Canon RF 50mm 1.2 L vs Leica APO-Summicron-SL 50mm f/2
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2024
- A quick comparison of the Canon RF 50mm 1.2 L and the Leica APO-Summicron-SL 50mm f/2.
Instagram - @Barreraphoto
#canon #leica #canonRF50mm #Leica50mmAPO - Věda a technologie
If you watch some of the interviews from Peter Karbe from last year you will have the answer , the Summicron-SL line is designed to behave more like a 1.4 then a 2. that is why the transition is wicker from focus to blur
Yes, is all about the contrast response. Fast contrast response, will result in a fast transition from acceptable focus to ‘out of focus’.
Hi Alex, the reason for thin DOF is contrast. In the case of SL APO Summicron lenses, the difference in contrast is considerably higher than that of conventional lenses: sharply focused objects show much higher contrast than objects that are out of focus. This means that objects “snap” more distinctly out of the foreground or background and more effectively isolate the subject. This creates a three-dimensional visual effect with very impressive apparent depth.
Agreed with the previous comment... Leica’s MTF tables show what Peter Karbe is explaining and the insane line pair contrast percentages, hence the 3-d “pop” - this lens is rated to 40 & 60lp/mm @ 50%+ design projects out to at least 100MP interpolated to +-110-120MP.... The SL’s f/2.0 dof is closer to a conventional 1.4. Razor thin focal planes with this entire line of lenses, I own the 35mm and 50mm SL APOs and shoot them intensely on the SL2 - the image quality is insane. I shoot style and fine art figures, and have shot 4,500+ images in a day’s shoot - point being, my results show these lenses easily outperform even the SL2’s monster abilities and sensor. Some of it can be picked up in post, and some failings in future firmware I’m guessing. What matters here is these lenses are second to none, and I’ve shot Canon a lot in the past.
Correct me if I'm wrong... When loading Canon R images into Lightroom, they get the default Adobe profile, which is quite dull. That's why I always change it to the Canon profile, using the profile explorer. It's more contrast-y for sure. Don't DNG files contain a profile? That may explain the colors on the Canon images. By the way, I own the RF 50 1.2 and I like it very much.
Manuel Kahana you are correct. A DNG file has a profile baked in.
Compare it to the Lumix/Leica certified 50mm f1.4 for L-Mount! That would be an apples to apples!
I agree , Leica Summilux SL 1.4 and Panasonic S 50 mm 1.4 are the best 50mm ever made .
Your comments on colour science are bunk. When you compare the colours from two raw files, you are comparing the results of the raw conversion software. It has nothing to do with the camera vendor. If
you think the colour is too flat, select another conversion profile. It's Adobe colour science. If you want to compare Leica vs Canon colour science, use jpegs.
Agreed. It's amazing how much frank pseudoscience gets propagated on youtube product review channels.
This is exactly what I was about to say.
Totally agree with u. Everyone knows when opening canon raw files in LR, u get the flat color tone, which is the original pattern of raw file. On the contrary, leica use DNF file and the LR is the official support software. When doing this comparison ,at least use the DPP and pick the standard picture style.
There is a big diffrence in the Bokeh. The Leica has a "Bubble" shaped Background. Its best visible in the image at 6:38. The whole background looks like a swirl or a vortex. This is what causes the 3D pop effect. The plane of focus in some lenses is not a straight line, it can be curved. Try to take a picture of a Ruler or a paper with a straight line on it. If the focus plane is curved the Ruler is unsharp at the edges.
The colors are diffrent. And thats not always the sensor. The Leica lens is apochromatic. When Light passes through a lens every color of the light gets scattered in another direction so the light dosnt hit the sensor on the same spot. That causes cromatic abberations, lower contrast and washed out colors. Apochromatic lenses bent the light rays back to one spot. If its well made it eliminates a lot of problems in a image. You will get bette colors more contrast and almost no CAs. On long lenses its very easy for lens designers th eliminate problems. On shorter lenses its incredibly expensive. This is one reason why the leica lens is so much more expensive.
The radial blur is always the dead giveaway. No other camera system gives you this effect in 35mm. You have to go to medium format usually to get it. We usually tend to focus on our subject in our images but in almost every composition, most of the frame is the out of focus area. Because 35mm usually doesn't deliver radial blur, we've shifted to looking for the more perfect circular highlights which are lovely, but the ethereal quality of having this circular blur effect I feel gives more to the image than perfect circle bokeh in most cases. Now, you can also get this with cheap russian lenses you can find used for $20-$50, and even get spectacular anamorphic style flaring from them, but you lose sharpness and contrast usually on these (honestly, for $20, its still worth it to me to achieve that look).
The companies build Lenses diffrent. The canon lens is much bigger. The Image circle is much bigger then the sensor, so they dont use the edges of the image circle to get better sharpness in the corners.
The Leica lens is much smaller and i am sure that the image circle is much smaller and almost touches the edges of the sensor.
