p.1 #1 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
So, I attended a couple of photowalks at a local store last week, grabbing the chance to try some gear on a continent where gear rentals aren't easy.
One of those walks was with a Leica SL3s with new the 50mm APO f/2 lens.
Upon uploading the images onto my computer and checking them out, I didn't notice anything special and didn't give it any thought, since I had already decided that the SL3 is still too large and heavy for me. Only later did I realize that I had used what some say is the absolute summum of 50mm lenses. So, I went back to my computer and looked at the files again.
And I still didn't notice anything special, as in special beyond it being a good lens.
Granted, I hadn't given this lens a thorough workout. Still, I see the difference between a so-so lens and a good lens and I highly value the rendering of Zeiss lenses and other top glass, compared to run-of-the-mill lenses. And I do mostly have lenses that are considered very good to excellent.
So, this left me wondering where I fall on the spectrum of lens aficionados. Is this like HIFI, where some audiophiles apparently can tell the difference between $10,000 and $20,000 speakers, but I probably would be lost completely above $1,000? Is there a threshold where a person just doesn't see 'it' anymore?
Note: this is separate from whether something is a good image or not. That can be taken with any lens. Kirk Tuck, for example, owns the above lens and when he still published his blog, he constantly praised this lens, while sharing his usual images of mannequins and street scenes in Austin, TX, not that different from my shots in Vienna (sans the mannequins).
p.1 #2 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
The APO Summicron-SL lenses provide excellent image quality, they are virtually aberration and vignetting free, they are weather resistant and they are consistent in size/weight as a series.
If those are not problems you are trying to solve however... you might in my opinion as well move on...
p.1 #3 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
You are worthy.
The SL3 is basically like any other modern 60MP sensor body. There is nothing special about how it captures images. The SL 50mm f/2 APO is a highly corrected, very modern lens. Its main strength is capturing images with no SA, minimal CA, high contrast, and excellent sharpness across the frame. For some subjects, that is a big advantage. For others, it can actually be a disadvantage. Not every photographer wants maximum correction or a perfectly clinical rendering. I think people sometimes expect a lens at that price to give an obvious "wow" effect..
The strength of the SL APO, and also other Leica and Cosina APO M-lenses, is in what they don't do rather than what they do. They reduce optical flaws so well that the lens becomes almost invisible in the image. IMO, lenses are just tools with different rendering and different levels of correction. There is no perfect lens. Only the right lens for the style, subject, and intent.
p.1 #4 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
All in the eye of the beholder so to speak - I remember times when I adapted M lenses to my Sony E-mount camera. While some complained about corner sharpness performance of wider M lenses on this FF sensor, I was fine with it after removing in PP some slight purple corner fringing. I had larger prints of these photos in exhibits next to other ones taken with Canon EF lenses and mounted in the same lens environment on my Canon EF camera. Never anyone complained about difference in sharpness nor difference in bokeh etc. My opinion: it does not matter how good (or less good) a lens is for the image look at all. It is all in the head through often indoctrinated YouTube/reviewer's opinion to think this lens is superior and delivers better. It does but maybe only in less than 5% these days which is not visible in the large majority of instances. It is much harder to actually get a great composition which makes the photo stand out. No matter which kind of lens or camera gear is used.
Or maybe in other words, lenses have become like wine - the price of a wine bottle does not reflect always the quality or a "better" taste in the end. Most people are not able to distinguish the very slight nuances between good and excellent wines. But many think that the much more expensive wine delivers better and/or feel better about it. Instead what I found is that sometimes mid-range priced wines can be an excellent value and how I like them to taste. I think lenses nowadays go into a similar direction where mid-range priced lenses might be simply the best price/cost ratio and deliver nearly the same what a 3x as expensive lens provides.
p.1 #5 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
I think it depends on what you are shooting, how you are shooting, and how you are viewing and distributing the images.
Given my use cases for the SL3 and APO-SL lenses I find the results better than anything else I have ever used.
Street shooting is absolutely not where the difference show much when compared to other high end lenses. I too find that the weight is not worth it in that use case. My M11 or M6 with any of my M Leica or Voigtlander lenses have all the quality needed for that.
p.1 #6 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
1bwana1 wrote:
I think it depends on what you are shooting, how you are shooting, and how you are viewing and distributing the images.
