Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
p.1368 #1Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
^^Love it, Allen.
Here is one from 35mm Summaron f3.5 year 1955. (35lux Pre-ASPH open a window for me)
Here is one from 35mm Summaron f3.5 year 1955. (35lux Pre-ASPH open a window for me)
Oct 17, 2016 at 02:56 PM
p.1368 #3Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
I just found out that LightRoom has Lomo profiles! And so ran a couple of my Minitar 32mm 2.8 shots through the profile. Camera is a Leica M240
A before and after:
And here is the lens on the camera:
I find the size of this lens a relief after using the ZM 35 1.4...
A before and after:
And here is the lens on the camera:
I find the size of this lens a relief after using the ZM 35 1.4...
Oct 18, 2016 at 09:11 AM
p.1368 #4Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Edward, guys sleeping on plane, classic 
Joakim, Round mirror shot excellent
Allan, superb stair shot
Demo, love that little lens!
Nice stuff, everyone
I was back at my favorite bridge with the ZM18:
Iron Autumn by unoh7, f/8
View Downstream by unoh7, 5.6
Rusty Ways by unoh7, f/4
Joakim, Round mirror shot excellent
Allan, superb stair shot
Demo, love that little lens!
Nice stuff, everyone
I was back at my favorite bridge with the ZM18:
Iron Autumn by unoh7, f/8
View Downstream by unoh7, 5.6
Rusty Ways by unoh7, f/4
Oct 18, 2016 at 10:50 AM
p.1368 #5Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Autumn overload. S-006 and 70 Summarit
Oct 18, 2016 at 12:01 PM
p.1368 #6Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Hi guys great shots..
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
Oct 18, 2016 at 12:45 PM
p.1368 #7Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
adamdewilde wrote:
Hi guys great shots..
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
Adam, thanks for the reviews. Very helpful. I can see it is a job in hurry but I have to say I still can get a lot from what I see here.
I think if CA performance is true,(means no correction baked in DNG) it is quite respectful, it is better than 90-APO_m and better than most 50mm prime lens save for a few real APO design.
Distortion is insane IMHO without correction, I don't remember have seen any 50mm lens behave this bad other than some zoom at this focal. I will not judge sharpness at this time and will not even take your word for it since yours is only copy show up so far. From early samples I saw in LUF thread, I know it is great in center and good enough for the lens intend to be used. It is not a big concern for me. but say it is not sharp in corner till f5.6 sounds scary. I am sure it must be better.
Now, Rendering, This is big to me. The out of focus rendering instantly remind me one lens: Zeiss 35mm ZM distagon f1.4. I am not a fan of that lens personally. (There are many people like it for all different reason.Sorry Edward, Gary, Jako and Philip, Opinion, opinion only) TBH, I feel most modern BEST lenses with good correction fall into this kind of rendering. The few exceptions I have seen so far are: RX1, 85mm GM, Nikon 105f1.4. (of course a few S glass and 50APO and I will add OTUS here as well)
For SL, there may not be a better option. But optically, I see this lens will facing strong competition from a few AF lens introduced in past few years. Name a few: sigma Art, Zony 50mm ZA, 55mm Sonnar etc..
I don't see it in the OTUS league, at least not so far but it is a AF.
At least an image
35mm Summaron f3.5
Hi guys great shots..
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
Adam, thanks for the reviews. Very helpful. I can see it is a job in hurry but I have to say I still can get a lot from what I see here.
I think if CA performance is true,(means no correction baked in DNG) it is quite respectful, it is better than 90-APO_m and better than most 50mm prime lens save for a few real APO design.
Distortion is insane IMHO without correction, I don't remember have seen any 50mm lens behave this bad other than some zoom at this focal. I will not judge sharpness at this time and will not even take your word for it since yours is only copy show up so far. From early samples I saw in LUF thread, I know it is great in center and good enough for the lens intend to be used. It is not a big concern for me. but say it is not sharp in corner till f5.6 sounds scary. I am sure it must be better.
