Spot the differences: Comparing a $430 35mm F1.4 7Artisans lens to Leica&#39;s $5,895 Summilux-M

https://leicarumors.com/2020/08/24/first-review-of-the-new-7artisans-35mm-f-1-4-lens-for-leica-m-mount.aspx/

Hi Forum,

First real Review, YT Video. ;)

Many Samples.

Good Night.

5 months ago*permalink

fcracer

Here’s another comparison of 35MM equivalent lenses (Summilux FLE vs. Fujifilm. XF23 vs. GF45 vs. GF50): https://fcracer.com/35mm-equivalent-lens-comparison/

5 months agopermalink

Samb15

The "feel" of using the lens and the pleasure it brings cannot be ignored. The quality of this interface will also affect the photographer's work. There are subjective aspects no only to the image, but the process of capturing it -- a perfect fit between man and machine is a beautiful thing and can give a quick intuitive experience that allows a quicker adjustment and reaction time to a scene that is seen as a potential picture.

When I was in the business of buying and selling camera gear, there were some combinations of camera and lens that just felt like an extension of my eyes and hands; while with others of equal grade, price, and specs it seemed like I was fighting to get a shot. Other people as qualified as myself sometimes had the exact opposite reactions to the same items. In this, no one is "right", but some equipment may be right for a person.

If it's in your budget and you like a Leica best, you are likely to get better images with it.

5 months agopermalink

Gabbb

You are right, then again using a rangefinder camera with a lens that's causing any viewfinder blockage never gave me that feeling. I'm confident that I get more joy & better pictures using a Sony camera with a Zeiss MF lens than with most Leica combos.
As for this 7A lens, I think you would be surprised about the ergonomics. The only issue is copy variation, but it's worth sending the lens back a couple of times to get a good copy, considering the major price difference.

5 months agopermalink

Wow, great test, I actually preferred B B A B.
7 Art was better on the brick wall (good ol' brick wall test never fails).
The leica was better in direct sunlight and the bockeh-y balls were like something out of a Prince video from the 90s... "...Cream get on top, cream shaboogie- BOP!"
I saw a strong difference in each image but half the time I preferred the 7 Art. I'd definitely buy that one instead.

5 months agopermalink

Unfortunately, both lenses were testet on a camera they were not designed for. Thus, you have peripheral color shift and astigmatism (smearing) ruining the photos and making the test almost useless.

5 months agopermalink

GiPamp

y'all got to much time on ur hands...

5 months agopermalink

mikeporterinmd

To me, one of the more fun aspects of owning Fuji is the culture of using a variety of different lens for different reasons. If I could afford it, I would own a Leica lens. But, I am also having fun and getting interesting results with $70 lens. It really just depends on the photo you are trying to capture and the characteristics of the lens. The above photos are too small for me to really see anything except once I knew the answers. But, generally, I did pick the 7Artisans. But, if I sat down with a friend and debated the images, I'll bet I would choose a statistically insignificant difference. Or with different images?

5 months agopermalink

You can access the full size images on flickr.

5 months agopermalink

It could be that this Leica lens has a steeper angle of light hitting the corners of the sensor than the 7Artisans lens has. It should be easy to determine if these lenses are very different in that regard.

That could make a difference if the Leica sensor compensates for that or if Leica software does the same. But nobody has established this let alone provided sample images to demonstrate how much that could matter over not having a special sensor or for correcting the image with "non Leica" software.

Additionally how could the special Leica sensor's microlenses improve non-telecentric wide angle lenses without negatively affecting more telecentric lenses?

But if both lenses give acceptable results on this non Leica sensor, who cares?

5 months agopermalink

"how could the special Leica sensor's microlenses improve non-telecentric wide angle lenses without negatively affecting more telecentric lenses?"

Both specialized microlenses and a thinner sensor stack mitigate the effects of light rays not hitting the sensor (or the sensor cover glass) at a right angle. With telecentric lenses, you do not have this problem in the first place. Thus, it's possible to improve results for non-telecentric lenses without impacting the performance of telecentric lenses. With profiles, further improvement is possible, but then you need to be sure not to appy these profiles to telecentric lenses. (Looking at the full size images, I do not think they are acceptable outside of social media.)

