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: