Fred Miranda wrote:
So far, I’ve found that both lenses have similar LoCA correction, which is an important point since the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Lux serves as the base for the Leica 75mm f/2 APO lens.
This will be part of the rendering test series:
Can anyone identify which image is from the Leica and which is from the Simera, based on the pictures A and B below? Please don’t focus too much on resolution, as this is just a screenshot.
(Extend browser window to view full image)
Not sure which is which, but I find the 2nd photo to have a lot more pop. I find the structure of the rendering very similar.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
The second shot has a bit more structure on the bokeh.
I’m curious about the bokeh rendering of that lens, that would be the main attraction for me.
Based on what other reviewers have noted, that would make 'B' the Simera me thinks.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I’ve switched from using screenshots to resized images for A and B. This change might affect the guesses.
Now it is much closer. I don’t see any difference of meaning—photo 1 has a bit more pop on axis to me. Such a small amount that I’d call it academic and I am pretty darn picky I think.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I’ve switched from using screenshots to resized images for A and B. This change might affect the guesses.
That helped-
I think photo 2 is the 50 Lux-
Its a hard photo to pick them and I think with more pronounced bokeh it MIGHT be more obvious. The Bokeh on the first photo looks a bit rounder to my eyes and the OOF area on the second is more Lux like with a little more "lemony".
When I turn the focus tab from infinity toward 0.7m, I see a slight front focus. When I turn the focus tab from MFD toward 0.7m, the focus point is dead center in the depth of field.
My theory is that the slight bit of helicoid play noticeable when turning the focus ring accounts for this discrepancy.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I love blind tests. I hope you do more between these two lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
I’ve switched from using screenshots to resized images for A and B. This change might affect the guesses.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Now it is much closer. I don’t see any difference of meaning—photo 1 has a bit more pop on axis to me. Such a small amount that I’d call it academic and I am pretty darn picky I think.
Or my eyes are getting old like me lol
I also see slightly higher central contrast in A, which is apparently the Lux's slight wide open advantage. But the point of focus on the mailbox is in the mid zone. This is apparently where the Simera is better than the Lux... B looks very slightly more nervous in this area, which could imply the Lux's mid zone behavior. Really is splitting hairs with this example. Pretty amazing how close they are!
spendychucky wrote:
Ok I have another crazy observation.
When I turn the focus tab from infinity toward 0.7m, I see a slight front focus. When I turn the focus tab from MFD toward 0.7m, the focus point is dead center in the depth of field.
My theory is that the slight bit of helicoid play noticeable when turning the focus ring accounts for this discrepancy.
That or I’m going crazy.
This, along with closer than 0.7 still moving the rangefinder patch may be why I was assuming my copy was bad. I did closer up shots and the focus close up was way off on the Simera where the Lux was perfectly on. I did the Lux shot first and I set up around the 0.62 as it was the closest the patch would move. I then shot the Simera, but if as Fred mentions the lens and patch aren’t in alignment shorter than 0.7 then that would explain why my Simera shot was out of focus.
In addition, when testing, I started at infinity and then moved to shorter distance. The focus point of the Simera was off compared to the Lux. Knowing these nuances and seeing the similarity between the Lux and Simera, I want to try it again.
Pretty Dang Close ... but, I would like to have seen them shot at the same exposure (i.e. 1/1600 vs. 1/2000).
Granted only 1/3 stop diff, but if I'm splittin' hairs to find the diff's ... I'd just as soon, start of with no diff's in the amount of light, expecting to be passed through the lens. If there is a transmission difference, I'd like to see that nuance revealed, also ... vs. an "equalized" exposure that offsets it.
Comments of more micro-contrast, hmmm how much does 1/3 stop more light influence that ... i.e. does a micro amount more light, provide for micro improved contrast?
Still, PDC.
Nov 09, 2024 at 07:49 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I am saying that A is the Simera and B is the Lux. As everyone has said they are very close. The biggest difference I see is the upper right corner that is blurred a bit better in A than in B and I am guessing that part of the weak resolution in the corners of the Simera is that you get a corner like that blurred. In this type of shot I actually see that as a advantage (obviously a very small one) for a lens with weaker corner resolution.