5 months agopermalink

How do you conclude the results are unacceptable? I can't imagine why a shallow depth of field image of a scooter or a box on a wall needs to be better than this when the goal is to make an interpretitve image not a technical one.

It amazes me that so much criticism exists without anyone pointing to photos that prove their points.

Anyway, the likelihood that anyone who uses the $5000+ Leica lens for typical amateur photography at f1.4 needs more technical "perfection" seems absurd. Most of the image is just a blur afterall and we're going to spend a bunch of additional money because we see "defects" in the blur in some parts of the image?

5 months agopermalink

This is interpretive photography not rocket science. Why would anyone use a Leica M in the first place if technical photography was their application. The sensor they use is a compromise to be compatible with legacy lenses. The M design targeted quick and sloppy work. If their current lenses require a special sensor and digital correction, they made compromises in lens design to keep them smaller. This isn't a view camera

5 months ago*permalink

4B, the Summilux/GFX image, suffers from peripheral color shift, which creates a "cloudy" atmosphere (with a warm flashlight illuminating the center). Then, you have smearing even in the bokeh, if you look at the full size picture. (Of course, the full size picture is the reference, otherwise of course the image would be acceptable for a thumbnail.)

Important parts of both 4A (7Artisans/GFX) and 4B are just blown own, and we don't know what is lurking there once we pull down the highlights in post. The smearing is more of a problem in the other 7Artisans/GFX images, not in 4A.

While not every defect is present in all pictures, and it may well be possible to shoot acceptable pictures with these lens/camera combinations, the risk of ending up with images that have major defects that cannot be fixed in post (or would take an incommensurate amount of time to fix in post) is substantial.

5 months agopermalink

Nodelic

Damn I picked the Leica pics 😩.
Having said that there really were very few differences. Quite incredible.

5 months agopermalink

tedolf

I can see a difference.

5 months agopermalink

DeathArrow

Not zoomed and watched on my phone they look the same. As I bet would look shots taken with a phone.

So if you just shoot to share on Instagram, lens almost doesn't matter.

If you crop, print show your photos at higher resolution, then glass quality starts to matter.

Although Leica prices don't reflect lens quality. A much cheaper top of the line Sigma or Tamron lens can be at least as good.

5 months agopermalink

No they can't, sigma glass is wonderfully sharp but their designs come at the cost of micro contrast (detail and accuracy in the shadows).
'Sharper' is only better if you are an amateur.

5 months agopermalink

Tofer23

Comparing lenses on objects is like comparing cars in a dealership. Shot people agains sun, with artificial light, natural light. How does it render skin tones and shadows?

5 months agopermalink

Christos Cloud

Also, the user experience (the pleasure that gives to the photographer) cannot be measured.

5 months agopermalink

Indeed. And that's a real shame into each sites like this.
People seldomly look about the feel, materials used, smoothness of the focus ring and so on.

5 months agopermalink

TonyPM

It feels awesome when I see photos that come out of a 10 year old DSLR with an affordable lens on it and they look better than what we can get with top of the line cameras and lenses from today.

Of course this all depends on who is behind the camera and what he or she does, and their personal taste.

5 months agopermalink

The more variables you include in your "tests" the less you can conclude from your "results."

5 months agopermalink

Good points

5 months agopermalink

Bhima78

@Cristos

Or the pleasure of saving over $5,000 for even MORE camera gear is also not measured here.

5 months agopermalink

Leica has been hiring Zeiss engineers since ...forever. Leica makes more expensive more exotic glass on average...I think you are confusing prices with something else.

5 months agopermalink

No flamewar, but Zeiss Lenses have being beaten Leica Lenses into Sharpness, back into the old Days, when the Contax I, IIa, IIIa have been into their heyday...means, starting from 1932.... but the Contax I was being a flawed Rangefinder Design, the IIa so much better.

Zeiss have being there, even a hell long time, before Leica, since 1846, both are our german brands, too. ;) It's great - to have Choices. I love Zeiss Lenses, for what it is. Those who are wealthy, can buy Leica, of course. ;-)

A fine Sunday.

5 months agopermalink

I have a couple of Milvus lenses. With Zeiss, you pay half the price for twice the weight. ;)

5 months agopermalink

The reason this occurred was because Zeiss went after sharpness where as leica suck with 2 things, character, and micro contrast.