In theory a lens is nothing else then a long pipe. Take it and hold it in front of your eyes and look through. In the middle you see the entrance as a perfect circle and the exit as a circle. Now shift the pipe a bit to the left or right and you will see that the entrance and the exit start to overlap. This creates a cateye shaped "pipehole." The sensor has a surface area and the corners look through in an angle. So they can only look through the cateye ant not the full hole. This is why the bokeh turns to a Cateye shape. The canon lens has a bigger pipe to see through so there is less catseye effect. The Leica is smaller and it has a smaller pipe to look through. There are a lot of catseyes in the Leica picture and the catseyes create the swirly bokeh effect.
I see a lot of people commenting on Leica lens having superior color rendition. Not sure how and why they decided the lens is to blame for it. This is how Leica RAW file looks, it’s not the lens. It’s just how Leica does their RAW files, they have a lot more contrast and a bit of saturation straight out of the box.
That being said, both lenses seems to produce amazing photos and I will be happy with either. I’m canon shooter and love my RF50, it’s weird feeling to say rf50 is cheap(er), that makes me giggle. Canon in my eyes has better bokeh too, there is certainly something that makes the Leica pop more in couple of the photos, but can’t figure out what. It does look amazing too but at that price I’m not sure if it’s worth it especially since the rf50 is “better” in every other way.
It's simple add just a bit of contrast and clarity plus maybe wb +2-+5 and you will get the same pop and colors. RF is superior in this case.
@Chris I think that "special" look is just a placebo. People associate Leica with special look just because it's Leica. The Canon lens is clearly technically superior for half the price (and double the weight).
Gents, please remember that the EOS R has AA filter while the SL2 doesn’t. I say that is the main reason for such a noticeable pop difference. If they are both shot on the same camera, I would say the difference might not be as much
I love images from B...
*my wallet just left the chat*
Best comment.
The Canon RF 50mm has better field curvature. That is why the dress is sharper in one of the photos. Whereas, the leica shows falloff on the dress. This is shocking! Especially when you consider the fact that the leica costs 5000 dollars. It should be optically perfect. Right down to field curvature but the Canon surprisingly has much better field curvature.
I’ve shot nearly every camera over the last 35 plus years. I know people love to do side by sides, compare lenses, color etc. from using provia to portra, tri-x to neopan, Holga to Pentax., Nikon to canon, Leica to everything. Shoot what inspires you to shoot with, use a lens that gives you what you want. Don’t expect ultimate sharpness because it creates a flat image, reproduction lenses do this. You will never see a cinema lens designed this way.... ever ! Color is subjective. Falloff and how light is centered from a lens gives it its character.
Since I have found leica, my images are much stronger because the system provides for that. My clients note it too. Perhaps nicest thing I’ve seen with Leica as a comparison to my Nikon system, is the intertonal colors which really make skin tones more even with gentler transitions. It’s less crushed as we would say in movie industry. All of my colleagues have purchased Leicas after working side by side with them, they all concluded that in the grand scheme of their photography, the images from the Leicas seem to enmasse provide a higher quality of image
Great video! Man makes me want to give the Leica a go on my S1R. I WISH you had done at least a couple frames with the Canon at 1.2 though.
Oh I did! Should have posted them
@@ABarrera ah bummer! Great stuff anyway 😁 I have the Leica 75 for my S1R and it's a pretty dang sweet lens too. I'd love to try the Leica 50 1.4 but I've heard the focus isn't as fast as say the 75 or new 50 f2.
Get a 50 1.4 s pro. Be amazed at the value
Exactly
Great content Alex, the lesson here is that the issue of colour science is highly subjective and that as image makers we should find our own interpretation of colour. Especially if shooting in RAW.
Wow, this is the most obscure comparison I thought I'd never find. I wonder if the differences in the image are less to do with the lens, and more to do with Canon's sensors-beyond just low dynamic range which would produce the problems with highlight falloff like you showed, I wonder if the sensor is also taking away a bit of contrast the lens throws in. As others have said, the SL Summicron's APO nature probably gives it a bit of edge in contrast but that looked a bit much to me.
That being said, the RF lens is as you said probably a better buy. However, I was impressed to see a slightly superior performance from the SL prime wide open when the RF lens was closed 1.5 stops. Couple that with the over-engineering that Leica throws into all their products and you have a long lasting combo. Not that I have the money, but my only wish for the SL Summicron line would be that they were a little smaller XD. From all reports, there's not much difference in IQ between Nikon's 50 1.8s and this, but the SL Summicron is almost twice the size even with being a smaller aperture. For a much closer apples to apples comparison, the Voigtlander 50 APO Lanthar looks to be just as good... at less than half the size. Granted, this is without autofocus and sealing but come on Leica :P
Nitpicks aside, SL2 and the Summicron line + a Leica Q2 are definitely lottery buys from me. Even if they're bulky, they're all top quality and designed to basically last forever. Gotta appreciate at least one company chasing diminishing returns until there are barely scant whiffs of a further goal left.
Peter Karbe explains it very well ... the Summicron lenses behaves as a 1.4 in terms of fall off but had this 3D effect as the transition is shorter. The price is not only due to German people working in a german factory... there is a real science behind the Leica lenses. I personnaly own the Summilux SL50 which is completely different and maybe you should compare it with the Canon 1.2.
If you educate you eyes to this extreme quality, you will see the difference jumps in your face instantaneously. The Leica has this 3D POP that the Canon is definitively lacking. Once you see that, you can't go back ! But I'm really surprised by these bokeh balls of the Leica that are really not nice at all and not circular. Either you want nice bokeh balls and you grab the Canon, or you want top quality and 3D effect and you grab the Leica.