Yes it sounds like we had very similar experiences.
Definitely have to stop using the focus patch after the 0.7m detent even thought the patch moved as if it were coupled.
I decided to send my copy back for an exchange to see if the helicoid play is present on all copies.
I never felt this in any leica or voigtlander lenses. Maybe just slightly on my LLL 35 8e copy. But the front focusing issue being only noticeable when focused from the infinity direction is new to me.
rsolti13 wrote:
This, along with closer than 0.7 still moving the rangefinder patch may be why I was assuming my copy was bad. I did closer up shots and the focus close up was way off on the Simera where the Lux was perfectly on. I did the Lux shot first and I set up around the 0.62 as it was the closest the patch would move. I then shot the Simera, but if as Fred mentions the lens and patch aren’t in alignment shorter than 0.7 then that would explain why my Simera shot was out of focus.
In addition, when testing, I started at infinity and then moved to shorter distance. The focus point of the Simera was off compared to the Lux. Knowing these nuances and seeing the similarity between the Lux and Simera, I want to try it again....Show more →
RustyBug wrote:
Pretty Dang Close ... but, I would like to have seen them shot at the same exposure (i.e. 1/1600 vs. 1/2000).
Granted only 1/3 stop diff, but if I'm splittin' hairs to find the diff's ... I'd just as soon, start of with no diff's in the amount of light, expecting to be passed through the lens. If there is a transmission difference, I'd like to see that nuance revealed, also ... vs. an "equalized" exposure that offsets it.
Comments of more micro-contrast, hmmm how much does 1/3 stop more light influence that ... i.e. does a micro amount more light, provide for micro improved contrast?
B is slightly overexposed on the mailbox lettering compared to A. I think there's the same light transmission, and seeing them at the same exposure would probably make them look even more alike.
This A/B is literally the definition of "a distinction without a difference".
Would be interested to see the side-by-side screenshots showing midframe sharpness comparison at this distance wide open.
RustyBug wrote:
Pretty Dang Close ... but, I would like to have seen them shot at the same exposure (i.e. 1/1600 vs. 1/2000).
Granted only 1/3 stop diff, but if I'm splittin' hairs to find the diff's ... I'd just as soon, start of with no diff's in the amount of light, expecting to be passed through the lens. If there is a transmission difference, I'd like to see that nuance revealed, also ... vs. an "equalized" exposure that offsets it.
Comments of more micro-contrast, hmmm how much does 1/3 stop more light influence that ... i.e. does a micro amount more light, provide for micro improved contrast?
Half of you guessed it correctly, which just goes to show how difficult it is to differentiate the output from these two lenses. After checking dozens of comparisons myself, I can now only notice minor differences. I’d say these two lenses produce very similar images.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Half of you guessed it correctly, which just goes to show how difficult it is to differentiate the output from these two lenses. After checking dozens of comparisons myself, I can now only notice minor differences. I’d say these two lenses produce very similar images.
Result:
A = Leica
B = Simera
For those who like more structure and nervousness in the bokeh, that’s good news. Speaking for a friend.
The B photo seems to have more pop indeed on top of that.
RustyRus wrote:
At this point- The only side by side Leica is clearly winning is the vanity contest-
Sorry if I call anyones baby ugly but this lens on screen doesn't look all that sexy. Is it better in person?
This is subjective, but I prefer the haptics of the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux due to the equal spacing of the aperture markings on the barrel, smoother and longer focus rotation, and more distinct aperture clicks. However, the design of the Simera lens has grown on me.
It looks good in person, even better with the hood, and the mechanical depth of field indicator is a very cool and creative idea. While this concept may have been used in the past, it works well. Although the depth of field is relatively narrow on a 50mm lens, this feature should be even more practical on their 28mm and 35mm lenses.
I also appreciate that the lens barrel does not extend when focusing. In the end, you get a lens with unique features that closely matches the Leica look. The Voigtlander 50mm f/1.2 Nokton came very close to the Leica in performance and rendering but lacked FLE and was less corrected for SA.
