
wolfloid wrote:
I think we come from completely different directions, and I disagree with much of what you say.
It is up to individuals to recognise hyperbole, obviously, and your phrasing ‘not coming close’ is a prime candidate in most or even all debates about super high quality lenses. You may not like the accusation but to me it sticks and is completely appropriate.
Then like other individuals who like to hold strong opinions over minutiae, you become defensive when it is pointed out. I trust Fred’s long experience and careful, transparent, visible testing (even with its theoretical flaws or limitations), not in any absolute sense, but more than abstract measurement for comparison wherein we do not even have full transparency over the methodology. You may take comfort in MTFs, I am more sceptical. I trust my eyes, and trust Roger Cicala’s independent testing of multiple copies of lenses, especially in the context of grammarArt’s reference, above, to criticisms on the Leica Forum of the myth of Leica’s claims to higher tolerances and reliability. I also trust Fred’s broad, obviously systematic testing more than people who have bought into the Leica ‘premium’ and invested their own money. We all know the phenomenon of self-justification once money has been spent.
It was only your hyperbolic response that even prompted me to reply at all, otherwise I would not have bothered, as I expect the APO lenses are great - I suppose it irks me when people seem to use them as ‘magical’ trophies or totems, or to emphasise rare exclusivity, or perhaps even bragging rights.
My use of ‘monsters’ to describe the APOs was also hyperbole, but I would never deny that. It was meant to point out, humorously, one of the main reasons why I would be unlikely ever to want to use such a large 35mm f2 lens, no matter how good. Of course, others need to decide for themselves about that....Show more →
Yes, we do seem to come from different directions. Thank you for an interesting discussion.
Now back to enjoying photography. Have a great day.
wolfloid wrote:
Thank you for your courtesy. Much appreciated.
Well I guess we can enjoy a little more "hyperbole" in this thread. Here is a quote from Leica's Head Optical Engineer Peter Karbe in this Quarter's The Camera From Wetzlar magazine regarding an interview specifically about the the APO-SL lenses. It is an interesting read and a free PDF download for anyone wanting to read the whole 200 page magazine. You can dowload it free here: www.club-wetzlar.com
[At this moment, our faces show absolute amazement. Peter
laughs with some pride. To put into perspective the fact that a
21mm focal lens has correction in four different wavelengths or
colors means that this lens is capable of transmitting practically all
the information that light carries from the photographic subject to
the camera sensor. In short: It is probably the best 21mm lens ever
made by humanity.]
Interesting discussions. I own both the Summicron-SL APO 35mm f2 and the Sony 35mm GM f1.4. The Leica is the better lens in my opinion but the Sony is faster, lighter, smaller, cheaper and auto focuses faster. The Sony has 187 reviews on B&H whereas the Leica has 6... If this supposedly is the best lens ever made (by Leica) why is it not more popular?
SlowDriver wrote:
If this supposedly is the best lens ever made (by Leica) why is it not more popular?
For the same reason that Porsche, Ferrari, Penthouse Condos on Central Park, and all things that are expensive and exclusive are not as popular as things built for and priced for the middle class. The other brands are performance orientated, and provide excellent image quality that is good enough.
For sure Leica is not for the vast majority of people. Leica products are of extremely high quality and priced that way too. Leica provides aa unique shooting experience that appeals to some. I am one of those. I am a particular fan of the APO-SL lenses, and the M shooting experience. But even for me, it is not the system I choose to shoot in all circumstances.
1bwana1 wrote:
Well I guess we can enjoy a little more "hyperbole" in this thread. Here is a quote from Leica's Head Optical Engineer Peter Karbe in this Quarter's The Camera From Wetzlar magazine regarding an interview specifically about the the APO-SL lenses. It is an interesting read and a free PDF download for anyone wanting to read the whole 200 page magazine. You can dowload it free here: www.club-wetzlar.com
[At this moment, our faces show absolute amazement. Peter
laughs with some pride. To put into perspective the fact that a
21mm focal lens has correction in four different wavelengths or
colors means that this lens is capable of transmitting practically all
the information that light carries from the photographic subject to
the camera sensor. In short: It is probably the best 21mm lens ever
made by humanity.] ...Show more →
Thanks for the tip! I just downloaded the PDF and went straight to the Peter Karbe interview (p.60 in the English version). I always learn something whenever I read or listen to Peter Karbe interviews and this article is no exception. Very interesting so far.
"One last question, Peter: In the future, might we see a
135mm SL Apo-Elmarit? I mean, the Vario-Elmarit-SL 70-200mm f/
2,8 is sensational, but it’s a bit bulky and not exactly lightweight.
Wouldn’t an apochromatic 135mm telephoto be a great addition
to the SL lens catalog?
LBJ2 wrote:
Thanks for the tip! I just downloaded the PDF and went straight to the Peter Karbe interview (p.60 in the English version). I always learn something whenever I read or listen to Peter Karbe interviews and this article is no exception. Very interesting so far.
"One last question, Peter: In the future, might we see a
135mm SL Apo-Elmarit? I mean, the Vario-Elmarit-SL 70-200mm f/
2,8 is sensational, but it’s a bit bulky and not exactly lightweight.
Wouldn’t an apochromatic 135mm telephoto be a great addition
to the SL lens catalog?
Karbe: We’re already working on it." 🤩🥳
Do you think Peter could design a 135mm f/2 APO that outperforms the Zeiss? I'm curious if they could keep it the same size as the other SL lenses, though that might be a stretch.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Do you think Peter could design a 135mm f/2 APO that outperforms the Zeiss? I'm curious if they could keep it the same size as the other SL lenses, though that might be a stretch.
Good questions. Maybe we might learn more with time. This is the first "breaking news" so-to-speak, that I am aware about any new Leica SL APO prime lens.
Based upon what I see on-line/YouTube with the new Zeiss ML Otus 50, Leica's SL APO tech seems like they might have the upper-hand by some margin with regards to modern APO design and results. ** Albeit large price difference might have something to do with the different APO results between these two systems.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Do you think Peter could design a 135mm f/2 APO that outperforms the Zeiss? I'm curious if they could keep it the same size as the other SL lenses, though that might be a stretch.
Well Peter has said that the APO-SL line of lenses was designed with extra room so that all would use the same body. I am sure that Leica would like to stay consistent in this. Let's hope they can pull it off.
1bwana1 wrote:
Well Peter has said that the APO-SL line of lenses was designed with extra room so that all would use the same body. I am sure that Leica would like to stay consistent in this. Let's hope they can pull it off.
If it's optically feasible, it could end up being the smallest 135mm f/2 APO lens ever made. Telephoto lenses over 90mm tend to be on the longer side...unless Peter has found a clever way around that.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If it's optically feasible, it could end up being the smallest 135mm f/2 APO lens ever made. Telephoto lenses over 90mm tend to be on the longer side...unless Peter has found a clever way around that.
As Peter also pointed out in that article, he considers the 61mpx sensor in the SL3 to be a digital zoom due to maintaining high resolution even with meaningful cropping. In that view my 90mm APO-SL prime still provides a high resolution image of amazing quality at 135mm. Using that same logic with a 135mm APO-SL we end up with a lot of effective reach in a fast f/2.0 relatively compact lens. A very tempting offering.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Do you think Peter could design a 135mm f/2 APO that outperforms the Zeiss? I'm curious if they could keep it the same size as the other SL lenses, though that might be a stretch.
I wonder if it will outperform the superb APO-Elmarit-R f2.8/180?