5 months agopermalink

Soundknight21, both went for the same thing. But Zeiss did all kind of optics, (relatively) cheap and expensive, and was for a few decades more than one company.

5 months agopermalink

@soundknight21: Zeiss lenses such as Otus or Milvus are actually sharper at f/1.4 than Leica lenses. But they are sometimes four times heavier. You need a D850 with a grip to balance them, so your camera is three times larger. Thus, I often take only one Milvus lens (and some Nikon lenses) on a day trip. But you can easily take 3 Leica M primes in a small bag without being identified as "the photographer". And many of the Leica lenses, especially the Summicrons, are as sharp or almost as sharp as the Zeiss Milvus lenses - almost as sharp meaning they still outresolve a 50 MP sensor (for example, you get edge-to-edge moiré when you shoot a 3m long yardstick with the 28mm Summicron on the Nikon Z7).

5 months agopermalink

I meant "stuck" not "suck"

4 months agopermalink

Regarding the notion that these lenses were not tested on a Leica M body, It does not matter to the extent that you will notice.

Zeiss makes Leica M-mount lenses and they are consistently higher-rated than Leica's own lenses.

You will be disappointed when the lenses are tested on a Leica M body because you won't pass the blind test.

5 months agopermalink

"It does not matter to the extent that you will notice."
It does matter, and yes, you will see a difference.

"Zeiss makes Leica M-mount lenses and they are consistently higher-rated than Leica's own lenses."

This is not true. Zeiss makes _some_ lenses that have the performance that Leica achieves, but not consistently. They do so rarely. The only example that I know of is the ZM 15, and that one implies heavy vignetting.

"You will be disappointed when the lenses are tested on a Leica M body because you won't pass the blind test."

Not true. Corner sharpness and field curvature are impacted when these lenses are not used on a sensor that is not appropriate.

Also, the pictures above have obvious, albeit small differences. The difference in rendering is quite obvious in the last picture. I personally miss the difference in color, but someone pointed it below, and now it is obvious in each one.

5 months agopermalink

Nice try.

You failed the blind test.

Your theories are just theories.

5 months agopermalink

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898836-REG/Sigma_340306_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html

@pro photo 2011

"You failed the blind test."

It's not easy to see color failures at this size, you know. Once pointed, they are always there.

"Your theories are just theories."

These are not theories. These are the fruits of investigation. If you are so determined to prove them wrong, then I invite you to do so with evidence instead of this.

5 months agopermalink

Lightmomentum

Zeiss are legend with optics producing the most real life images both still and video. Leica. on the other hand, produces fine optics of industrial accuracy perfect for example theodolites where straight lines and edges are critical.

4 months agopermalink

jmehta

I think all discussion threads and posts should be disabled on any article that includes Leica. It is the same set of arguments by Leica haters and lovers!

Given a choice, would you rather not eat a gourmet meal over a Happy Meal at McD?

Given a choice, would you rather not wear an Armani shirt over Gap?

To all those who think Leica is over-priced or inferior to 7Artisans or whatever point-and-shoot or iPhone that they use, tell me which lens you would pick if it cost you nothing!

As I have said before on this site, there is as much pleasure in the process as there is in the final image. Perhaps using a Leica provides that pleasure. People who have never used one (and yet confidently castigate Leica) will never know, will they?

5 months ago*permalink

tangbunna

Luxeica!!!!

5 months agopermalink

fpessolano

The food analogy does not hold. The difference between a leica and, for example, a nikon or fuji lens is very much smaller than the difference between a michelin restaurant and rubbish McD food.

5 months agopermalink

USN Squid

@jmehta:

> [ ... ] tell me which lens you would pick if it cost you nothing

The only possible way a lens would cost you nothing is if you received it as a gift. Considering Leica's pricing habits, the probability of that happening is zero.

But, since you asked: the SIGMA 35mm f/1.4 for Nikon F:

It has AF to boot.

5 months agopermalink

Oceanvista

I used the Leica R4s, and had the 180 3.4 apo telyt. It was supposedly one of the very best lenses of its kind in existence, until a friend lent me his Nikon F3, and 80-200 2.8. Within a month, after further comparisons with more lenses, I was all in with Nikon....now after further testing, I’m all in with M4/3!