Now, Rendering, This is big to me. The out of focus rendering instantly remind me one lens: Zeiss 35mm ZM distagon f1.4. I am not a fan of that lens personally. (There are many people like it for all different reason.Sorry Edward, Gary, Jako and Philip, Opinion, opinion only
) TBH, I feel most modern BEST lenses with good correction fall into this kind of rendering. The few exceptions I have seen so far are: RX1, 85mm GM, Nikon 105f1.4. (of course a few S glass and 50APO and I will add OTUS here as well)For SL, there may not be a better option. But optically, I see this lens will facing strong competition from a few AF lens introduced in past few years. Name a few: sigma Art, Zony 50mm ZA, 55mm Sonnar etc..
I don't see it in the OTUS league, at least not so far but it is a AF.
At least an image
35mm Summaron f3.5
Oct 18, 2016 at 02:14 PM
p.1368 #8Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
adamdewilde wrote:
Hi guys great shots..
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
1/ quite stunned that lens has so much distortion. wow. If I wanted my camera's software to take care of lens issues, I'd just use my phone...
b/ dammit now I have your site as another distraction from what I should be doing!
Hi guys great shots..
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
1/ quite stunned that lens has so much distortion. wow. If I wanted my camera's software to take care of lens issues, I'd just use my phone...
b/ dammit now I have your site as another distraction from what I should be doing!
Oct 18, 2016 at 03:29 PM
p.1368 #9Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
A shot from the New York public library with M240+35cron
NY Public Library
NY Public Library
Oct 18, 2016 at 04:37 PM
p.1368 #10Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
adamdewilde wrote:
Hi guys great shots..
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
Hi Adam, thanks for this, very interesting!
The lens seems very clean/modern to me, more along the look of S lenses (though I don't have a lot of experience with these - can only go by what you guys post). I can see what Michael is getting at with the similarities to the ZM35D, at least at nearer distances. The 50 seems somewhat better with background separation at farther distances. What I'm not seeing is the 'warmth' of a lot of M Lux and Cron lenses shot wide open. You know, the 'Leica glow' - that mix of residual SA with just the right amount of sharpness without too much edge. Maybe it's a consequence of it being a 'reference lens' probably designed for future 100MP sensors. Though yeah, the distortion is somewhat surprising in that respect, but considering the 24-90 and Q, not entirely...
The flare characteristics also aren't that surprising. This seems to be one area where Leica is perhaps not quite so great. 28 Lux flare handling is not as good as I would like (though also not typically that problematic). Same with 50 Lux ASPH, 90AA, 90ME...
Bottom line for me is the 50SL's look is a bit generic IMO.
Maybe I should start looking for a 50AA.
Hi guys great shots..
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
Hi Adam, thanks for this, very interesting!
The lens seems very clean/modern to me, more along the look of S lenses (though I don't have a lot of experience with these - can only go by what you guys post). I can see what Michael is getting at with the similarities to the ZM35D, at least at nearer distances. The 50 seems somewhat better with background separation at farther distances. What I'm not seeing is the 'warmth' of a lot of M Lux and Cron lenses shot wide open. You know, the 'Leica glow' - that mix of residual SA with just the right amount of sharpness without too much edge. Maybe it's a consequence of it being a 'reference lens' probably designed for future 100MP sensors. Though yeah, the distortion is somewhat surprising in that respect, but considering the 24-90 and Q, not entirely...
The flare characteristics also aren't that surprising. This seems to be one area where Leica is perhaps not quite so great. 28 Lux flare handling is not as good as I would like (though also not typically that problematic). Same with 50 Lux ASPH, 90AA, 90ME...
Bottom line for me is the 50SL's look is a bit generic IMO.
Maybe I should start looking for a 50AA.
Oct 18, 2016 at 06:19 PM
|
p.1368 #11Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
M240
Untitled by jorge garcia, on Flickr
Untitled by jorge garcia, on FlickrOct 18, 2016 at 08:33 PM
p.1368 #13Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
M4-2, 40mm Summicron, Fuji Pro 160
Oct 18, 2016 at 09:28 PM
p.1368 #14Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
rscheffler wrote:
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/Hi Adam, thanks for this, very interesting!
