RustyBug
Online
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Hasselblad X2D vs. Leica SL3...looking for thoughts and opinions....oh Gordon? | |
flash wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
flash wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
Jaree wrote:
With the SL system, there is no option of a small prime today…
TNCasual wrote:
Sigma makes many great Lmount lenses. The Contemporary lenses are compact and high quality.
There is no option of a small Leica SL APO prime with Autofocus.
There is the option of numerous small M mount primes.
There is the option of the smaller (than Leica SL APO) Panny f/1.8 primes.
In the end, there is "no free lunch" when it comes to optical excellence. There's always a price to be paid (size, weight, $$$, vignetting, distortion, CA, build, etc.) in some form or another.
Choose your poison(s) kinda thing. 
---------------------------------------------
Jaree wrote:
>There is no option of a small Leica SL APO prime with Autofocus.
Correct. IMO, SL APOs are the reason to buy into the SL system.
While I agree with the above..... The Sigma DGDN primes are epic. They punch wildly above their weight class. IMHO there's basically 5% of the time where the APO makes a noticeable difference. I have 4 SL APOs and 3 Sigma f2 primes.
The Sigmas really surprised me, in a good way.
Gordon
It's been a while back (a few years) ... but, I wrote something to the effect that today's Sigma isn't your grandpa's (or your own former) Sigma.
That, and that it looked like they had learned how to take a page or two from Leica's playbook ... as a byproduct of the L Alliance.
That's not to say they are fully APO or have a duplicate Leica drawing style, but there seemed to be certain aspects where you could tell they stepped up their game in a way that reduced the gap (optically) from their former days.
Size of glass ... thinking everything from Nok / Lux > Elmarit, vs Art > Contemporary has its inherent challenges / limitation, but I'd agree that the Contemporary lineup from Sigma is viable where size is a desired attribute.
When I consider that the Leica 35 SL (non-APO) is essentially the Panny 35/1.8 (optically), the size of glass diff in the SL 35 APO vs. SL 35 gives a relative difference in the optics vs. size game. The Contemporary Siggy 35/2 is a smidge slimmer than the SL 35 (non-APO), a smidge heavier.
Looking at the advertised MTF's for the Panny 35/1.8 vs. Sigma 35/2 ... they are quite similar (single data points), with central 30 lp/mm starting around mid 80's and working toward 50-ish in the corners. The optical construction ... while not an exact clone, you can see the similarities in design approach, there too.
My crude take on this is that the level of performance you get out of the non-APO options SL 35/2, Panny 35/1.8, Sigma Contemporary 35/2 are all on par with each other ... and that essentially gets you excellent 30 lp/mm performance levels, with falloff.
Meanwhile, the SL 35/2 APO ASPH starts off around 90-ish wide open at 40 lp/mm, and stays tight as a drum, never dropping below 70, mostly staying around upper 70-80-ish throughout at 40 lp/mm. The Hassy glass is in league with the SL APO (diff shape, but same league).
But, if you mount up excellent M lenses to get the more compact form factor ... guess what, they also are not able to achieve the same levels of performance that the SL APO and Hassy glass can. The M's size keeps them in similar territory of dang good, but not Hassy / SL APO top shelf, i.e. they can't replace the SL APO performance, either.
So, yeah ... size matters.
Just have to have realistic expectations out of the "more glass = more light" and "more glass = more accurate light" and what it does for placing photons on the film plane.
If you want that 40 lp/mm level of performance, then its either the SL APO or the Hassy (well, maybe that ginormous, honkin' Art series is an option, too). Either way ... there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to optical performance vs. amount of glass.
Where folks draw the line / balance of size / weight / $$$ vs. performance / drawing style, etc. ... highly subjective.
So, to the point of Siggy contemporary being an option ... it is for many, many folks and their needs.
In the Hassy vs. SL APO discussion ... the Contemporary Siggy's are likely a step back, in league with the SL 35 / Panny 35 / 1.8 / Contemporary 35/2 being the AF counterparts to smaller Elmarits vs. Summicron vs. Summilux in the M world. Each successive increase in glass bumps the performance potential. Very good, nice and bang / size is pretty sweet.
But, an Elmarit can't achieve the same levels as its larger M lens brothers (equally well made). Here, the Siggy / Panny can't achieve the same as the SL APO or Hassy. Kinda simple in concept ... more glass = more / better light. How much does a person require / desire ... again, highly subjective to their needs / wants in the size / weight / $$$ vs. performance realm paradigm.
