Demonstrating Lens "Signature".

[pagpow]

Thanks for doing this, Subhash. I, too, found it interesting. I love my Canon 50/1.4 but, in the pictures above with a detailed background, even before locating the source, i found the Leica more pleasing. When there is no out of focus back-ground, or the image ends in the mid-ground, as in the 1530 (address) pair, I'm not sure I notice much difference.

 

[Mrbessar4a]

I like a good lens as much as the next guy. But I REALLY love a good photograph...whether it was taken with a 50mm Summilux ASPH or the back end of a scotch bottle.

OTOH...I did buy into the Pentax digital system for the Limiteds so maybe I subconsciously do think too much about these things. That 70mm 2.4 has a special something and the 31mm 1.8 is divine.

 

[ferider]

Hi,
Just emailed you 2 pairs.
Subhash

Subhash, here are the histogram comparisons of the 4 photos that you sent me:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Lenses/Canon-5014-vs-Summilux-ASPH/19367454_3hvMqG

For example:

IMO, we can not say that the Summilux has higher contrast than the Canon. Differences are minimal and more complex than that.

BTW, what's the serial on your Canon lens ?

Best,

Roland.

 

[srtiwari]

Thanks for the effort and feedback, Roland.
The histograms do look very similar.
The canon 50/1.4 is serial # 15475

Now, after all this, I don't think I know much more about differences in signature or character. The pictures don't look different enough (other than the OOF areas) and the histograms too are almost identical.

 

[ferider]

The Canon was built until the 70s. Yours is an early copy (late 50s?), it seems, kind of cool.

I think you might see 3 differences, subtle but there, Subhash:

- distortion (really noticable in your pictures)
- OOF
- resolution: I am confident you will see significant differences when "pixel-peeping" and comparing center vs. corner performance at different f-stops. This would be impossible to see in your web-posts, of course.

I'm not saying either of these three are important enough to justify the much higher costs of the ASPH. Just that they can be measured.

Roland.

 

[jan normandale]

FWIW the differences I see seem to be a little more saturation in the Canon and a little better resolving power to the lens. I don't detect any signifcant coma in these lenses based on the shots provided. Do these differences matter? I don't see enough difference to make someone capable of choosing one over the other unless doing a side by side image comparison like this one.

If you're a shooter and not worried about resale value... I'd purchase a Canon. If I was a shooter and wanted to be able to sell my lens sometime in the future for what I paid for it or more... Leica.

Thanks for the tests.. I enjoyed them