5 months ago*permalink

Rolandigital

@Oceanvista MFT has really good lenses. I got myself very recently Olympus 75/1.8 and I can say that I have never owned a better, sharper lens.

5 months ago*permalink

Melindra

Should've been compared to the ZM35 which is cheaper and better than the Leica.

5 months ago*permalink

-> Leica M lens
-> Fujifilm camera
-> Adapter

This test is invalid.

5 months ago*permalink

It does not matter to the extent that you will notice.

Zeiss makes Leica M-mount lenses and they are consistently higher-rated than Leica's own lenses.

You will be disappointed when the lenses are tested on a Leica M body because you won't pass the blind test.

5 months ago*permalink

@pro photo 2011: It would be great if your assertions were supported by facts or at least some semblance of logic.

5 months agopermalink

@pro photo 2011:
"It does not matter to the extent that you will notice."
It does matter, and yes, you will see a difference.

"Zeiss makes Leica M-mount lenses and they are consistently higher-rated than Leica's own lenses."

"You will be disappointed when the lenses are tested on a Leica M body because you won't pass the blind test."

Not true. Corner sharpness and field curvature are impacted when these lenses are not used on a sensor that is not appropriate.

5 months agopermalink

@supersargas, AcuteShadows

Nice try.

You both failed the blind test.

Your theories are just theories.

5 months agopermalink

Supersagas, HAHAHHAH. That was a good one.

5 months agopermalink

@pro photo 2011:
I replied to your other comment above.

5 months agopermalink

No need to waste additional time with a stubborn Leica fan.

5 months agopermalink

scokill

I only buy the best. My Yeti cooler keeps ice for 7 days. The lesser brand only keeps ice for 6 days.

5 months agopermalink

dw2001

Buying a Leica is a mental thing, it's like a really really expensive shrink. Nothing more, nothing less.

5 months agopermalink

USN Squid

@dw2001:

> Buying a Leica is [ ... ] like a really really expensive shrink.

The shrink would be more useful. He/She could fix the Leica problem.

5 months ago*permalink

Livsimage

The only one I got right was the wall shot where you can see the distortion in the cheaper lens. All the others I thought the cheapie looked better...

5 months agopermalink

Tom Caldwell

The amount of rear protrusion on the 7Artisans lens might. Somewhat limit the range of camera bodies it could be mounted on.

5 months agopermalink

S Yu

...You got it completely backwards. It's the Leica that protrudes into the mount and it's part of the reason their lenses are compact.
And no, it will not limit the range of camera bodies because no Leica has a rear element close enough to the focal plane to hit a focal plane shutter, and of course it won't hit a mirror. Unless you need some mechanical connection with the body, like a shutter priority mode, which would not be universally compatible between cameras with the same mount.

5 months agopermalink

Dré de Man

At this size, you hardly can say anything at all. If you look at Flicker, you see that the differences in detail are completely hidden by artifacts and also that the file size is still too small. 2A and 2B show clear differences in corner sharpness. Yes, the bokeh looks a little bit similar. So what can you learn? That this is not the way to test lenses.

5 months agopermalink

With a M2, M3, or M4(P) or even M6 this 7Artisans Lens would make Sense...but wait...i would go for a Zeiss Biogon, even it would being more expensive. The Lens Hood from the 7artisans looks hella cheap, it should be, must be a square Lens Hood, for my taste, like the TTArtisan 35/1.4.

A comparsion 7Artisans 35/1.4 vs TTArtisan 35/1.4 would be even more interesting. For real, the Lens Hood on the 7Artisans Lens is being crappy, there must be something attached like from Haoge.

And then there is (vs the Leica Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH M-Mount) into Comparsion way cheaper, very good Zeiss Distagon 35mm F1.4 ZM Lens, which is really a huge Lens, but excellent one.

The Question TTArtisan, 7Artisans vs. Leica is being Crystal clear - i would not, couldn't afford ever a 6K Lens, and another 7 to 8K for a matching Leica digital Rangefinder. Both Chinese Lenses seem to be way extraordinary for their Pricelevel, and being the "Poor Man's Summilux" Equivalent. ;)

Good Night, a fine Sunday.

5 months ago*permalink

I do reply myself here - i would like to see a 1:1 Comparsion, both between the interesting 7Artisans 35mm F2 M-Mount, and 7Artisans 35mm F1.4 E-Mount Lens, both are Worlds cheaper, too...and Fullframe also. ;)

Good Night.