Yeah, today's Sigma ain't your grandpa's Sigma. But, it isn't Hassy / SL APO, either.
How high do you set your bar ... everyone makes that call for themselves. But, I just can't expect "small glass" to perform on par with "big glass". Imo, that's a bit delusional ... regardless of who is making it. For many, the smaller counterparts are indeed very good and/or plenty good enough. Just acknowledge that they'll never be equal ... and yet, I still mount up my little 40 Cron that's been around for over 50 years.
For me, when I want the size reduction ... I mount up my M's, and accept that even the best M's can only be "so good", and won't be SL APO or Hassy comparable ... i.e. size matters. If I want to "level up" my optical performance ... then, the size of my glass has to go "up", too.
My crude perspective is that Leica has structured the Alliance, such that they make the "reference" SL APO's ... and then they give Panny / Siggy a little "shared knowledge" to let them fill in the next tier of "smaller" good stuff, so Leica doesn't have to mfr that tier in their lineup. Basically, outsourcing the SL "Elmarit" level options, instead of making it themselves as a Leica offering, leaving that bone (by Alliance intentional design) for Panny / Siggy.
That said ... if ya got it, shoot it. 
Again, all true and I agree, mostly. The SL APO's are the best set of matched lenses ever made for stills. OTOH true APO lenses have their own *look* and it's not to everyone's taste.
Sometimes I find the fall off of the APO Summicrons *harsh*. They're so brutally sharp that it's possible the transition is too quick and somewhat aggressive. The SL APO 50 is sharper than the M version. I prefer the M's transitions sometimes. There are many who'd take a SL Summilux over an APO every day. The sharper lens isn't always the better lens.
When I directly compare the 55V to the 50 SL APO, non APO or Sigma DGDN, I think the X2D lens looks closer to the SIgma than the others. It's just that the *system* always out resolves the Leica, regardless of the lens you use on the SL3. If I were to crop the X2D to 61MP then it's pretty clear that the SL APO50 has more resolving power. But it's not possible to ignore the extra resolving power/DR/colour depth of the larger sensor. So yes, the X2D wins in that respect.
I've said many times my absolute favourite combination is the X2D with the 55V. Absolutely glorious. My desert island kit. Now the V lenses aren't perfect. The 65 is sharper in the corners and has less vignetting. Which is why I like the 55V so much. I think it's better balanced. The fall off is sublime. I don't mind a bit of vignetting in general photography and it improves a lot stopped down. It's a sensational all rounder. When I point it at the stuff I point it at it makes pretty files. The 38 is the same.
So generally, when I put a prime on my SL3 it's a Sigma. That's the glass that's giving me the closest look to the 55V. I generally prefer them over the APO's, for day to day photography. I keep the APO's around for a specific set of circumstances. Like carefully composed, tripod based landscapes or milky way shooting. But I really don't enjoy pointing them at people, for example. If you want more blur and weather sealing the Art lenses draw the same way but with more weight.
The Sigmas are noticeably sharper than the non APO Leicas or the Panasonics. I wish they had weather sealing like the Leicas. though.
Personally a perfectly sharp lens will never be the be all and end all of optics, for me. Others need different things from a system than I do. Some love that ultimate sharpness all the time.
Anyone who doesn't have one of the DGDN primes needs to get one (except the 45 which is deliberately a character lens). Not many lenses are better balanced between sharpness and fall off than these gems.
Don't get me wrong. I love the APO's. I think they're the reason to get into the L mount as a stills shooter, along with the UI and build quality. The thing is, we do get options in the L mount and it's just great fun to explore them. I'm not giving up my APO's or my Sigmas.
Gordon
+1 ... resolving capability is not the end all aspect of lens choices.
Just meaning that for those wishing for smaller lenses than the Leica APO's ... the others are still very good, but won't be able to match them head to head in all regards. That's the price that comes along for the ride ... both up / down the size / performance paradigm.
|
) discussing the ethos of lens design regarding zone transitions by Leica. It nicely described how the "sharper" thing wasn't the end all, be all, but the relationships of the zones was significant, too ... et al. Imo, THAT was the nuance of optical understanding, that made Leica, Leica and gave the "Leica Look".