Leica APO-Summicron-SL 75mm F2 ASPH sample gallery

Hattori Hanzo...

SL lenses are autofocus.

milkod2001:

This is optically significantly better than any lens you mention, and Sony is finally learning how to make optically good lenses. See the GM series. Though the best GM series lenses only start to equal just good Leicas.

Canon isn't really there yet. Though that f/1.2 lens is good if stopped down significantly. The Nikon 85mm f1/4 is nowhere near this optical quality. The only Nikon lens that comes close to a very good Zeiss, and this Leica is better, is the f/2.0 200mm Nikon.

The new Canon L 85mm f/1.4 Mark II shows some promise.

@Carey Rose
Please chose a route that is 100% consistent. At the moment you are not even consistent within the mirrorless or DSLR category.
For example, on your latest Sony galleries (like the 24-105) you disabled all corrections, while for other mirrorless (Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji) you have not done that. I think for example distortion correction should always be enabled for both mirrorless and DSLR. Many mirrorless lenses are not even usable without distortion correction, (Olympus 12-40 or Fuji 16-55 for example) and it doesn’t make sense to show them that way, because nobody will ever use them without DC. But if you allow DC for some manufacturers, you have to allow it for everyone in my opinion.

So please make a list what corrections are allowed (distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration) and then apply that list consistently to all manufacturers.

It hunts in low contrast situations, not necessarily in low light. This is, however, a problem of the camera body, not the lens. When the scene is contrasty enough, the lens focuses incredibly fast.

We generally don't post many (if any) high ISO shots in our lens sample galleries because once large amounts of noise creep into a scene, it can become to ascertain optical performance.

This lens focuses quite fast, and as Irakly said, given sufficient contrast even in dim scenes, doesn't hunt much.

@Kaunaskiwi Then there must be a whole bunch of amateurs among the pros.

Sorry but that pic is nothing to write home about.

No photoshop. Little contrast adjustment, everything else is intact.

@Akgbkd - In the rain? Against a few dozen specular highlight? With no longitudinal CA? Good luck :)

Three ignorant statements. Similar is not equivalent to same. Art criticism should not use metaphors.
I like the contrast, detail, lights rendition and look of depth in the photo. The results of two lenses are never the same.

@MyReality: actually, according to the dictionary, similar = same, s who is the ignorant now? I like Iraklys photo too, But this type of photo can be taken with other cameras and lenses.

biza43 - you are not looking at subtleties. "This type of photo" means "kinda like that". There is no fringing against the light, bokeh is 100% neutral, and there is no longitudinal CA. I know quite a few lenses that can do one out of the three, a handful that can do two, and only two AF lenses that can do all three: this one and 2/90 APO-Summicron-SL. Possibly, Summilux-SL 1.4/50, but I haven't shot with it enough to say for sure.

Irakly - the only way for you to prove that would be to take exactly the same photo with another lens. Since that was not done, subtleties are what they are. The characteristics you mention can be found in other high quality lenses e.g. Zeiss (Loxia 85 and Batis 135 come to mind); e.g. Sony ZA 50 1.4 and GM 85 1.4. Besides some others from Leica, of course.

I do not have to prove anything. I shot this not as a performance proof, but because I just wanted to have some fun taking pictures in the rain. If I were hired to do a comparative test, I would.
What I see in this picture, however, is rather unique. Zeiss lenses have a very different way they render. The visual difference is: Leica shots look deep, elements of the image seem to be within this depth; Zeiss pictures look like a flat surface with 3D objects popping out of the surface. Both are beautiful and distinct, just different. So, no, you won't be able to take this picture looking the same with Loxia 85 (also because it is 10mm longer and therefore compresses more).

This is what you wrote: "This lens is capable of producing results that are much more indicative of the differences between Leica optics and everything else." And shared a photo. Now, to evaluate whether or not such differences, as listed by yourself, are real, the only way to do that is to shoot same scene, same conditions, with other lenses. It seems that you are ok with not having to demonstrate such differences when called upon it; but are not ok when I pointed out other lenses that show similar optical characteristics as listed by yourself, namely: " There is no fringing against the light, bokeh is 100% neutral, and there is no longitudinal CA."

There are several Zeiss lenses that do that. I invite you to go and have a look at this link:

https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/

In there you can find several examples.

I shared my opinion based on more than ten years testing lenses for Zeiss and Leica and writing independent reviews. If you do not take my words at their face value, go ahead and do the testing of your own. Just that simple.

If you spend a little more time browsing the lenspire galleries, I am sure that you will find my article on 1.4/35 Distagon ZM.