5 months ago*permalink

snapa

Why would anyone pay 12 times the price for the same IQ?! It's a very simple question, can anyone anwser it, that makes any sense?

5 months agopermalink

That’s completely the wrong question. The right one is, can you convince people that from $500 to over $5000 there is a very VERY significant and rational vLue in the more expensive lens? Yes. People will pay that much because there has never been a time where people wouldn’t of convinced it’s the best.

5 months agopermalink

martindpr

Leica marketing teaches that to get the most out of a Leica system you need to have all things Leica (camera + lenses + accessories). Leica lenses have been bragged about since forever as the pinnacle of all photographic aspirations. If a die-hard Leica owner/community member notices you shooting with an M10 and this lens, he'll say "You're not shooting with a Leica. That's not Leica". It's like having a good fake Rolex, it will do the job, but you'll always know it's fake. People who buy a Leica are not interested in comparisons like these. They are a bit of snobby and want the whole package Leica so that they can show it off with friends/fellow photographers and compete. So, who's this for? For someone who has an M8/9 and who is price aware. This is not for someone who makes $25K a week and who can afford the real deal.

5 months agopermalink

Martin, yes. And I think it’s true. They should have shot on Leica M since both lenses are Leica M. But on another note, I am not sure if doing so would kick in camera corrections. This would be unfair to 7Artisans, as I am sure if Leica has corrections for theirs and does not upload corrections for competitors, it’s akin to cheating. Yes, you scored higher, but not based on merit.

So by using a third party sensors, to lenses optimized for the SAME Leica sensor, one can get some idea of the performance of each.

I think this test is good to show cheap lenses have become quite competitive, while not stating one is definitely way ahead of the other for normal use.

5 months agopermalink

Conrad567

I am beyond pixel peeping these days, so the Artisan lens would be just fine for me. But if you make huge blown up prints, or are fixed to a 4K monitor, then I suppose the Leica is worth $4000 dollars more.

5 months agopermalink

Mh...did you look at the MTF? I did.

5 months agopermalink

Conrad567

You do realize that the mtf data is for maximum resolution?

5 months agopermalink

I did look at the MTF of each, and how many MP the Leica has? Both lenses have very high contrast at high “resolution”.

5 months agopermalink

Bill Spencer

Show me a lens test chart, and then I'll decide.

5 months agopermalink

m_black

It sort of answers your own question if you can’t decide based on images, and need a test chart to see the minutia level of differences between the lenses. I understand the Leica crowd wants to feel they have thee best, but c’mon... 14x the price for 5% difference? I understand paying a lot to get the next faster version. But for people looking to dabble with an older Leica and need a far less expensive lens to dabble with, the Artisan lens will help fulfil the experience.

5 months agopermalink

Bill Spencer

Yes, I have compromised on many a lens, as I shoot with Panasonic m4/3 and use the Vario variants and one lens that Leica blesses, the 100-400. I got 3 out of 4 correct from the images. The third one was the hardest for me. My Dad used to love shooting test charts with his beloved M lenses, circa 1968, which I inherited. The two Summicrons (35 and 50) would never trade for a half an f stop. How could I? Anyway, it is interesting to see a Chinese made lens give Leica a run for its money.

5 months agopermalink

xyxyxyxyxy

Nice idea of a test - if only the pictures where of any value at all.

5 months agopermalink

Daft Punk

I’m not an engineer, but i suspect this test is meaningless.

Is it not true that Leica lenses are optimised for the flange distance and micro
lenses of a Leica M ? Without these things, surely it is no surprise the images look the same.

I have seen Leica Summilux files before from a Leica M and it was the nicest Bokeh I have ever seen. Better than the Canon 50 L I owned at the time.

5 months agopermalink

LensBeginner

Wrong camera, adapters are involved (!), JPEGs, selected apertures... yeah, it's at the very least not very well contrived...

I mean, I'm pretty confident that I can convince anyone that anyone between a pair of lenses is the best, given that I can choose the conditions of the "test".

5 months ago*permalink

Contrived appears to be the operative term. ;)

5 months ago*permalink

Both lenses are optimized for Leica M sensors. Yes, 7Artisans has a different version depending on the sensor characteristics as well.

