So, I found out there is now a new version of the Summilux, with newer coatings and close focus of 0.45m. The new coatings reduce the already pretty minimal chromatic abberation on strong highlights. Also has 11 aperture blades, so slightly rounder bokeh (but still jagged). Flaring is also suppressed. Lens design and character seems to be the same though. I've compared mine with the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8. The Nikon is pretty much on par or exceeds the Summilux in sharpness and detail, but the Summilux has more of that medium format feel with the buttery smooth transition of sharp subjects and background. The Nikon is much more clinically perfect though, corner sharpness is fantastic and highlight abberations are nonexistent.
Hey Benj, I haven't finished the video yet but let me tell you there is another crazy person out there who needs that comparison. Me - also a Leica & Sony shooter :) Thanks for doing this! (I bought the 50/1.2 today before watching this video :'] ) I will probably also safe for the new summilux 50. I hope you can test that one as well at some point.
Same! I used the Lux for 7 years of weddings, and now own the 50 1.2GM and 1.4GM. Biggest difference I notice so far is that the 50mm 1.2GM is INSTANT to focus, where the 1.4GM is just "quick". Excited to see more comparisons!
@@Seapatico i rented the 1.2 for a couple of days and was pretty hooked immediately. Just a great upgrade for my Sony Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 :) Hope you have fun with your lenses
I currently have both the Sony GM's and am facing the same dilemma - the special sauce of the 1.2, vs the lighter carry of the 1.4. Will take a while to pick a winner.
Have you put the Summilux 50 on the Sony? In your opinion does the Leica “micro contracts” come from the lens itself or the Leica sensor plus lens combination?
I have, but not very often. The lens definitely has a really really nice look on its own regardless, but the Leica sensors are definitely more optimized for that short flange distance than others
@@benjhaisch thanks for the insight. 🙏🏻 since you’ve used a lot of combinations do you have a recommendation for getting a similar gfx + mikaton 65 1.4 look on a full frame? 😅
Shot with the 50 F1.2 for over 100 weddings and loved it. Moved over to the 50 F1.4 about 4 weddings ago, and TBH the only difference I see is the iffy lens flare that the 50 1.4 has when shooting into the sun etc..
Just had both of these in hand at Samy’s camera down here in CA. 1.2 vs 1.4 is 1 single click difference on the aperture ring. Is that worth $600 bucks? Not for me. The 35 1.4 and now the 50 1.4 along with the A7CR are softening the blow of moving away from Leica due to now being a fast moving kid photographer. The AF is stunning BTW. I tried the SL2-S for a while as well and while the SL2 lenses were amazing, I don’t feel they were that much better than these Gmaster primes.
Thx for the review and I'd really love to see & compare the original images as the difference requires a serious level of pixel peeping (Corners @ max aperture & infinity, etc.).
I have the Leica Summilux Asph black chrome. I was actually surprised to see onion rings on the bokeh balls and chromatic abberations even stopped down with my ME240. I think the Sony GM wins here. Its XA glass elements are supposed to minimize the onion rings in the bokeh balls. There are also more glass elements on the GMs, hence the size. I also shoot with the smaller Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8 on my Sony system. Its images look just as good as the Summilux except for its slower speed. To bad, the GMs are so big. Otherwise, I would have traded up my Zeiss for the F1.2 GM. Zeiss also has a 50mm F1.5 Sonnar classic of which I adore. If you shoot portraits with both of your Leica and Sony bodies, you should check this one out. Ben, have you thought about getting the Leica SL2-S?
@@benjhaisch I saw a ton of CA on the 50 Lux on an M11 when I had that combo. Kinda shocking. No onion rings but the CA was noticeable. Bad purple fringing in high contrast stuff with tree branches against the sky, too.
Both systems are so different that the question, which has the better 50 mm, should never become a serious one. Every manufacturer has a 50 mm good enough for everything you could ever put at it. Viewing the system as a whole makes the differences obvious, not a single lens, especially not the 50 mm. But the Summilux serves another usefull purpose here and that is a reference standard for some very impressive, new lenses. Well done! ❤
I'm always torn with these bokeh lenses. I want to lean toward Leica because they are a reasonable size that I would actually take it out and use it, but I know I'd never use it at 1.4 without AF, because the DoF is so thin I'd be focusing for days trying to get it just right. So I think my final struggle, if I'm being realistic, is really between a nice f1.8 AF and a 2.8 manual focus. I just know that I'll never use anything that big or that difficult to focus. 😂
@@Macca-95 Yeah, I'm not good at it and I don't have the patience to learn tbh. The frustration of out of focus eyes is too much for me. I tried a couple 1.2 and 0.95 lenses for about six months also, I didn't like the look of eyes in focus nose and ears out of focus either, but my main concern is those definitely those delicate movements to get the eye just in. I really don't enjoy it at all. I cured myself of the desire for ultra fast aperture lenses pretty quick after that. Too fiddly for my personal taste. ✌️
Sony does a lot of computation on the RAW files. So throw the Leica file through Photoshop with all the gizmos and corrections, and compare sharpness then :-DD
When I spend my time watching a lens review, and the reviewer says he likes lens A more than lens B because of some magical quality, I feel that I waste my time.
