edhohoho
Established
EDIT: Please scroll down to Post #8 to see the original photos with virtually no post-processing.
I always wanted to see a comparison between the Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH and Leica 50/1.4 Summilux pre-Asph shot given the whole issue about whether one is noticeably sharper than the other when wide open. Plenty of opinions but not many pictures to convince me. I also threw in the Canon RF 50/1.2 LTM because I really like this lens and wanted to see how a good example of this lens compares to the Leicas.
Unfortunately this is yet another unscientific, quick and dirty comparison; however, I think most people can probably see a difference from these pictures. Some caveats though:
1. No tripod was used (I don't own one); given that all shots were hand-held, please allow for some small degree of focus error
2. The pictures were taken on different days--similar office lighting but not exactly the same due to the amount of daylight coming in from the window (I didn't feel like carrying all three lenses at one time)
3. It was hard to find a willing subject, so unfortunately the backgrounds were not exactly the same in all 3 photos (thus not very useful for out of focus area comparisons)
4. Subject distances are about the same but not exact
***5. Photoshop was used to remove facial blemishes (because my office mates are very sensitive about their appearance). Yes, I know, big no-no especially when trying to compare sharpness and detail. But I think you can still see a difference between lenses. And yes, I will try to upload the original, unaltered files when I have more time. Otherwise, the files were never altered with additional noise reduction or unsharp mask, etc.***
***6. I am an amateur, not a professional lens tester. I only took up photography recently and don't know what I'm doing half the time. If you find this very rough comparison useful, great; if not, then so be it and move on--no need to get all worked up over something this insignificant.***
Okay, almost ready for pictures. Final details: all taken at largest aperture for each respective lens (f1.4 for the Leicas and f1.2 for the Canon); Epson R-D1 used at ISO 800 with conversion via Epson PhotoRAW to JPEG, then to PSD via Photoshop, then to TIFF via RentASoft Image Converter. (Sorry, my workflow is totally ghetto and needs major improvement. But hey, I was in a rush and the office computer does not have Photoshop.)
On to the pictures.
Leica 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH at f1.4:
Leica 50/1.4 Summilux Pre-ASPH Latest E46 Version at f1.4:
Canon RF 50/1.2 LTM at f1.2:
My own personal quick first impressions:
Leica 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH--This lens is extremely sharp. I spent considerably more time in Photoshop removing the facial blemishes this lens was able to capture. (But this is hard to tell until I post the original, unaltered files.) I personally wouldn't use it for portraits unless I was going for a certain look or photographing young children with really nice skin. It will probably be great in low light with inanimate objects, but that is for another day. It appears really contrasty and the combination of contrast and sharpness is probably what makes the subject "pop" more from the background, which still maintains a nice blur.
Leica 50/1.4 Summilux Pre-Asph E46--To me, this is not as sharp and critical as the ASPH, but because of this, I would use this for portraits. It's sharp enough for me for general use as well, and does not appear to be as contrastly as the ASPH. I really like the smooth, creamy rendition of the out of focus areas. And some of this smoothness is seen when not far from the image center as well. Perhaps I was a tad off on the focus, but to me the pre-asph picture does not seem as detailed or sharp as the Canon 50/1.2. There's something about that smooth look that I like though...could be especially useful for B&W and sepia work.
Canon RF 50/1.2 LTM--I really like the rendition of this lens too. Smooth and creamy out of focus areas. So far it appears sharp enough for me as well. As mentioned above, it may even be a tad sharper than the pre-asph, but I may have slightly front focused a bit in that picture. Perhaps this is a good "compromise" between the ultra sharp and contrasty ASPH versus the creamy, smooth pre-asph. Does not appear to be overly soft at f1.2 and seems to more than hold its own against the 50 pre-asph Summilux, which is "only" f1.4.
Last but not least, special thanks to Tony and Alex at Popflash for a smooth and courteous transaction, in addition to a great deal on the ASPH. And thanks again to KevinM for selling me a great example of the Canon 50/1.2.
Peace.
I always wanted to see a comparison between the Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH and Leica 50/1.4 Summilux pre-Asph shot given the whole issue about whether one is noticeably sharper than the other when wide open. Plenty of opinions but not many pictures to convince me. I also threw in the Canon RF 50/1.2 LTM because I really like this lens and wanted to see how a good example of this lens compares to the Leicas.