The lens seems very clean/modern to me, more along the look of S lenses (though I don't have a lot of experience with these - can only go by what you guys post). I can see what Michael is getting at with the similarities to the ZM35D, at least at nearer distances. The 50 seems somewhat better with background separation at farther distances. What I'm not seeing is the 'warmth' of a lot of M Lux and Cron lenses shot wide open. You know, the 'Leica glow' - that mix of residual SA with...Show more →
Exactly! And yeah the 28LuxM vs 50SL flare point is spot on.. Nothing problematic but it's there. Though I feel the 50Lux-asph-M has terrible looking flare. Whereas the newer lenses seem to have a nicer smoother look.
Yeah I sold my spare 50AA for cheap, should have just kept it along with one color M for ease of use!
And I'm a bit sad that the 50SL looks generic. A point I also agree with.
adamdewilde wrote
Hi guys great shots..I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
The lens seems very clean/modern to me, more along the look of S lenses (though I don't have a lot of experience with these - can only go by what you guys post). I can see what Michael is getting at with the similarities to the ZM35D, at least at nearer distances. The 50 seems somewhat better with background separation at farther distances. What I'm not seeing is the 'warmth' of a lot of M Lux and Cron lenses shot wide open. You know, the 'Leica glow' - that mix of residual SA with...Show more →
Exactly! And yeah the 28LuxM vs 50SL flare point is spot on.. Nothing problematic but it's there. Though I feel the 50Lux-asph-M has terrible looking flare. Whereas the newer lenses seem to have a nicer smoother look.
Yeah I sold my spare 50AA for cheap, should have just kept it along with one color M for ease of use!
And I'm a bit sad that the 50SL looks generic. A point I also agree with.
Oct 18, 2016 at 09:55 PM
p.1368 #15Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Desmolicious wrote:
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/1/ quite stunned that lens has so much distortion. wow. If I wanted my camera's software to take care of lens issues, I'd just use my phone...
b/ dammit now I have your site as another distraction from what I should be doing!
Hahah... No worries there. I rarely update the site. I've shot everything from Leica and I think I have like 5 or 6 "reviews" up. So you're fine!
adamdewilde wrote
Hi guys great shots..I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
b/ dammit now I have your site as another distraction from what I should be doing!
Hahah... No worries there. I rarely update the site. I've shot everything from Leica and I think I have like 5 or 6 "reviews" up. So you're fine!
Oct 18, 2016 at 09:56 PM
p.1368 #16Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
zhangyue wrote:
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/Adam, thanks for the reviews. Very helpful. I can see it is a job in hurry but I have to say I still can get a lot from what I see here.
I think if CA performance is true,(means no correction baked in DNG) it is quite respectful, it is better than 90-APO_m and better than most 50mm prime lens save for a few real APO design.
Distortion is insane IMHO without correction, I don't remember have seen any 50mm lens behave this bad other than some zoom at this focal. I will not judge sharpness at this...Show more →
Agree with all of the above!
And also we need to remember something. 35mm lenses are a lot harder to get to look "right" then 50mm lenses. I would have cut this lens a bit more slack if it were a 35lux.
Also that Summaron shot you just posted.. I don't know if it's the light or the lens, but it has a really true to life look. Your sons face looks very clean and real almost 3D.
adamdewilde wrote
Hi guys great shots..I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
I think if CA performance is true,(means no correction baked in DNG) it is quite respectful, it is better than 90-APO_m and better than most 50mm prime lens save for a few real APO design.
Distortion is insane IMHO without correction, I don't remember have seen any 50mm lens behave this bad other than some zoom at this focal. I will not judge sharpness at this...Show more →
Agree with all of the above!
And also we need to remember something. 35mm lenses are a lot harder to get to look "right" then 50mm lenses. I would have cut this lens a bit more slack if it were a 35lux.
Also that Summaron shot you just posted.. I don't know if it's the light or the lens, but it has a really true to life look. Your sons face looks very clean and real almost 3D.
Oct 18, 2016 at 09:59 PM
p.1368 #17Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
My extremely super scientific LOMO vs Zeiss test.
LOMO Minitar 32 2.8 Art lens vs Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4
First off, the view through the VF with lens attached:
LOMO:
Zeiss:
Both shot at 2.8, 1/60, ISO 1000
In LR -same colour balance 2800 -4, both profiled to their LR settings.