5 months agopermalink

Tons o Glass 0 Class

Paying close attention to bokeh color fringing is the easiest way to spot the 7Artisans lens; it does very poorly compared to the Leica in this regard. To its credit though, it might have an edge in global contrast and maybe center sharpness. If the Leica was $650, I'd choose it over the 7Artisans.

5 months agopermalink

misspiggy01

And here i was thinking you compared these lenses, but then it's just a repost. Lame.

5 months agopermalink

nathanbush

When I had an opinion, preferred the 7Artisans.

As with all things Leica, an overpriced boondoggle for the 'Emperor's New Clothes' set.

5 months agopermalink

What are you talking about? That is the finest little red blob you'll ever find.

5 months agopermalink

AndreasOberg

I do not see that much differences on these images, not here on the webpage at least, but that does not mean that the difference is not there. We have a collection of Zeiss Otus lenses, (you can get them quite cheap these days) and when you look online the difference is not that large, however when we photograph with them the difference was bigger than we thought. Much sharper and no chromatic aberration. We compared with for example Canon's new 85 1.4 IS that has done well in tests and it performed very poorly compared to the Otus equivalent.

My point is that I could imagine the Leica lenses could be similar, that in real usage the difference is larger than you would think. Of course those that buy Leica do not only do it for the image quality, but for several other reasons.

5 months agopermalink

nathanbush

Yeah, but 99% of images produced these days will be seen on a screen, so effectively any subtler differences don't matter, especially when one lens is 1/10 of the cost.

5 months agopermalink

You can download the full size files on flickr. 4B is here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/leicarumors/50234430252/sizes/l/

5 months agopermalink

MrBrightSide

How do you get Otus lenses at a discount.

5 months ago*permalink

AndreasOberg

MrBrightSide, I was just lucky and found them for less than half price at a store. Another way is of course to buy them used. The 85 is our favorite but the 55 and 28 are nice too. If I would pick one it would be the 85.

Nathanleebush. Well, I think it is important to realize what is the purpose with the images, if it is to show the images online or something else. Myself I always focus on improving the quality both with my own skill as well as with all the equipment I use. This mentality has a tendency to open up commercial doors, basically if you constantly strive for higher quality there is a larger chance for success, at least in my experience. I like the idea that the images can be cropped and they can be printed in high quality as well. Everyone of course has to decide what is their own goal and budget is.

5 months agopermalink

coasttocoastphoto

I have 4 Leica bodies and eight Leica S and SL lenses and one 55mm Zeiss Otus. I use the Zeiss on my SL via a Novoflex adaptor. The results between the Leica and Zeiss glass are almost indistinguishable. But there are other benefits- the Otus is manual focus which is an awesome feature. Leica and Zeiss are in a whole different class from anything that I have used previously from Nikon, Canon, Tamron or Sigma, although I did get some crazy sharp results from my Canon 300mm 2.8. If you are new to Leica or Zeiss, then you are in for a treat. Here are some of the benefits: optical superiority, a simplified and more intuitive interface, smoother operation, more tactile feel, thoughtful ergonomics, robust and balanced construction, and a second-to-none viewfinder. The lenses are designed to have more contrast, to produce corner-to-corner sharpness, and demonstrate a noticeable quantitative difference. *comments continued on next post-

5 months agopermalink

coasttocoastphoto

*continuation from previous post-
If you are making beautiful images with another brand, then I salute you. However, I suggest that you should get acquainted with as many brands as possible and not fall prey to contrived test results. You may love the brand, or you may not, but that's the beauty of photography- to grow as an artist and to chronicle life. @coasttocoastphotoatl

5 months agopermalink

Nikon Z prime 50mm and 85mm lenses, some new Panasonic and Canon RF lenses are on a par with the average Leica and Zeiss lens (not necessarily the Leica SL lenses). But the Leica SL lenses, when the wide-angle primes will become available, will be the best image quality set of lenses for full frame cameras. (And for medium format and reasonable fast lenses, only Hasselblad may rival the SL lenses.)

5 months agopermalink

The Leica is more of it.

5 months agopermalink

moizes 2

Leica's lens must be tested on its own sensor. As well as a comparable device. Sorry, but the rest of one's eloquence isn't interesting for me anymore!

