Demonstrating Lens "Signature".
- Thread starter srtiwari
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 45
- Views 316
Fixed the max aperture for the Summiluxes. I too voted Summilux ASPH vs Canon 1.4, though in honesty I've not used either lens... just going from what I remember seeing online.
srtiwari
Daktari
Thank you. I guess it is not a user editable part of the thread.
srtiwari
Daktari
OK, I'll start $7.00 for this lens:
This one's a bit more pricey - $45,000 ! (Lens only - The truck to carry it around is extra)
http://matadornetwork.com/goods/for-photographers-the-worlds-largest-lens/
srtiwari
Daktari
The highest number of votes were garnered by 3 lenses, and I chose the two with the most.
Canon RF 50mm F1.4 (LTM)
and
Leica Summilux Asph 50mm F1.4
Here are the results of a "quick and dirty" test this morning, comparing the two around my condo complex. Taken at various apertures and shutter speeds with an M9, the settings were identical for each pair of images (Manual, not AE).
Tiny bit of post processing applied, mainly sharpening. Doing this in Lightroom 3 with "Auto-Sync" ensures identical alteration of each of the two comparable images.
The Canon images have a small watermark at the left bottom corner.
1. Generally the Canon performed as well as the Leica.
2. Minor differences in sharpness, in the 100%crops, likely from inaccurate focusing.
3. The dizzying bokeh from the Canon (at F1.4) was a surprise.
4. No significant color differences noted.
5. The Summilux costs 8 times as much as the Canon. Is it that much better ?
I'm not sure what kinds of photos might have better brought out the "character" of the leses, but do let me know, as I can always run more tests !
Canon RF 50mm F1.4 (LTM)
and
Leica Summilux Asph 50mm F1.4
Here are the results of a "quick and dirty" test this morning, comparing the two around my condo complex. Taken at various apertures and shutter speeds with an M9, the settings were identical for each pair of images (Manual, not AE).
Tiny bit of post processing applied, mainly sharpening. Doing this in Lightroom 3 with "Auto-Sync" ensures identical alteration of each of the two comparable images.
The Canon images have a small watermark at the left bottom corner.
1. Generally the Canon performed as well as the Leica.
2. Minor differences in sharpness, in the 100%crops, likely from inaccurate focusing.
3. The dizzying bokeh from the Canon (at F1.4) was a surprise.
4. No significant color differences noted.
5. The Summilux costs 8 times as much as the Canon. Is it that much better ?
I'm not sure what kinds of photos might have better brought out the "character" of the leses, but do let me know, as I can always run more tests !
dave lackey
Veteran
Hey, thanks for all the work!🙂
IMO, the Lux bokeh is smoother and of a bit better quality than the Canon lens images. Quite noticeable to me and fits into my mind what I want from a lens. Price? It is what it is. Comparing the prices means nothing to me. And this is from a photographer who is completely broke!😛 Seriously, I much prefer the Lux images over the Canon and the price is immaterial.
Good images for comparison, too!😎
IMO, the Lux bokeh is smoother and of a bit better quality than the Canon lens images. Quite noticeable to me and fits into my mind what I want from a lens. Price? It is what it is. Comparing the prices means nothing to me. And this is from a photographer who is completely broke!😛 Seriously, I much prefer the Lux images over the Canon and the price is immaterial.
Good images for comparison, too!😎
Sonnar Brian
Established
As expected- the Canon 50/1.4 shows some over-correction for spherical aberration, and the Leica uses aspheric optics.
A comparison between the Leica and a Modern Sonnar would be interesting. The new lens recreates much of the signature of the 1940's Sonnar T.
A comparison between the Leica and a Modern Sonnar would be interesting. The new lens recreates much of the signature of the 1940's Sonnar T.
srtiwari
Daktari
Could you show me what you are referring to, please ?
Do you mean the Summilux Asph creates the signature of the 1940s Sonnar ?
Brian Legge
Veteran
Interesting comparisons. The differences are subtle but I definitely prefer the Summilux as well. Given the price difference though... either lens works. 😉
I guess my personal preference is for low contrast lenses that don't have much swirling and have smooth bokeh.
I guess my personal preference is for low contrast lenses that don't have much swirling and have smooth bokeh.
back alley
IMAGES
i'm confused...
you say that you prefer the summilux AND that you prefer low contrast lenses.
the canon lens seems much lower in contrast to me.
Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 7:38 PM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,745
My initial impression is that Leica and Canon produce remarkably similar images (at least on the monitor of my laptop). I doubt most people (especially non-equipment freaks) could tell them apart.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Yes. I like the lower contrast of the Canon but smoothness and lack of swirl of the Summilux. I find swirly backgrounds and donut like bokeh much more distracting than it really ought to be.
The Canon isn't too bad in that respect in the photos above but the Summilux is definitely better to my eye in that particular area.
I was more amused at the realization I like older lenses for their lower contrast but more modern lenses for the better correction. I'm not sure what that would make my ideal lens. But it does mean I can probably find something I really like in most lenses. 😉
srtiwari
Daktari
I agree with you. Aside from the obvious difference in Bokeh, the images look very similar...
I agree with the comments praising the OOF of the Summilux. But the Summilux shot in each pairing looks to me got more exposure; they're lighter overall than the Canon shots, both in the highlights and the shadows. Anyone else see the same?
ferider
Veteran
The last picture shows that the Canon has more distortion (left and right columns are slightly bent); also, it is slightly over-corrected, leading to busier bokeh. Note that the pre-asph Summilux distorts just as much, and is also busier than the Summilux ASPH.
Don't find much difference in contrast - whatever is observed here could be entirely due to different exposure (different transmission, etc).
Anyways, quite similar output given that the Canon lens was first released in 1957, wouldn't you think ? 🙂
Thanks for the comparison, Subhash.
Roland.
Don't find much difference in contrast - whatever is observed here could be entirely due to different exposure (different transmission, etc).
Anyways, quite similar output given that the Canon lens was first released in 1957, wouldn't you think ? 🙂
Thanks for the comparison, Subhash.
Roland.
Last edited:
srtiwari
Daktari
I see it, now that you mention it. The exposures were manually identical. So what does it mean ?
It was fun, Roland.
I plan to tackle 35mm glass next. I'll skip the poll, with its debatable validity, and just stick to their reputed characters, in picking the lenses.
ferider
Veteran
Would be interesting to see histograms generated by both lenses, Subhash. Then we can say more. If it's just a shift, it means the ASPH has more transmission.
Roland.
srtiwari
Daktari
Just took a quick look-
In some pairs of images doing an A B comparison, there is some change in the peaks of the RGB Histogram, BUT it is only in some image pairs. Most appear identical, and the change does not involve any shift of the whole histogram, just the relative heights of the peaks (Color shifts ?)
Would be happy to post the pairs, but don't know how to extract Histogram images out of Lightroom 3 !
Subhash
ferider
Veteran
I have a script somewhere, if you want to send me two jpgs, I can do the comparison, if you like ....
srtiwari
Daktari
Similar threads