Unfortunately this is yet another unscientific, quick and dirty comparison; however, I think most people can probably see a difference from these pictures. Some caveats though:
1. No tripod was used (I don't own one); given that all shots were hand-held, please allow for some small degree of focus error
2. The pictures were taken on different days--similar office lighting but not exactly the same due to the amount of daylight coming in from the window (I didn't feel like carrying all three lenses at one time)
3. It was hard to find a willing subject, so unfortunately the backgrounds were not exactly the same in all 3 photos (thus not very useful for out of focus area comparisons)
4. Subject distances are about the same but not exact
***5. Photoshop was used to remove facial blemishes (because my office mates are very sensitive about their appearance). Yes, I know, big no-no especially when trying to compare sharpness and detail. But I think you can still see a difference between lenses. And yes, I will try to upload the original, unaltered files when I have more time. Otherwise, the files were never altered with additional noise reduction or unsharp mask, etc.***
***6. I am an amateur, not a professional lens tester. I only took up photography recently and don't know what I'm doing half the time. If you find this very rough comparison useful, great; if not, then so be it and move on--no need to get all worked up over something this insignificant.***
Okay, almost ready for pictures. Final details: all taken at largest aperture for each respective lens (f1.4 for the Leicas and f1.2 for the Canon); Epson R-D1 used at ISO 800 with conversion via Epson PhotoRAW to JPEG, then to PSD via Photoshop, then to TIFF via RentASoft Image Converter. (Sorry, my workflow is totally ghetto and needs major improvement. But hey, I was in a rush and the office computer does not have Photoshop.)
On to the pictures.
Leica 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH at f1.4:
Leica 50/1.4 Summilux Pre-ASPH Latest E46 Version at f1.4:
Canon RF 50/1.2 LTM at f1.2:
My own personal quick first impressions:
Leica 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH--This lens is extremely sharp. I spent considerably more time in Photoshop removing the facial blemishes this lens was able to capture. (But this is hard to tell until I post the original, unaltered files.) I personally wouldn't use it for portraits unless I was going for a certain look or photographing young children with really nice skin. It will probably be great in low light with inanimate objects, but that is for another day. It appears really contrasty and the combination of contrast and sharpness is probably what makes the subject "pop" more from the background, which still maintains a nice blur.
Leica 50/1.4 Summilux Pre-Asph E46--To me, this is not as sharp and critical as the ASPH, but because of this, I would use this for portraits. It's sharp enough for me for general use as well, and does not appear to be as contrastly as the ASPH. I really like the smooth, creamy rendition of the out of focus areas. And some of this smoothness is seen when not far from the image center as well. Perhaps I was a tad off on the focus, but to me the pre-asph picture does not seem as detailed or sharp as the Canon 50/1.2. There's something about that smooth look that I like though...could be especially useful for B&W and sepia work.
Canon RF 50/1.2 LTM--I really like the rendition of this lens too. Smooth and creamy out of focus areas. So far it appears sharp enough for me as well. As mentioned above, it may even be a tad sharper than the pre-asph, but I may have slightly front focused a bit in that picture. Perhaps this is a good "compromise" between the ultra sharp and contrasty ASPH versus the creamy, smooth pre-asph. Does not appear to be overly soft at f1.2 and seems to more than hold its own against the 50 pre-asph Summilux, which is "only" f1.4.
Last but not least, special thanks to Tony and Alex at Popflash for a smooth and courteous transaction, in addition to a great deal on the ASPH. And thanks again to KevinM for selling me a great example of the Canon 50/1.2.
Peace.
Last edited:
whickus
Established
good test, but i'm not sure it really reveals anything that wasn't already known. too many variables - different lighting, different compositions, different amounts of post processing, etc. plus, you have to get really lucky to find a sharp copy of the canon. congrats on all the nice lenses, though.
nobbylon
Veteran
Nice real world comparison even with all the variables. The asph lux to me is just too sharp and would prob be very unflattering for people shots close up. Great for Landscape and general photos though. The pre aspheric I had myself. I couldn't resist shooting it wide open all the time and for me that was where the problems where. My hit rate on focus was hopeless. When I got it right though, it was superb. I started to use it as an f2 lens in the end and the extra stop for when I just couldn't get the pic. I ended up selling it and i've now settled on a rigid cron which to my eye gives me very similar results at f2. The canon looks nice too, thx for sharing.
edhohoho
Established
Yes, I totally agree with you and I hate this comparison, actually. I have a research background and can't stand that this was not a more controlled situation. But like I said, it was very hard to get someone to pose once, let alone at least 3 times on 2 different occasions. And I'm stuck at work otherwise I would be digging up the original files and uploading minimally processed ones. Actually, aside from using the clone stamp and adjusting brightness and contrast by no more than +/- 2 or 3, there was little else done. I'm itching to get those original files because the sharpness of each lens really comes out then.
But regarding what "wasn't already known," I didn't find too many comparisons that effectively showed differences between these two lenses when taking pictures of the same subject. The most recent demonstration I found was of some plants that were a few meters away with a wall immediately behind them, thus inadequately showing close up detail and rendering of distant out of focus areas.
Wow, I'm surprised you had such problems with your pre-asph. Did you ever try to get it adjusted? I shoot mostly in low light and at wide apertures so I wouldn't find it acceptable to use it only at f2 and smaller apertures. I think I was a bit off on the focus for that one shot above because I have pictures of other people that came out sharper. But I wanted to have the same person and similar background for this comparison. Maybe later on I will be able to convince someone to sit in the same place for a series of photos with different lenses.
awilder
Alan Wilder
The pictures nicely capture important image characterizes of each lens. The ASPH is technically perfect, the standard reference for comparison against all other 50's. The pre-aspheric either slightly front focuses from shooting error or possibly shows excess curvature of field. Regardless, it does nicely demonstrate the high contrast wide open the lens is famous for having, something the designers had to do to beat the competition at the time this optic was introduced. The Canon demonstrates it's typical fingerprint for their 50/1.2, great sharpness but the contrast a bit on the flat side. This is more obvious by comparison to other optics and is great for B&W printing. The introduction of the 2nd version of the 50/1.4 FL series lens in the late '60's moved their high speed 50 standard bearer to the top of the heap and provided both high contrast and great sharpness. The lens was so good that Canon has retained the same design for their 50/1.4 for the last 40 years.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
I haven't seen such a comparison between these three lenses before and find it quite informative, because it is "real" world photography as opposed to "brick-wall test-shots" (which don't tell me anything ...)
