I could have chosen the title “Is thrice the price really thrice the quality?”, but would you have clicked? So what’s it all about? It’s about 50mm lenses. In the 35mm format, these are known as standard lenses because they are relatively close to the diagonal of the image sensor and therefore render the scene with roughly the same perspective as the human eye. They are considered unspectacular lenses. That’s precisely why I like this focal length so much, because it avoids gimmicks in environmental portraits and makes the person appear very natural within the space.
And what’s with the price in the title? I tested three 50mm lenses for the Leica SL, Panasonic S and Sigma fp cameras. Interestingly, one lens is always twice as expensive as the others. And each one is considered a very good lens in its own right.
Why did I do that?
Because comparative tests usually focus on quantifiable factors such as sharpness or vignetting. The latter is rather uninteresting, as lens corrections can account for it very effectively. Sharpness is important, of course, but these days virtually all lenses are capable of producing sharp images. It’s far more interesting to see how lenses handle the transition from sharpness to blur. Or what the bokeh looks like. But that’s hardly measurable. So I photographed the same subject with each lens and let the results speak for themselves. More on that in a moment…
I compared the following lenses:
- Panasonic Lumix S Pro 1:1.4/50mm – current list price: $2,500
- Leica Summilux-SL 1:1.4/50mm Asph. – current list price: $7,055
- Leica Noctilux 1:0.95/50mm Asph. – current list price: $14,400.00
The latter is really just there for fun and to make the title hold up. The result is still exciting, though…
Sharpness
But first, let’s take a quick look at why sharpness alone isn’t very helpful when assessing a lens. Take a look at the three images – they are heavily cropped sections of a larger image. The photos were taken with a Leica SL2, which has a 47-megapixel sensor. The difference in sharpness is marginal. Or is it?
Can you tell which lens was used to take each photo? If you know where to look, you can at least spot the Noctilux – but that’s not down to the sharpness. Below is the full scene. The bottles can be seen at the bottom centre. The crop is quite extreme.
Incidentally, the bar is a lovely spot down by the fish auction halls. And it’s ideal for testing how the lenses perform. All I have to do is turn right around the left-hand corner. And straight away, I’m treated to a wonderful view, as shown in the examples below. I deliberately focused on a point in the middle of the room.
Creating Bokeh
The thing is, I can easily create a lovely bokeh even with lenses that have a smaller maximum aperture, provided I get relatively close to the subject. I really only need an f/1.4 lens when I can’t get that close, but still need to isolate the subject. (Leaving light intensity aside.) The depth of field of a 50mm lens at f/1.4 and 5 metres is roughly the same as with an f/4 lens at a distance of 3 metres. (Furthermore, Leica has demonstrated with the Summaron 28 mm f/5.6 that even such lenses can create a 3D effect and background isolation.) Back to the examples: when I shoot through the window, the lens hood can occasionally cause reflections at the edges.
OK, it’s immediately obvious that the 50 mm on the Noctilux is actually a bit more than 50 mm, as the frame is slightly narrower. And apart from that? Well, the chains from the ceilings are in different places – the venue is on a floating pontoon. I hope we can all have a drink there again sometime and know that the swaying isn’t down to the alcohol 😉
Spot the difference
Back to the photo: can you spot the differences? I reckon you won’t be able to make them out at this size on your screen. Obviously, the last one is the Noctilux, because the frame is tighter. And which of the other two is the cheaper Panasonic model? Which one is the Leica Summilux-SL?
I’d say you only really notice the difference when you look at the enlarged image. More on that in a moment. But even when enlarged, the differences are marginal. The Panasonic Lumix S Pro 1.4/50 mm, however, creates the impression of greater sharpness through higher contrast. Nothing wrong with that. Leica does the same with the Summicron-SL lenses. As the Panasonic lens is ‘Certified by Leica’, I can only assume that it is an update of the slightly older Summilux-SL lens. That would also explain the slightly smaller build for the same aperture. In fact, the Panasonic Lumix S Pro 1:1.4/50mm has 13 elements, including 2 aspherical and 3 ED (extra-low dispersion); the Leica Summilux-SL 1:1.4/50mm Asph has 11 elements, including 4 aspherical.
Back to the comparison: take a look at the cropped images. I’ve adjusted the Noctilux’s slightly different angle of view here.
Let’s start with the last photo: thanks to its maximum aperture of f/0.95, the Noctilux naturally produces the softest bokeh – and also the most pronounced colour fringing around the lamp posts. It is, after all, an extreme lens, and pin-sharp rendering was never really the point.
In the first two images, you can see the Panasonic Lumix S Pro 50mm f/1.4 and the Leica Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 Asph. Take a look at the lines in the background. Due to the contrast enhancement of the Panasonic lens, the lines in the first image are slightly sharper and the bokeh in the flower is slightly more uneven.
Notice the difference
Did you notice the difference between the images in the overview? And can you see it in the close-up images? Is the difference worth the extra cost to you?
Before you make up your mind, take a look at the last example. I’ll show you the relevant close-ups from a much larger image in a moment – please disregard the variation in background lighting. But please click on the images to enlarge them.
Seriously though: all three lenses produce wonderful images and impress with their outstanding detail. Can you tell which image was taken with which lens? Here you can also see that, despite identical white balance settings, the colours differ slightly. That’s the last meaningful difference between them.
The first was taken again with the Panasonic Lumix S Pro 1:1.4/50mm, the second with the Leica Summilux-SL 1:1.4/50mm Asph., and the third with the Leica Noctilux 1:0.95/50mm. The latter renders the colours a little cooler. Interesting, isn’t it?
Final thoughts
Are there any other differences that have nothing to do with the final result? Yes, the weight, size and minimum focusing distance differ. When it comes to weight and size, the Noctilux has the edge because it doesn’t have autofocus. Among the AF lenses, the Panasonic Lumix S Pro weighs 959 g on my kitchen scales without the lens hood, whilst the Summilux-SL tips the scales at 1098 g. Neither is a lightweight, but the Summilux-SL feels superbly balanced in the hand. On the other hand, the Panasonic Lumix S Pro features a fast manual focus mechanism. When it comes to the minimum focusing distance, the Panasonic Lumix S Pro leads the way at 44 cm. The Leica Summilux-SL focuses from 60 cm. The Noctilux is designed for rangefinders and therefore only focuses from 1 m.
So? Is thrice the price really worth it? I’d say no, mainly because of the excellent performance of the Panasonic Lumix S Pro 1:1.4/50mm lens. That said, I love the image quality of the Leica Summilux-SL 1:1.4/50mm Asph. and how well it sits in the hand.