Big crop from center of the image:
LOMO:
Zeiss:
The LOMO sharpens up dramatically as it is stopped down. But as this is an extremely super scientific test I have not shown that as I have just been informed that dinner is ready.
As for physical size of the lens, all you need to know is that the entire LOMO lens is smaller than the lens mount cap of the Zeiss.
And that it is $349 vs $2290 for the Zeiss.
Peace out Komrads.
LOMO Minitar 32 2.8 Art lens vs Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4
First off, the view through the VF with lens attached:
LOMO:
Zeiss:
Both shot at 2.8, 1/60, ISO 1000
In LR -same colour balance 2800 -4, both profiled to their LR settings.
Big crop from center of the image:
LOMO:
Zeiss:
The LOMO sharpens up dramatically as it is stopped down. But as this is an extremely super scientific test I have not shown that as I have just been informed that dinner is ready.
As for physical size of the lens, all you need to know is that the entire LOMO lens is smaller than the lens mount cap of the Zeiss.
And that it is $349 vs $2290 for the Zeiss.
Peace out Komrads.
Oct 18, 2016 at 10:30 PM
p.1368 #18Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
rscheffler wrote:
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/Hi Adam, thanks for this, very interesting!
The lens seems very clean/modern to me, more along the look of S lenses (though I don't have a lot of experience with these - can only go by what you guys post). I can see what Michael is getting at with the similarities to the ZM35D, at least at nearer distances. The 50 seems somewhat better with background separation at farther distances. What I'm not seeing is the 'warmth' of a lot of M Lux and Cron lenses shot wide open. You know, the 'Leica glow' - that mix of residual SA with...Show more →
I agree with Flare of Leica lens. 50lux ASPH is pretty bad at certain angle with big hard edge circle. In term of rendering, actually S will be a lot smoother than this one but they are all at much slower speed. I also feel 50APO is looking really good and 70 Summarit S almost match its look minus APO and huge size. 35 Summarit S is one of smoothest bokeh WA lens I ever seen and used. 100cron S is too clean to my taste but I won't say the Bokeh is not looking good.
I recently acquire 35mm Summilux M pre-ASPH, it has very interesting Bokeh, and vary a lot over distance, aperture; quite a fun lens. My eye get clouded by its lovely handling, so basically I love it even it can get jittery sometime and a lot busier than Distagon I mentioned here. so I perfectly understand this thing is subjective.
The little 35mm revoke my interesting on vintage leica, I mistakenly sold rigid and 35cron V1. for $300, I scored a little 35 summaron, men do I love it. again it helps me correct my habit shoot everything at f1.4 or f11, so I get a little bit more DOF. It will teach me new things, new way of looking.
---------------------------------------------
adamdewilde wrote:
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/Adam, thanks for the reviews. Very helpful. I can see it is a job in hurry but I have to say I still can get a lot from what I see here.
I think if CA performance is true,(means no correction baked in DNG) it is quite respectful, it is better than 90-APO_m and better than most 50mm prime lens save for a few real APO design.
Distortion is insane IMHO without correction, I don't remember have seen any 50mm lens behave this bad other than some zoom at this focal. I will not judge sharpness at this time and will not even take your word for it since yours is only copy show up so far. From early samples I saw in LUF thread, I know it is great in center and good enough for the lens intend to be used. It is not a big concern for me. but say it is not sharp in corner till f5.6 sounds scary. I am sure it must be better.
Now, Rendering, This is big to me. The out of focus rendering instantly remind me one lens: Zeiss 35mm ZM distagon f1.4. I am not a fan of that lens personally. (There are many people like it for all different reason.Sorry Edward, Gary, Jako and Philip, Opinion, opinion only) TBH, I feel most modern BEST lenses with good correction fall into this kind of rendering. The few exceptions I have seen so far are: RX1, 85mm GM, Nikon 105f1.4. (of course a few S glass and 50APO and I will add OTUS here as well)
For SL, there may not be a better option. But optically, I see this lens will facing strong competition from a few AF lens introduced in past few years. Name a few: sigma Art, Zony 50mm ZA, 55mm Sonnar etc..