To my eyes, the Canon 50/1.2 produced the most pleasing portrait. Not brute sharp as the ASPH and with a more pleasing out-of-focus rendering like the pre-ASPH. I am a little bit astonished seeing the quite soft photo from the pre-ASPH. Maybe camera-shake or blur in general had some influence here ?
From your little test, the Canon 50/1.2 would be the lens of choice for me. (... and I own a Noctilux !
)
Thanks for sharing this !
Gabor
To my eyes, the Canon 50/1.2 produced the most pleasing portrait. Not brute sharp as the ASPH and with a more pleasing out-of-focus rendering like the pre-ASPH. I am a little bit astonished seeing the quite soft photo from the pre-ASPH. Maybe camera-shake or blur in general had some influence here ?
From your little test, the Canon 50/1.2 would be the lens of choice for me. (... and I own a Noctilux !
)Thanks for sharing this !
Gabor
Krosya
Konicaze
Nice test. It would be nice to see if you would add your Hexanons into the mix - both 60/1.2 and 50/1.2 - I believe you have them too, right?
edhohoho
Established
Unedited Photos from the ASPH, Pre-Asph, and Canon
Unedited Photos from the ASPH, Pre-Asph, and Canon
Okay, I'm finally at home and found the original files. The exposure was a bit off as my R-D1 seems to underexpose by 1/2 to 1 full stop so all the photos were adjusted for +1 exposure, converted to sepia, and saved as JPEG via PhotoRAW. No other post processing was done.
Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux-M ASPH:
Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux-M Pre-Asph E46 Version:
Canon RF 50mm f1.2 LTM:
Unedited Photos from the ASPH, Pre-Asph, and Canon
Okay, I'm finally at home and found the original files. The exposure was a bit off as my R-D1 seems to underexpose by 1/2 to 1 full stop so all the photos were adjusted for +1 exposure, converted to sepia, and saved as JPEG via PhotoRAW. No other post processing was done.
Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux-M ASPH:
Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux-M Pre-Asph E46 Version:
Canon RF 50mm f1.2 LTM:
MikeL
Go Fish
Thanks edhohoho for taking these. Your pre-asph image does look front-focused, his front shoulder and pocket are pretty sharp.
The pre-asph I had was quite similar to the asph in the very center, but the field was more curved and the corners were definitely softer. When using them wide open, I have had more success with the asph. Regarding sharpness, I wouldn't kick any of them out of my bag at f1.4.
The pre-asph I had was quite similar to the asph in the very center, but the field was more curved and the corners were definitely softer. When using them wide open, I have had more success with the asph. Regarding sharpness, I wouldn't kick any of them out of my bag at f1.4.
edhohoho
Established
I haven't seen such a comparison between these three lenses before and find it quite informative, because it is "real" world photography as opposed to "brick-wall test-shots" (which don't tell me anything ...)
To my eyes, the Canon 50/1.2 produced the most pleasing portrait. Not brute sharp as the ASPH and with a more pleasing out-of-focus rendering like the pre-ASPH. I am a little bit astonished seeing the quite soft photo from the pre-ASPH. Maybe camera-shake or blur in general had some influence here ?
From your little test, the Canon 50/1.2 would be the lens of choice for me. (... and I own a Noctilux !
Thanks for sharing this !
Gabor
Thanks, Gabor. I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who thinks there aren't that many actual "head-to-head" comparisons (with photographic evidence included) between the ASPH and pre-asph.
Yes, I think I was a tad off on the focus for that pre-asph shot. If you look at the original photos with virtually no post-processing I just uploaded (post #8 on this thread), there is a bit more detail seen, but yes, it is still a bit soft. I have other photos on Flickr from the pre-asph that are not as soft so I really think it was more a focus issue in this instance.
The Canon 50/1.2 is indeed a nice lens...but I'm sure you agree that the Noctilux is unique in its own way and is still a 1/2 stop faster, which is critical for us night owls! I think once the new 50/0.95 Noctilux ASPH comes out, the demand for the "old" 50/1.0 Noctilux will once again be high since it is still relatively "more affordable" than the stratospherically priced replacement. I am very curious to see how the new version performs.
Thanks, Krosya. If I have more time and can convince one of my coworkers to sit still for 15 minutes, I may one day try to add a few more lenses to a better controlled comparison in the future. It would certainly be interesting to see how the Hexanons and other lenses in the f1.5 and faster category measure up.