For the quality of the roll-off, it might be the age of the sensor and processing power. The Leica is quite recent and the R is basically a 4 year-old sensor for the 5d mk iv. 3 years difference in development nowdays is quite a lot in terms of digital photography. Anyway, this wasn’t a « pro-Canon » rant: the pictures in both cases look absolutely amazing. Only pixel peeping and side by side comparison can highlight the very small differences. In both cases, the price tag is quite high but definitely worth it.
Guillaume Bouqueau when you look at the last 3 decades, I would not say sensors moved as quickly as you said. I even found it is slower than other things like processors. Some figures are better than before, yes, but at iso 100 I doubt any eye can notice any difference between sensors like the ones here. I think Raw treatment is the key here. Open a raw on 3 softwares, 3 different results. Manufacturers just guess how it should work...
Hi Alex, the rule you were looking for is often quoted as the "law of diminishing returns." As explained below, the Leica lens has a much higher relative sharpness at the exact point of focus and rolls off more quickly. This gives it the impression that it is wider aperture lens from a depth of focus perspective. I have both lens---and yes, the image quality of the Leica Summicrons are unrivalled---and the whole point of the Canon lens is to shoot it wide open! Thats where it demonstrates a unique and extremely impressive rendering---although the new Nikon 50 F1.2mm noticeably surpasses it at the cost of greater weight and size. Of course, we are referring to image quality here and no consideration is taken into account of a myriad of other issues. Overall, its hard to go wrong today, but I do strongly admire Leica's rendering overall.
My guess is that the two system places their focal plans at different distances while still making sure the focal point is sharp. For example I’m guessing Canon is placing their subject deeper in the focal plain, while Leica places the subject more shallow in that focal plain. It’s things like this that give them their characteristics.
Well colors are mostly camera colors not lens colors. A great/better comparison would be the Leica 50 APO vs the Panasonic 50 1.4 R on the Leica SL2. That way the camera doesn't influence the results
Of course, I know this is apples and oranges. I just wanted to compare my favorite lens with Leica’s best.
@@ABarrera I fully understand that. But if you love the 50mm F1.2, I think the Panasonic 50mm F1.4 is the natural comparison for your SL2, and sooner or later you will/ should probably test it. Maybe you will like it even better than the Leica
You convinced me to buy the Leica. Nice comparison.
@Charl Moor Leica body and lens will have better resale value though.
Great comparison! The 50-L is very similar to the 50-M APO in terms of that "3D Pop". It's almost a medium format look. From what i've read this is down to the apochromatic natures of the lenses that gives it such a distinctive look. The difference between the Summicron-M 50mm APO vs Non-APO is astonishing for this reason!
its just field curvature-its a design flaw - you would get same spiral background and not flat plane of focus in those cheap chinese lenses...
@@nundata The real differeces I see between these two lenses are 1. Leica has swirly bokeh like a lot of vintage or "cheaper" lenses.
2. Leica has much more vignetting.
Honestly, the leica looks like a sharp vintage lens. Nothing wrong with that, but I can't imagine that would be worth $5000+ For instance, the Fujifilm XF 35 f1.4 is very similar. As well as a boat load of older voigtlander lenses.
Interesting video. Colors on the Leica seem to give us photographers a head start for editing, but the background does look much nicer on the Canon. Especially when things get further away from the focus point.. How do you thing the image quality will look with the 28-70 f2 lens at 50mm? Cool and interesting video comparison cheers!
Huge fan of your video, love how real and candid you are. And that you’re not afraid to be curious about things.
I would always keep your comparisons consistent on your LR screen, left vs right side - so for this video... always canon on the one side and Leica on the other. Easier for the viewer to keep it all straight.
I am a huge LR fan. But I’m curious if adobe needs to up their game with their canon raw handling. You’re right they seem flat, even for raws, LOL!
Keep up the great work!!!
Peace ;)
I read another review mentioning that the focal plane of the canon was one of the most « straight » the tester has ever seen. I guess the Leica is not built this way with something spherical.
Anyway, at 2000 or at 4000$, you should better be happy with what you bought 😋.
And I am glad I have the Canon hehe.
Btw, about the colors differences, I am not sure it comes from the lens itself. Raw can be interpreted so differently by softwares.
Fabulous video! The 50 RF lens is super impressive here when compared to one of the -best- Leica lenses. Especially considering the Canon R is now quite old compared to the newer Canon sensors.
The Leica does not have a flat focus plane. This is also why the bokeh of the leica is more swirly.
Too many variables to be able to compare it directly. Massively different sensors and RAW profiles / processing. The Leica softness on her body can be caused by field curvature of the lens. Many lenses have significant field curvature as you go towards the edges.
I believe the differences you are pointing out are the result of how the cameras sensors are biased. The sensors have a bias target range. If you push the voltage to the top of the range you get more contrast and color saturation. If the bias is near the bottom of the range you get a flat image with low contrast and low color saturation. Also you will get a softer background blur. Canon and Leica seem to have a different view of how must post production is going to be done by their users. Canon seems to be giving the user a blank slate. While Leica wants to give their users a less complex route to the final image. At least that how it appears to me.