5 months agopermalink

Ze De Boni

True, mostly because of the thickness of the protective glass. Corner resolution seems terrible for both, something we have experienced on Sony cameras, the answer being to blame Sony for their thick glass.

5 months agopermalink

babart

Very interesting. Leica has always been higher priced than many superb lenses/cameras, Zeiss, Fuji, Nikon, Cosina, others. I've always understood this was due to the pinnacle of German engineering and materials. That's probably true, but when it comes to lenses newer types of glass and computer imaging have leveled the playing field. I have no doubt the Leica lens will outlast the 7Artisans, probably by decades. However, it would have to be 14 decades based on the price of the 7Artisans.

That said, I must admit to wanting a Leica since I handled a friend's M-3 back in the fifties. Today it would be their latest monochrome camera. To me, a perfectionist, Leicas seem perfection personified. To those who can afford Leica gear, I don't mean to disparage your choice in the slightest.

To each his own, and use what you have to the fullest.

5 months agopermalink

Lucian111

For Leica you're paying german salaries and for 7Artisans you're paying chinese wages. Engineers work in both companies...

5 months agopermalink

Leica was easy to spot, clearly superior. But is it $5465 superior?

5 months agopermalink

Andre JF

What exactly made it easy to spot the leica?

5 months agopermalink

New Day Rising

I picked the Leica as the better in 3 out of 4, but in each case I felt the difference was in the order of 10% (say, a score of 10/10 compared with 9/10). Better, definitely not in proportion to the cost. I guess for people who can afford Leica the ratio of performance gain to cost increase is not the point.

5 months agopermalink

@Andre - the magical rendering 3d pop rivets. All due to the microid contrast.

5 months agopermalink

Andre JF

I failed totally ... I was expecting the Leica lens to be superior, especially when it comes to contrast, but it looks like the Leica tends to get a bit "milky" in the vignetting corners. Looks to me there is less contrast.

Based on this compare, my choice would be the 7Artisan ...

5 months agopermalink

Peripheral astigmatism (smearing) is due to the thick glass of the Fuji sensor. This test should be done on a Leica M camera, as both lenses are designed for Leica M.

5 months agopermalink

Alex tK

AcuteShadows
So, if you put both lenses on a Leica M camera, will just the Leica lens get better due to the thinner glass on the Fuji, or will the 7Artisan lens also get better?

5 months agopermalink

xyxyxyxyxy

"will the 7Artisan lens also get better?"

That precisely is the question. Test!

5 months agopermalink

Both lenses will get better. All other assumptions are speculation.

The 7Artisans is also optimized for the M sensor. Maybe the 7Artisan light path through the exit lens is a little bit wider, therefore we see less peripheral color shift. The Leica lens knows that it will have a color profile on the Leica M sensor, so it can pursue other optimizations and live with the color shift.

Maybe the 7Artisans is not as strongly optimized for the Leica M sensor, but I don't know that. With a wider light path, the sensor stack thickness would have less impact. In this case, the sensor thickness of the GFX would be less problematic on the 7Artisans.

Then, both lenses will have aberrations that are now just being obscured by the smearing, so who knows what would emerge once you lift the curtain?

5 months ago*permalink

Andre JF

I would like to se this test on a Leica camera.

5 months agopermalink

Alex tK

AcuteShadows
So, you would have the same result on Leica as you have on the Fuji. Maybe maybe would you don't know that and other assumptions are speculations, but you are ready to claim that it's because of the thick glass on Fuji?

5 months agopermalink

I would expect different results on a Leica M camera. Results would be better for both lenses, but I don't know by how much. My guess is that we would see larger differences in the performance of the lenses.

The effect of thick sensor glass on the optical properties of a lens/camera combination is well known. What we don't know is the exact optical design of the lenses.

This explains the impact of the sensor stack: https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/the-glass-in-the-path-sensor-stacks-and-adapted-lenses/

It's like having two paintings that have been stored for ages in a dust-filled room. You go in with a flashlight and try to determine which would look better. The only way to make progress on this is to remove the paintings from the room and remove the dust.