Haha I mean, fair. Does that make sense with how the focus falls off though? That’s what I’m trying to convey here. Both are sharp but the focus transitions are very different.
Not only the lenses, but the entire systems are whole different beasts. As a fashion/beauty photographers I’ve used most brands over the past 35 years: Canon 5D, Fuji X and GFX, Nikon Z, Sony A7 in all kind of variants. All these are basically very similar and all will get the job done to a certain level. To me these are all ‘tools’ without a specific emotional value. Some are a bit better than others on certain aspects (Nikon Z glass, Sony AF), but in the end of the day it’s just like my microwave oven: it has to fit and it has to work. Not so with Leica M. Objectively you could argue that there are cameras that produce the ‘same quality’ images at a much lower cost. But with Leica it’s also about the creative process. When I pick up my personal M10-R with the Summilux 50 or the APO-90, I want to create! The camera is demanding, but when you apply yourself, it delivers in return. The 50 Lux is my absolute favourite lens. It is sharp (but not the sharpest), it has beautiful contrast and a buttery focus transition. True, GM or Z lenses are very close or on some areas even better, but they don’t get my ‘juices flowing’. It’s the difference between ‘like’ and ‘love’. No worries when you don’t get that. It saves you a lot of money ;-)
Yeah, the only difference is in our heads. I shot all the cameras (film and digital) and for me personally Leica is an overhyped boring brick. Sony or GFX give me more positive emotions! But i love Leica glass for it's size.
@@Huginn1000 Yep. The key thing about the Leica M is the system size is TINY. I loved that part, but hated everything else-- manual focus meant so many missed shots where the eyes were just a bit out of focus, no IBIS, slow buffer, etc. And this was all on an M11. With the Sony systems you can get tack sharp focus on eyes wide open at f1.2, repeatably, in a wide range of lighting conditions.
yes, but have you seen the videos comparing the GFX100S + Mitakon 65mm to the Pentax 67 with 105mm lens? They're equivalent focal lengths when you convert the sensor/film size. They are INCREDIBLY close in terms of the look.
It's a metaphorical question. Fact is - if i would own a Leica M Series, there's absolutely no alternative for it, period. But i don't. 🙂 (No social insecurities) But here's the thing - the Leica would hold it's value *much* better over the ages, decades to come. Since it's only metal & glass elements, nothing but a TLC all decades should being enough. The Sony - any kind of USM AF drive would fail after decades, and it doesn't hold it's value after you bought it, put it out of the box. Think buying a new car - the moment you driving out of the car house, it's much less worth. And any Sony body is financial like rubbish some 10-20+ years later - not so, the Leica.🙂
I see your point on the value over time. But I don’t see it that way. For me it’s about the use and reliability not resale value. Even if it doesn’t last as long will get a lot of use out of it and for less money than a M lens.
@@marvoski547 The Sony lens wouldn't hold a candle against the expected Leica lens lifespan...a lens, you can grow into all your life, and give it as gift away to your kids....the Sony isn't being that reliable from the materials...and one thing is for sure, after handling electronics, semiconductors since the later 80s - it's prone to failure, one way or the other, sooner or later. That's why i do love old, manual focus lenses...not only for their specific looks, haptics and rendering style, but since there are no semiconductors, af drive motors, and such...nothing is really there, which could just brake up and failure...after years...decades...it's a pure mechanical thing...which lifespan could being extended with some TLC, and a CLA all couple years....
@@marvoski547 Only thing is, the M lens doesn't last only longer, but is being made out of high quality components. If i'd being richy rich, i'd buy 2-3 Leica M series, two 35mm Film, and one digital, and a handful of lenses...and sell my other gear. But i am not, so i am happy with the old stuff i own, and use that, no envy about photographers with much better gear.
The EF Canon 50/1.2L is a really fun lens but it has some MAJOR issues with sharpness, chromatic aberration, etc. their new RF version is much much better but it is significantly larger than the Sony offerings.