From what I can tell on youtube, the Canon is the better lens by far. The Leica has a curved field of focus, which is why it gets out of focus in parts of the image, and the Canon doesn’t. The EF 50L also has a curved field of focus, and it might be a good thing, because it might add to the 3D-look. I’ve always loved the EF50L for that reason. Btw, the RF50L has a great 3D-look as well, in my opinion.
I think it just field curvature variation between two lenses. That is why camera manufacturer never recomend focus and recompose technique.
I suspect that as well, the dress "fall off" and the background imbalance of blur with the leaf background, seems clearly like bad field curvature, RF are known for no to low FC, its non correctable in post
Cool video man. I want to try that SL2 and Summicron lens line up! We sometimes bash Lightroom for their rendering of some RAW files, like Fuji but I have to say that LR seems to deal very amazingly with the Leica files. The DNG format maybe helps. Is is possible to share some RAW files with us please ? Thks ind advance and keep the good work 🙏🏻
RAW is not RAW, what you are seeing the RAW editors' interpretation of the RAW file. The Leica will likely be more contrasty in most editors but it is not a guarantee. I actually prefer the flatter image, I like adding the contrast myself or with a preset that I created compared to starting off with a very contrasty image.
Leica looks more magical out of the camera.
Weirdly, I was looking for just this kind of video, knowing how difficult the comparison would be. I have been thinking about investing in a Leica M3, or similar film body, just to have one of their revered 50mm lenses, however, I shoot digital for all my professional work, and am realizing that the same money would be better spent on the RF 50mm. I really was curious if it would hold up agains the Leica for sharpness and microcontrast (understanding that this is a different lens than say the Summicron M 50mm F/2). All this is to say, I can’t really believe what Canon seems to have pulled off with this 50mm. Though I’d love to have the option to shoot film with it, it seems like its the better long-term investment for my actual paid work. Thanks!
You also need to consider, though, that in 10 years the Leica will be worth more that what you paid for it. The Canon is like throwing money away.
Thank for making the video Alex. I have a couple of questions.
1, Were you using eye detection auto focus on Leica? May be that could be the reason why the her dress wasn't in focus compared to her eyes.
2, Which Leica lens did you end up buying?
I ended up returning the SL2, I posted a video about what happened :)
I think it's a little unfair to the canon because the canon raw file doesn't have the in-camera color grading. So I wonder if you could do another comparison between the JPEG files, that will be another story.
I am not aware of Leica doing any in camera color grading. Can you link me to the info so I can check it out?
what makes the APO special is that it has exremely high contrast (and sharpness) in focus and falls off really quick which makes that 3d pop look. That results in a much smaller depth of field too at wide aperture. Also you probably noticed the f2 actually gathers more light than a "normal" f2 lens.
They have a cool explanation of that on their SL lenses page. I dont think the highlights roll off is just the sensor same for the colors. it has to do with the lens too.
And yea you are correct they don't provide the same angle of view. the RF has a 46D while the APO has a 47.something. so yea the Leica is a hair wider.
Why is there a shallower DOF close to the point of focus, but greater DOF as you get further away from the point of focus? That's counter productive and a disadvantage. We want a soft background, not a soft subject. Also, I didn't see this extra light gathering. The Canon was brighter in several images at the same exposure settings.
Regarding the focus fall off comparison (less depth of field) , there is an interview online where Peter Karbe said they have altered the curves in the lens design so the contrast drops off vey quickly and results are the f2 lenses perform more a like 1.4. There is also a curve on Leica's website to illustrate this.
I think Canon is better, u can edit Canon's file to match the Leicas file but not vice versa
This is now an "old" review, but still relevant - thanks for the comparisons. I have a Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM lens that I suspect is better than the Canon, or at least no worse (it is a newer lens). At f/1.2, the Sony is in the Noctilux territory and renders a superbly buttery bokeh. At f/2, the Sony is stopped down by 1.5 f-stops and is close to peak performance, while the Leica is still wide open. Both are very sharp lenses.
There is one excellent interview of Peter Karbe in which he explains how the SL APO Summicrons were designed for a very rapid fall off from the plane of focus. That is the reason why you were seeing the softening of the image on your wife's dress as you moved away from her face. Leica has done this by design, and Karbe shows a chart that demonstrates the Leica 35mm APO Summicron SL has a faster fall off than the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M. That is crazy, but that's why you see that 3-D pop from the SL lenses. The Sony 50/1.2 also delivers a nice 3-D pop, probably better than the Canon 50/1.2 (just my opinion, since I have never seen or used the Canon, so I can't make a direct comparison).
So in terms of which is "better", there is no such thing. Anyone who buys an f/1.2 lens will likely shoot at f/1.2, for near-Noctilux like images, but the subject being far sharper and contrastier than what a Noctilux can deliver. (If you buy this lens, there is no point in stopping down - otherwise, why buy this lens?!). So that is a different use case than the Leica f/2 APO Summicrons for the SL. The APO Summicron, and before that, the non-APO Summicrons going back to the Leica R system days, were designed for the ultimate sharpness and micro contrast, and never intended to be bokeh lenses. That is what the Summiluxes and Noctiluxes were for. So if you buy the Leica, then you are likely shooting cityscapes, landscapes, architecture, etc., and if you shoot portraits with these lenses, you will probably want to run the images through an app like PortraitPro to soften the faces except the eyes (especially of women). Women generally don't appreciate their faces rendered "razor sharp".