Given my use cases for the SL3 and APO-SL lenses I find the results better than anything else I have ever used.
Street shooting is absolutely not where the difference show much when compared to other high end lenses. I too find that the weight is not worth it in that use case. My M11 or M6 with any of my M Leica or Voigtlander lenses have all the quality needed for that.
Hi 1bwana1, just out of curiosity, what are your use cases for the APO SL lenses?
p.1 #8 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
John,
Your perspective about being able to differentiate at elite levels, reminds me of exceptional musicians and master piano tuners. I don't have that refined of an ear, and likely never will ... never developed it to those levels.
The degree of refinement that the human physiological response can yield is staggering in certain regard. Yet, not all folks attain those levels. Case in point, my palette for wine advanced over certain decades of time, but when I've spent more $$$ (mulitple occasions over the years) ... I never got an OMG, this is SO MUCH BETTER. Likely, my palette just never refined to a level to differentiate what those presented.
That said ... don't forget that with your APO lenses, it is about what is NOT THERE (i.e. aberrations), so you aren't looking for something more, you are experiencing (visual sensory) the absence of. That absence doesn't always come across the same way as something that is OMG 3X sharper, etc.
Contrast that with the fact that some folks actually LIKE those very aberrations that the APO's are avoiding / correcting for.
Often times we are thinking in terms of "more" as it equates to "better", but in the case of the APO, we are likely in the realm of "less", in certain regard.
Bottom line ... if you like it, shoot it.
No requirement to label it, nor you.
Was that the SL3-S (24MP) or the SL3 (61MP). Your OP kinda looks like you mention both.
p.1 #9 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
John, clearly Canon is the right system for you if you weren't wowed by the APO-Summicron-SL primes.
(The above was a joke. FWIW, I'm also a Canon and Leica user, so I know. Or at least that is what I've been told by other system fanboys...)
I agree with Fred and Kent that APO lenses generally bring a 'transparency' through lack of aberrations that might in turn lend a less 'emotional' feel to images. I think the excitement around some of these lenses is just that they're very sharp across the field with high micro contrast (fine detail definition). From what I've seen from these APO SL prime lenses, I do like their out of focus rendering characteristics, and that's partly what excites me about them. But that also depends heavily on subject content. When I do urban walk around it's often stopped down a fair amount where pretty much every lens performs well. In such use cases, some of the specialness (high sharpness and micro contrast) of lenses such as the APO-crons may be lost due to diffraction softening on high resolution sensors.
p.1 #12 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
OP.
You might want to try the 24MP Nikon Z5II with any M lens and the Techart M-Z AF adapter. So glad I sold my L kit with 5 APO lenses plus other Leica SL lenses and SL3 and SL3S.
Since owning that setup I have not used any M camera since the arrival of that setup, thus leaving me in a laid back creative mood. Lovely feeling.
p.1 #13 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
SlowDriver wrote:
Hi 1bwana1, just out of curiosity, what are your use cases for the APO SL lenses?
Sure. For me my SL3 camera is my studio camera. I use it with strobes for portraits and other studio work.
It is also my people and event system. Anytime I want to quickly acheive critical focus on the pupil of the eye. This could be natural light or again with strobes.
When I want the highest sharpness and fewest aberrations I use the APO-SL lenses. Other times I use more character rich lenses going all the way to very old Leica lenses with unique rendering. But wide open I find the rendering and OOF fall of from the APO-SL lenses very attractive too.
I use the SL3 and APO when shooting landscapes and cityscapes. Also when documenting the amazing paintings and in place frescos sculptures here in Italy. Uses where I want across the frame sharpness and lack of abberations. Especially true when planning to print large.
I use my SL3 and APO-SL 50mm to scan my film negatives. It's detail, flat field, and lack of abberations are very valuable for this use. The lens basically dissappears and gives me 60mpx scans that accurately captures what is on the negative.
Stopped down there are lenses that can produce result close to the APO-SL lenses. But wide open I have not found others that can compete edge to edge for sharpness and lack of abberations. Check the MTF charts for objective confirmation of this. Understand that Leica tests and publishes it's charts at higher line pairs numbers than other manufactures normally do.