I don't see it in the OTUS league, at least not so far but it is a AF.
At least an image
35mm Summaron f3.5Agree with all of the above!
And also we need to remember something. 35mm lenses are a lot harder to get to look "right" then 50mm lenses. I would have cut this lens a bit more slack if it were a 35lux.
Also that Summaron shot you just posted.. I don't know if it's the light or the lens, but it has a really true to life look. Your sons face looks very clean and real almost 3D.
Adam, thanks for the comment. maybe it is the light or a aperture f3.5 I seldom use
I think this lens 50sl build up so much expectation before, Karbe himself claim its new standard. (but those distortion
?)but world has changed in last few years. the lens map totally changed, the bar is really high now. That is why I always feel Leica should really focused with M and maybe niche S. I am not agreeing their strategy. I guess its not my business. I will look for buying back a few old gem, this thing really no need for perfection. Sadly, every manufacture have to chase those perfection now to survive, better, bigger, maybe cheaper......
all 35lux
adamdewilde wrote
Hi guys great shots..I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
The lens seems very clean/modern to me, more along the look of S lenses (though I don't have a lot of experience with these - can only go by what you guys post). I can see what Michael is getting at with the similarities to the ZM35D, at least at nearer distances. The 50 seems somewhat better with background separation at farther distances. What I'm not seeing is the 'warmth' of a lot of M Lux and Cron lenses shot wide open. You know, the 'Leica glow' - that mix of residual SA with...Show more →
I agree with Flare of Leica lens. 50lux ASPH is pretty bad at certain angle with big hard edge circle. In term of rendering, actually S will be a lot smoother than this one but they are all at much slower speed. I also feel 50APO is looking really good and 70 Summarit S almost match its look minus APO and huge size. 35 Summarit S is one of smoothest bokeh WA lens I ever seen and used. 100cron S is too clean to my taste but I won't say the Bokeh is not looking good.
I recently acquire 35mm Summilux M pre-ASPH, it has very interesting Bokeh, and vary a lot over distance, aperture; quite a fun lens. My eye get clouded by its lovely handling, so basically I love it even it can get jittery sometime and a lot busier than Distagon I mentioned here. so I perfectly understand this thing is subjective.
The little 35mm revoke my interesting on vintage leica, I mistakenly sold rigid and 35cron V1. for $300, I scored a little 35 summaron, men do I love it. again it helps me correct my habit shoot everything at f1.4 or f11, so I get a little bit more DOF. It will teach me new things, new way of looking.
---------------------------------------------
adamdewilde wrote:
zhangyue wrote
adamdewilde wrote
Hi guys great shots..I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
I think if CA performance is true,(means no correction baked in DNG) it is quite respectful, it is better than 90-APO_m and better than most 50mm prime lens save for a few real APO design.
Distortion is insane IMHO without correction, I don't remember have seen any 50mm lens behave this bad other than some zoom at this focal. I will not judge sharpness at this time and will not even take your word for it since yours is only copy show up so far. From early samples I saw in LUF thread, I know it is great in center and good enough for the lens intend to be used. It is not a big concern for me. but say it is not sharp in corner till f5.6 sounds scary. I am sure it must be better.
Now, Rendering, This is big to me. The out of focus rendering instantly remind me one lens: Zeiss 35mm ZM distagon f1.4. I am not a fan of that lens personally. (There are many people like it for all different reason.Sorry Edward, Gary, Jako and Philip, Opinion, opinion only
) TBH, I feel most modern BEST lenses with good correction fall into this kind of rendering. The few exceptions I have seen so far are: RX1, 85mm GM, Nikon 105f1.4. (of course a few S glass and 50APO and I will add OTUS here as well)For SL, there may not be a better option. But optically, I see this lens will facing strong competition from a few AF lens introduced in past few years. Name a few: sigma Art, Zony 50mm ZA, 55mm Sonnar etc..
I don't see it in the OTUS league, at least not so far but it is a AF.
At least an image
35mm Summaron f3.5
And also we need to remember something. 35mm lenses are a lot harder to get to look "right" then 50mm lenses. I would have cut this lens a bit more slack if it were a 35lux.