So bottom line, if money is no objective, own both lenses (which also requires two different cameras, too). If money matters, then obviously, it is one of the other, and it becomes a matter of use case. Either can be used to produce lovely images, perhaps with a little help from PhotoShop thrown in, and this is where the rubber meets the road. At the end of the day, cameras and lenses don't take pictures, people do :-)
Apo chromatic lens will pop more because it corrects for chromatic aberration, no color fringing, edge separation on the Leica is superior, plus I like the bokeh character better, looks closer to that filmic look anamorphic lenses can produce. I just ordered the voightlander 65mm apo lanthar f2 because I can’t afford the Leica, lol
Leica lens designer Peter Karen mentioned in an interview that the contrast drop quickly moving towards out of focus areas. This should explain why the dress of the subject is blurred while the eyes is in focus.
The Leica image has more personality, especially in the overall quality of the bokeh, which is swirlier, but I don't think it's fair to compare how Adobe interprets the RAW image of the Canon vs. how Adobe interprets the RAW image of the Leica. If anything, you should only be comparing .JPGs coming out of each camera at identical white balances, IMO.
Canon win for me since you can buy the 50 and the 85mm 1.2 for the same price as one leica 50mm. You can always edit your canon pictures with more contrast in Lightroom if that’s what you like!
Yeah price is a very important factor.
very good point
And 10 years later the Canon will be worth less than half the amount and the Leica will be worth more than you paid for it.
I mean I wouldn't pay for the Leica glass right now, I wouldn't pay more for it in 10 years. Losing 50% of the value of an RF glass over 10 years is like paying 115$ per year, which is not that bad considering the quality of the images you can get.
On the highlight roll off issue, the Canon is obviously on the brighter side. Same setting DOES NOT equal to same amount of light, especially when we are talking about F stop and not T stop.
Many of these comparisons have slight exposure and color temp differences ( quite obvious at the 8:32 mark...........Canon exposure is brighter, and cooler in overall color temp ) so leveling the field on these issues would be good to have a more accurate comparison. You really need to do this before making any "color science" or "highlight rolloff" comparison. The Leica shots are obviously warmer overall.This can be simply measured and observed in some of the more neutral areas ( concrete pavement...etc )
IMO the softness of your Leica shots has to do with the rate of fall off of the focus.
A good test would be to shoot a ruler of some sort and check the *rate* of fall off from in focus to not in focus of both camera/lenses.
F2 is F2 as you said and that is correct but the fall off may differ
you cant have swirly bokeh with perfectly circular balls, it's a trade off. Unless someone can show me otherwise? I've never seen it. I prefer the character of swirly bokeh over the uniform pasted background with perfect circles.
would be nice to see the Summilux as well. the micro-contrast and highlight falloff with strong colors is even more natural.
To me it looks like the Leica is distorting his wife's features more. Her nose especially. It seems like a wide lens distortion
Color wise, the Canon has never been my preference so I'm not surprised about this point regarding the color science.
this is E300 & Camry Engine same CC ,Topspeed same same ,Handling Same ,Suspension same but which one you need to drive it depend on your effortable
First of all, you are comparing two different bodies processing two different raw algorithms, ACCORDING to each manufacturer’s taste. Second, TV(shutter) is different. And with regards to “3D pop”, it’s pure BS, how can a lens with “creamer” bokeh have less “3D pop”(separation).......hmmmm, doesn’t make sense. How can a lens with basketball bokeh balls, less desirable than football bokeh balls. And finally, how can one lens with consistent sharpness, in the same focus plane less desirable......hmmm.
the first point agree, however, the non-creamier bokeh do make the subject pop due to the optical imperfections from the lens. that is why helios 442 and old zeiss is used abusively in the cinema world due to the swirly bokeh while in the canon, you have a lens that is too good almost to the point it is optically perfect. amazing technology improvement.
what you gain on clicical sharpness and optical perfection, you lose on character. both have their own use
Is it just me? But I feel like the Leica is also more flattering.' Her face looks nicer. Nicer proportions
are these purely the lens difference or would the camera also play a part? How would the R5+RF 50mm 1.2 stack up?
Alex, any chance you've been able to compare the R5 files with the 50 1.2 to the APO Summicron-SL 50?
Awesome comparison and great overview.
Did you use Image stababilization with the SL? Maybe the difference in the focal plane is because of this...
Great comparison. I prefer the Canon lens for one particular reason. It keeps more of the subject in focus, while giving greater background blur. The Leica makes no sense. It makes more of your subject soft while giving less background blur (compared to the Canon lens). That's almost a defect as far as I'm concerned. I wonder if the Leica lens has edge-to-edge sharpness like it's supposed to have?
Oh, and your wife makes a beautiful model too.
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the video. As usual, I loved it.