There are my core optical use cases for the APO-SL lenses I have. As a system I also find the having the entire line housed in identical cases provides benefits in handling consistency and perfect sharing of accessories like hoods and filters.
Like all of our gear the APO-SL lenses are tools with certain strengths. I find value in these strengths. Others may not. I will say that that value is difficult to justify at full retail prices. Fortunately the used prices fall strongly. Then hold value very well. I only buy Leica SL gear used which puts it in line value wise with other manufactures high end gear. I averaged less than $2,500 for each of my APO-SL lenses and $4,000 for the SL3 body. I consider this a reasonable performance value. Again, others will disagree.
For those interested in exploring the APO-SL technology in detail here is an excellent presentation by the design engineer Peter Karbe.
p.1 #14 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
johnvanr wrote:
Only later did I realize that I had used what some say is the absolute summum of 50mm lenses. So, I went back to my computer and looked at the files again.
And I still didn't notice anything special, as in special beyond it being a good lens.
No, you were just unlucky being assigned that Leica 50. The best 50mm lens in the world is the Viltrox 50 Air, and I'm not kidding. For under $200, you get a standard prime that makes all competitors look ordinary, or worse.
p.1 #16 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
1bwana1 wrote:
Sure. For me my SL3 camera is ......
Thank you for your detailed response on how you use your SL3 and SL-APO lenses. Gives me insight how you as a photographer use your setup and how and why it benefits your photography pursuits.
Cameras and lenses are tools we use to reach our photographic endeavours and every tool has its strengths and weaknesses as we pursue our personal or client's final output. Opinions of such equipment may differ. I appreciate your response as I was looking at an SL-2.
Not sure if I will head down that path as I am entrenched in Canon,Fuji GFX and Leica M. The idea of an SL-2 was with regards to a different sensor and using older manual lenses such as Canon FD and that drew me to what SL lenses would differentiate it from my other systems and it was the APO's.
Your response as well as Fred, Kent and Ron's response on the SL APO's gives me understanding. I have other APO lenses Leica R and M but less familiar with SL-APOs.
p.1 #17 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
I sometimes wonder if Leica and Hasselblad files are meant to be experienced as prints. On a screen they can feel almost understated, but something about them seems to invite a larger, more tangible presentation.
I recognize that plenty of folks print all the time, but I can’t help thinking we sometimes get lost in the technology and forget the final image in print. Like film. Something to hold.
p.1 #18 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
chez wrote:
Really? And yet it’s these display environments that we use to test and review glass. Funny how that is.
Seriously Chez, no responsible tester uses this enviornment to test glass. They only share the results of their high resolution enviornment tests here.
Of course the most pronounced differences are visible in large prints. But to acheive highest quality requires a very good processing and printing workflow to match the glass.
p.1 #19 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
Surfnsun wrote:
I sometimes wonder if Leica and Hasselblad files are meant to be experienced as prints. On a screen they can feel almost understated, but something about them seems to invite a larger, more tangible presentation.
I recognize that plenty of folks print all the time, but I can’t help thinking we sometimes get lost in the technology and forget the final image in print. Like film. Something to hold.
That raises another point about John "not seeing" the difference. When you really start to "torture test" ... or, shall we say, print large, really large ... that's when we see where different lenses hold up well under such tasks. That, vs. other lenses that "fall apart" during such magnification. Thus, if one isn't taking them to task where the wheat separates itself from the chaff ... yeah, the chaff and wheat might not be obviously differentiated under all purviews.
p.1 #20 · Am I not worthy - I am not worthy...of stellar lenses
RustyBug wrote:
That raises another point about John "not seeing" the difference. When you really start to "torture test" ... or, shall we say, print large, really large ... that's when we see where different lenses hold up well under such tasks. That, vs. other lenses that "fall apart" during such magnification. Thus, if one isn't taking them to task where the wheat separates itself from the chaff ... yeah, the chaff and wheat might not be obviously differentiated under all purviews.
And of course we must recognize that it is the final small increase in performance that is the most difficult and expensive to acheive. This is true in many areas of performance. In racing those last few fractions of a second cost a crazy amount of money. The average driver will never be able to detect them. But in talented hands. at the end of the day, they are all that really matter to outcome.
Was that the SL3-S (24MP) or the SL3 (61MP). Your OP kinda looks like you mention both.