5 months ago*permalink

JeyB

Surprisingly to my eyes the 7Artisans shows more microcontrast, especially in the first shot, near the bottom of the streetlight. Also the 7Artisans presents a color cast very slightly yellowed. Maybe the Leica is more color neutral, but I have a personal bias towards warm colors. The foliage looks more attractive to my eyes with the 7Artisans lens. Bokeh in the Leica has less mechanical vigneting considering the slightly rounded bokeh balls towards the borders of the frame and out of focus zones are more buttery. Leica seems to be less flare prone. All these impresions were simply viewing the photos as posted on the screen, not downloading the hi res samples. Wow, these seven artisans must work like fifty.

Final thought is that there is a collar for every dog. The brush does not make the painter. Keep on shooting with what you got and have fun!

5 months agopermalink

The peripheral color shift towards blue/cyan is due to the thick sensor glass of the Fuji GFX camera. The sensor glass is also causing astigmatism (smearing) towards the edges. Both lenses are affected, but the (better, though not perfect) performance of the Leica lens takes a greater hit. It's like throwing mud at two paintings and then debating which would appear to be more muddy.

5 months agopermalink

JeyB

Nice comment. Then you are saying that both lenses are performing differently because of the GFX and that this difference is what determines the better optics in one of them? This is getting complicated ;-)

5 months agopermalink

Yes, the sensor of the GFX limits the performance of both lenses. Therefore, in this test, we don't see what they would be capable of on the sensor they were designed for.

5 months agopermalink

JeyB

Ok, Does this reasoning to be aplicable to Canon lenses adapted to Sony sensors through Metabones or Sigma MC-11 adapters?

5 months agopermalink

In principle, yes. But the sensors are more similar.

5 months agopermalink

Kostasm

Leica supposed to tune sensors and lenses for their own cameras so I would expect the same test on a Leica camera.

5 months agopermalink

Rod McD

It would have been very interesting to see the accuracy vs error rate if DPR had withheld the identity of the lenses, taken a vote, and then revealed which was which..... I doubt most people could tell.

5 months agopermalink

sneakyracer

This article is mainly fuel to fire of the resident Leica haters. That said the 7Artisan lens looks like an amazing value.

5 months agopermalink

The Silver Nemesis

👆🏻-yes. On the other hand, I would like to perform the same test with the same lenses 10 years from now.

5 months agopermalink

NZ Scott

Wow. I only got 2/4 and I spent a lot of time pixel-peeping. Just goes to show how good cheap glass can be these days.

5 months agopermalink

Actually it shows how bad some tests can be these days. These lenses need to be compared on the camera they were designed for, i.e. a Leica M camera.

5 months agopermalink

NZ Scott

Would that make a difference to the crappy bokeh? I think not.

5 months agopermalink

Here are some examples showing better bokeh. https://leicarumors.com/2011/01/11/leica-summilux-m-35mm-f1-4-asph-lens-review.aspx/ Indeed, the bokeh of the (newer) Summilux 28mm is better than that of the Summilux 35mm (which is not about 10 years old).

As you mentioned pixel-peeping, I did not assume that you looked at the bokeh.

5 months ago*permalink

Ze De Boni

Main problem in this test is the thickness of the protective glass. Corner resolution seems terrible for both lenses, something we have experienced for so long with Leica wide-angles on Sony cameras, the answer being to blame Sony for their thick glass.
Test was just done wide open and the only flat subject shown bears little detail in neutral hues for a good comparison.

5 months agopermalink

In terms of quality of materials and manufacturing (even if it's hand-made), the Leica is definitely higher, but I won't pay 14 times the price of the 7Artisans 35/1.4 for that.

5 months ago*permalink

jkokich

Right on, pro! You have to ask, are the Leica shots 14 times better?

5 months agopermalink

It doesn't have to be 14 times better to be 14 times more expensive.
The last 20% of perfection can make up for 80% of the costs.
Some people are willing to pay for that perfection, most people won't.

5 months agopermalink

@It is just a tool

Most people can't tell the pictures apart, so why pay for a 14 times more expensive lens?

5 months agopermalink

That goes for most luxury products.
People who are willing to pay for it notice the difference, and IQ is only part of that. And that's the only thing that matters.

5 months agopermalink

@It is just a tool

"People who are willing to pay for it notice the difference."

Cut me a break. These people only notice the price difference.

Tell me about it if they can pass the blind test.

Chances are they can't. It's all make-believe.

5 months agopermalink

"These people only notice the price difference."
I call BS. Not worthy to continue this conversation.

5 months agopermalink