Since you asked for comments, here are a few of my thoughts (2nd time, first time got lost thanks to CZcams throwing me out for unknown reasons :)):
The difference in focus is IMO caused by the fact that the Leica appears to have some backfocus compared to the Canon RF 50L, and possibly has a curved field of focus compared to the Canon. If you look at the Canon pictures you'll find that the buttons are lined up nicely with the eyes, whereas they are not with the Leica. I also do think that the Canon images appear to be slightly sharper where it counts, at the point of focus, despite the 17 MP advantage of the Leica sensor.
For the backfocus you may want to test with a chart, or a brick wall at 45 degrees or so, to see how they both perform side-to-side, to really understand what is going on here. The Canon is known to have an extremely flat field of focus, and to be perfect from corner to corner at F/2 (and only very slightly less so at F/1.2).
Colour wise I personally prefer the Canon, as I think too much red/orange is introduced in the RAW Leica images, but that is personal preference, and since you are comparing RAW images, I don't think it matters much anyway. Canon jpegs are very easy to get the same, with minor in-camera tweaks IME. I seem to always come back to Canon, because I really do like their "colour science", especially with L-glass. BTW, very similar to Olympus bodies and their Pro glass, especially their prime editions (I happen to own a complete microFT setup as well, for travelling light when I need to ;)).
3D pop I think depends a lot on processing, when you do have a setup that can (easily) produce it, like the Canon RF 50L (or the Leica SL 50 F/2, and/or a bunch of other lenses, like the EF 135L, EF and RF 85L, and a bunch of others). A good example with the RF 50L may be seen here: photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1515867. Not my picture, but I do not have anything that I could post currently, due to privacy regulations over here. I do think the first picture, of the couple on the stairs, is a great example of 3D pop :).
I personally consider the RF 85L to be even better in this regard, however, which is why it has become my current favourite RF lens, even though I am really a 50 mm shooter, and have been for over 47 years :). Normally, the RF 50L lives on my EOS R, but lately I tend to switch it out fro the RF 85L quite a lot :).
Anyway, thanks again, and keep up the good work!
Kindest regards, Wim
Thanks for the detailed response! It was a fun comparison for sure and it really highlights how great the new RF glass is.
Apart from colour science & background bokeh etc I think both lenses perform equal or very close.Sharpness on both lenses might be of equal quality BUT one thing I noticed (this could be a sensor & not lens related ) on nearly every photo the Leica's graduation from highlights to shadows had a smoother gradual quality appearance where the highlights and shadow detail was slightly better than the Canon.Overall I thought the dynamic range was far better on the Leica images.
I found the bokeh more straight and more beautiful often on the A pictures. B s pictures would often feel destorted in a circular way around the center of Lense B. I found the pictures of Lens A often more intimate.
On a flat plane of focus, if you see part of it is out of focus and part of it is in focus, the lens has curvature of field. It has nothing to do with the quick fall off someone said. The Canon is more desirable in this respect, flatter field of focus. As for the Leica seems to have more pop, please keep in mind that the Canon EOS R has AA filter, which robs a lot of that microcontrast, while the Leica has none. It could also be the lens, but if they are shot on the same body (not possible of course), it might be closer than you think. Overall, not sure what the Leica offers in this case except for some minor contrast boost, very slightly better flare resistance. No sharpness difference, more than a stop slower, likely just as big and slightly lighter. I know Leica is not about value, but that just means the Canon is really good for its price. Now if this is the Summicron-M 50 APO, I understand. Too bad the M version is not as good as the SL version in term of rendering.
I think this is a rather interesting video with a great finish. What u like or not is of course always subjective. First of all at least in direct coparison a "Leica Look" can be seen at first glance. And at first glace I had the tendency to like them more. More intensity in colours and "vivid" look. And they are great. However, with a 2nd look I turn to Canon. From an even more subjective point of view, the photos appear finer, more discreet and perhaps more suitable for printing in glossy magazines. Somehow more elegant. I have looked at quite a number of comparison photos, many with user tenor, at best a little sharper and better bokeh. I find the lens highly characteristic, with an enormous recognition value. What would I do if I had to choose a lens and was not allowed to resell it? I love Leica, the M lenses, my old Q1, and it would be like a betrayal. But I would go for the Canon lens.
There Is always something other worldly about Leica lenses from my experience Of their M mount lenses. I used to think it’s just over hyped obsessed people saying that until I Started using my M lenses more. I’ve had all the brands not just 35mm but mamiya Rollie’s Zeiss etc. I studied photography and worked in camera stores So have had tons of personal experiences and I’m agnostic When it comes to brands. I have no issues switching whole systems from one to another and yes Leica people have their reasons to be brand loyal. I’ve used 90 year old Leica lenses and I’m shocked how good they are
I think this pop effect comes from Summicron little vignetting and little distortion. Wish you showed us some shots at f1.2 from Canon in that comparison ;)
RF over any leica any day
Honestly, Adobe color profile always worked bad with Canon, it's not Canon color science but mediocre adobe interpretation of Canon. I always start editing from one of the Canon color profiles. Anyway, Leica seems inferior at f2 sharpness wise but seems more "3d" which is what matters, but just a tiny bit. Surely not worth 2.3K more, at least for me
I’m assuming you shot the 50mm Leica SL Cron on the SL2 - and the Canon 50mm on a Canon. The most of the differences you are seeing are due to the different sensors’ processing. Try renting a Novoflex adapter for mounting the Canon lens on the SL2 and re-shoot. I think the differences will answer most of your questions here. I suspect your question about focal length is how LR imports the lens profiles for distortion and auto-crops... That’s why I hate adobe products, you can adjust these differences for each lens in Cap. One... this should get you closer to “apples to apples” and will bring out the best of both lenses, your Canon 50 is also an incredible piece of glass.