Also that Summaron shot you just posted.. I don't know if it's the light or the lens, but it has a really true to life look. Your sons face looks very clean and real almost 3D.
Adam, thanks for the comment. maybe it is the light or a aperture f3.5 I seldom use
I think this lens 50sl build up so much expectation before, Karbe himself claim its new standard. (but those distortion
?)but world has changed in last few years. the lens map totally changed, the bar is really high now. That is why I always feel Leica should really focused with M and maybe niche S. I am not agreeing their strategy. I guess its not my business. I will look for buying back a few old gem, this thing really no need for perfection. Sadly, every manufacture have to chase those perfection now to survive, better, bigger, maybe cheaper......all 35lux
Oct 18, 2016 at 10:56 PM
p.1368 #19Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Michael, 35 Lux pre-ASPH is definitely on my want list. Just haven't seen any available at 'reasonable' prices... Everything seems to be ~$1800+.
~4 years ago a Leica store rep was telling me very enthusiastically about the 35 Summaron lenses and how I should try one, but I ignored it because I had the ZM 35/2.8 and figured one slow 35 was enough already... I've recently sold that lens and maybe it's time to revisit the Summarons. I definitely like its smoothness in the photo of your son. There's something about the older lenses that render this way at wider apertures. Not so much micro contrast and find detail perhaps, but enough structure and pleasing rendering...
Desmolicious wrote:
My extremely super scientific LOMO vs Zeiss test.
LOMO Minitar 32 2.8 Art lens vs Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4
The LOMO sharpens up dramatically as it is stopped down. But as this is an extremely super scientific test I have not shown that as I have just been informed that dinner is ready.
As for physical size of the lens, all you need to know is that the entire LOMO lens is smaller than the lens mount cap of the Zeiss.
And that it is $349 vs $2290 for the Zeiss.
Peace out Komrads.
It's also about 15% the price of the new Leica 28/5.6 based on a post by Leica Rumors which indicates the lens is now available for pre-order from the Leica Store SF for $2500 US...
I would be interested in seeing how the Lomo fares at f/5.6 or f/8 with urban landscapes (i.e. brick walls, hedge rows, etc. ). Yeah, at f/2.8 the Zeiss appears to be much sharper.
Edited on Oct 18, 2016 at 11:39 PM · View previous versions
~4 years ago a Leica store rep was telling me very enthusiastically about the 35 Summaron lenses and how I should try one, but I ignored it because I had the ZM 35/2.8 and figured one slow 35 was enough already... I've recently sold that lens and maybe it's time to revisit the Summarons. I definitely like its smoothness in the photo of your son. There's something about the older lenses that render this way at wider apertures. Not so much micro contrast and find detail perhaps, but enough structure and pleasing rendering...
Desmolicious wrote:
My extremely super scientific LOMO vs Zeiss test.
LOMO Minitar 32 2.8 Art lens vs Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4
The LOMO sharpens up dramatically as it is stopped down. But as this is an extremely super scientific test I have not shown that as I have just been informed that dinner is ready.
As for physical size of the lens, all you need to know is that the entire LOMO lens is smaller than the lens mount cap of the Zeiss.
And that it is $349 vs $2290 for the Zeiss.
Peace out Komrads.
It's also about 15% the price of the new Leica 28/5.6 based on a post by Leica Rumors which indicates the lens is now available for pre-order from the Leica Store SF for $2500 US...
I would be interested in seeing how the Lomo fares at f/5.6 or f/8 with urban landscapes (i.e. brick walls, hedge rows, etc.
). Yeah, at f/2.8 the Zeiss appears to be much sharper. Edited on Oct 18, 2016 at 11:39 PM · View previous versions
Oct 18, 2016 at 11:32 PM
p.1368 #20Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
adamdewilde wrote:
Hi guys great shots..
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
With that degree of distortion, there is no way this can be a reference lens.
Hi guys great shots..
I don't have the time right now to write a proper review or anything.. But figured I'd share incase anyone was interested in the 50SL (though I don't think anyone on here is using the SL right now, good choice BTW, M is much better!)
http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/
With that degree of distortion, there is no way this can be a reference lens.
Oct 18, 2016 at 11:35 PM