The Canon is the new RF mount, you cant adapt these
The comparison will be not fair since Canon lens is native, who knows what Canon does tweak (optimize) the body via software with the lens but Leica just can´t!
With the focus falloff on the Leica, I think it’s about how modern Leica sensors are very slightly tilted upwards to adjust for red light travel and better light gathering (Since almost everything light sources come from the top). The falloff at the foreground might be a side effect of this design.
Lenses that are manufactured by Leica are calibrated for that slight sensor tilt.
Google: “The Future of Sensor Technology Leica microlens array”
The bokeh on the Leica lens is butt ugly! My Leica Q has MUCH better bokeh than that. Is this a defective lens?
For some reason it seems that the face on Canon is more round.
Also, TBH Id compare the 50 summilux to the RF more if its mainly for portraits and background blur etc... or even better the 75 APO :). I dont think the 50 APO is really aimed at that.... Its more of an all around with super high contrast and sharpness corner to corner. I hope you tried some B&W :D
Mine retro Minolta Rokkor 50m 1.4 (Manual fokus) on my Canons R Full frame sensor makes amazing 3d pop images.. It is not that sharp as RF, but sharp enough. Keeps up with my EF.. beautiful bokeh.. Lense and Rf to MD adapter costed me only 120€.. Bought it because its small, to have nice portret lense to go.. EF 50mm is huge to be caried a on wecation hanging all day on my neck..
I may be wrong but Leica seems to be processing these images google style after you take them
Yeah but the difference is that Leica is doing all the processing in the lens ;)
It costs more to get that last little bit of performance. Ask yourself do you remember who came in second, or the winner.
Hi Alex, could you make a comparison between Zeiss Otus and Leica. I believe Zeiss will make this otus family for mirrorless. I hope they will.
maybe the summ. is not a true 50mm so the focal plane will be diff from the rf. idk
If Leica has chosen to use 11 aperture blade, the bokeh balls would be round at F2 but I guess what the have don't it gives the lens character.
You can't compare lenses using different sensors. That doesn't make sense.
Swirly bokeh wins.
The apo just destroys even with CZcams compression on my phone
Are you using the same camera with adapters or native cameras?
Native. EOS R and SL2
You supposed to have lots of Canon camera profiles in LR. If you got neutral than this is what you have and great for editing, but it won’t give any colors, you should do it yourself in a post. I’m sure Camera Faithful or Camera Portrait will give different colors right in OOC Jpeg, if you don’t want to spend time in post.
The difference in focus depth could be the diffraction limited aperture effect, since Leica has quite some more megapixels. I'm not an expert, it's just a supposition... And btw, you should make your wife smile more in the photos, she looks much better 👍. Thx for sharing your findings.
I saw what you saw as well. The Canon had better/smoother bokeh, but the Leica often seemed to have better colour and pop. However this wasn't always the case. There were a few photos where the Canon seemed to have better colour and pop to me like at 11:09 and 11:55.
Picture 2 and 3, The A has a far better rendition of the light "bubbles" at the back. They are circular whereas the B pictures are very distracting concerning the background. I leave the comment before I know the result... let's continue the video and I will leave new comments.
Does anyone know way canon can't make lenses with small diameter like the leika?
They can. But in this case he's comparing a f1.2 (Canon) to a f2.0 (Leica).
What cameras are these shot on? Must have missed it..
SL2 and EOS R
@@ABarrera Thank you sir :)
Kind of a shoddy comparison. Your settings are inconsistent. You would think since they are the same focal length and set to use same aperture, you'd use the same shutter speed and ISO. In most of the tests, the settings for the Leica was set at least 1/3 stops brighter than the Canon.
Here's some examples: fstoppers.com/comment/621224
First set of images I shot the SL2 with an ISO of 50. Second set of images the settings were identical
Wow! Very nice! Your issue could be related to the adapter with the canon lens. Great videos! Thanks
No adapter was used in this video, thanks for watching :)
@@ABarrera thanks for the information Alex!
The one aspect I noticed straight away that you didn’t comment on was that on some shots with the Leica you were getting a swirly background OoF area. It was strongest on the shot of your wife sitting on the grass, I think that was the second image you compared. Now, I’m not saying that’s good or bad, it really is subjective and down to the individual. Personally I like it, but then again, I own a Zeiss biotar 75 1.5 which is well known for this characteristic.
In some respects I prefer the nice and round bokeh balls that the canon gave though...I think this came down to if you had a few isolated bokeh balls,magenta I preferred seeing them round and not cat-eye, but where you had lots of bokeh balls over lapping and giving a swirl effect on the Leica, even though they were cats-eyed, they appealed to me. No ‘winner’, just differing characteristic.
I think you are right, that the Canon raw files were relatively flat in comparison to the Leica DNG, so naturally, the Leica ‘appears’ to win straight out of camera, but that’s kinda missing the point I think. The RAW is the starting point at which to post process & ive read many a time that a neutral flattish raw is a good starting point.
Question is, when the canon RAW is post processed, does it exhibit more of less similar ‘pop’ to the Leica out of camera &/or the Leica image once it’s been post processed.
When they are both processed it’s hard to tell a difference. You have to really pixel peep and examine the bokeh so spot the differences.
Alex Barrera .....no brainer then really!
That’s why all my work for the past 20 months has been with the new Canon system. Love that glass
Alex Barrera ....after 3 decades on the Eos system, the last decade spent waiting for Canon to launch a camera that appealed more to me than just my 5d2 with improved AF, I jumped ship at the end of 2017 and got an A7R3, and a few months back have added a GFX 50r to play along side the A7R3 - the split being AF/IS/speed required then use A7R3, for slower working / old manual focus glass use the 50r.
I bet you are looking fwd to the R5 announcement this month, if you already have a load of RF lenses, it’s just been the bodies have been largely under whelming so far, but it looks like the R5 is poised to change all that!
For sure man, the RF glass made the EOS R a great camera in my opinion. Can’t wait to see what the R5 does
That Leica "3D pop" has a very artificial look dividing the subject from the background. This coupled with the higher contrast of the Leica adds to the visual perception of "sharper".. This is a visual presentation common to many Leica lenses (cinema-video included) which appeals to some and disliked by others.
The canon has IMO, far better overall balance visually presenting a much smoother transition between subject to background. This coupled with lower contrast aids in overall micro contrast and tonality. Even viewing these images via the web on less than ideal video monitors, the canon has more appealing skin tone colors than the Leica.
It is much a choice of visual presentation preference, NOT which is the "better" lens.
The bokey balls are nicer with the Canon, but the 3D effect is on the Leica.
The Canon images look flat compared to the 3D effect of the Leica.
But the blurred bokeh balls of the Leica are awful to my point of view. I don't like these cat's eyes bokeh balls.
cool video! Try the voigtlander nokton 50 1.2 for leica
Wait, dit you compare lenses on two different bodies - even worse - two different brand of bodies? That makes it rather pointless, except for bokeh shape and sharpness. The "color science" or highlights you drop frequently is mainly down to the sensors, not the lenses. I'm don't see why you include this in you commentary without stressing that these are two different cameras and two different sources of raw files.
Mentioned it several times in the video that this was for fun. I love my RF 50mm and I am a huge Leica fan.
F2 is not F2. T2 is T2.
You stopped down Canon lens which helps to perform better but Leica lens is still better. If you compare 50mm F1.4 SL lens vs Canon 50mm F1.2 , you will how much Leica kicks Canon
But if you open up the RF lens to f1.2, you’ll get a look the APO 50 just cannot achieve.
I would’ve actually preferred to see them both wide open. Sharpness isn’t everything.
Also in lowlight the RF lens will give you cleaner files than the APO 50 at the same shutter speed.
@@ghas4151 no it won’t give you cleaner images because SL2-S has been released ;)
I have a few Leica Rs in the 30K serial number range, including the 50mm Summicron F2. Have the EOS R. Also have the Zeiss Contax 50 1.4 that I purchased new back in the film days (Contax RTS body). And have the Canon 50mm 1.4 EF. So finding your comparison was quite interesting.
The decision for me was quick; I liked A better before I knew which lens was which. I watched Duclos (cine lens-mod guy) given a blind test between a cheap $100 stills lens and a 5-digit cinema lens. They were both sharp; nearly equivalent in many test shots. Yet Duclos pretty quickly nailed the correct lens by observing aesthetics such as smoothness and roundness of bokeh when stopped down (and wide open), shape of aperture blades when stopped down (though some inexpensive lenses can have a higher number of blades), tendency to flare (and quality), etc. Micro contrast and color were also compared. It was a close call, and though Duclos found clue after clue, he wasn't completely confident until later when a couple telltale differences and the sum of all the differences made his choice clear. I.e., modern computer designed lenses can provide very good quality... though the quality construction is another matter entirely.
When I watched the comparison without knowing which lens was which, the Canon exhibited those qualities that were found on the expensive 5-digit cine lens. The bokeh was smooth, round and did not call attention to itself. The iris was smooth; blade pattern barely visible. I think I was influenced by the Duclos challenge because the football shape and noisier bokeh of B made my choice for A easy. The swirly bokeh is nice character and some like it (me too in some instances), but I can see what Duclos meant by the lens calling attention to itself with this characteristic, vs smooth bokeh that doesn't.
As for the 3D pop you're mentioning, I'm not really seeing it at least on the CZcams presentation. I see it with my Leica lenses from time to time, but it's not something that just jumps out. Seems there's a combination of elements that come together for a lens to display this, including lighting, subject distance from background, colors, etc. Some will say that there's no such thing; maybe, maybe not. It's an illusion of course since the images are 2 dimensional. When the elements come together it's great to see the subject seem to pop from the background; and I enjoy it when I see it.
As for value, that $2K for the Canon, while still very expensive, is a far greater value than the Leica for nearly $5K, and at that, the Canon would do a much better job of impersonating a 5-digit cinema lens. Thanks for making the comparison! Thumbs up.