If you have ever shot those lenses and then compared to the Sony's, you wouldn't say this. Those EF lenses have a lot of aberrations and softness and are not in the same league as the GM's. If you like aberrations and soft images, go with the EF lenses. The Sony's are obviously the sharper and cleaner lenses, especially wide open.
I really dislike RUclipsrs spending the first 3 minutes of the video telling us about you bought it with your own money. We don’t care, just get on with the video. You’re literally losing so much retention because people will all skip your monologue
Fwiw it’s incredibly important for context. I will always assume someone got things for free unless otherwise stated which can influence my impressions of their review.
![The Real Reasons I Left Canon for Sony [and not Leica]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QX4UBNoyawc/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Real Reasons I Left Canon for Sony [and not Leica]](/img/tr.png)
So, I found out there is now a new version of the Summilux, with newer coatings and close focus of 0.45m. The new coatings reduce the already pretty minimal chromatic abberation on strong highlights. Also has 11 aperture blades, so slightly rounder bokeh (but still jagged). Flaring is also suppressed. Lens design and character seems to be the same though.
I've compared mine with the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8. The Nikon is pretty much on par or exceeds the Summilux in sharpness and detail, but the Summilux has more of that medium format feel with the buttery smooth transition of sharp subjects and background. The Nikon is much more clinically perfect though, corner sharpness is fantastic and highlight abberations are nonexistent.
I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of the two. I'd like to get an idea of how the focus falloff differs.
Rocking that Lander hat a lot lately. Thanks for the great video.
Hey Benj, I haven't finished the video yet but let me tell you there is another crazy person out there who needs that comparison. Me - also a Leica & Sony shooter :) Thanks for doing this! (I bought the 50/1.2 today before watching this video :'] ) I will probably also safe for the new summilux 50. I hope you can test that one as well at some point.
Same! I used the Lux for 7 years of weddings, and now own the 50 1.2GM and 1.4GM.
Biggest difference I notice so far is that the 50mm 1.2GM is INSTANT to focus, where the 1.4GM is just "quick".
Excited to see more comparisons!
@@Seapatico i rented the 1.2 for a couple of days and was pretty hooked immediately. Just a great upgrade for my Sony Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 :) Hope you have fun with your lenses
ohh.. I use the Sony 50mm GM 1.2 One of my favorite lenses at my work! gonna be fun to see this.
I currently have both the Sony GM's and am facing the same dilemma - the special sauce of the 1.2, vs the lighter carry of the 1.4. Will take a while to pick a winner.
Which adapter do you use for the 50 Lux to mount on to your Sony body? Ever thought about the TechArt autofocus adapter?
Thank you for the excellent video. Do you have a link for the wooden grip on the Leica?
Have you put the Summilux 50 on the Sony? In your opinion does the Leica “micro contracts” come from the lens itself or the Leica sensor plus lens combination?
I have, but not very often. The lens definitely has a really really nice look on its own regardless, but the Leica sensors are definitely more optimized for that short flange distance than others
@@benjhaisch thanks for the insight. 🙏🏻 since you’ve used a lot of combinations do you have a recommendation for getting a similar gfx + mikaton 65 1.4 look on a full frame? 😅
Shot with the 50 F1.2 for over 100 weddings and loved it. Moved over to the 50 F1.4 about 4 weddings ago, and TBH the only difference I see is the iffy lens flare that the 50 1.4 has when shooting into the sun etc..
Good comparison! These Sony lenses are killing it!
Would you say that the 35mm gm also has similar rendering/character?
They’re a little different as a comparison but maybe that’d be another fun one to do sometime soon. :)
Just had both of these in hand at Samy’s camera down here in CA. 1.2 vs 1.4 is 1 single click difference on the aperture ring. Is that worth $600 bucks? Not for me. The 35 1.4 and now the 50 1.4 along with the A7CR are softening the blow of moving away from Leica due to now being a fast moving kid photographer. The AF is stunning BTW. I tried the SL2-S for a while as well and while the SL2 lenses were amazing, I don’t feel they were that much better than these Gmaster primes.
Thx for the review and I'd really love to see & compare the original images as the difference requires a serious level of pixel peeping (Corners @ max aperture & infinity, etc.).
Another great video. Visually it seems the 50/1.4GM is the best all around. No reason to spend more for the 1.2 other than ego.
Thoughts on the Voigtlander 35mm f1.5 Nokton?
I use a silver summilux 50mm with a 2nd gen techart auto focus adaptor on a silver Sony A7C ii, Best of both worlds😊!
I have the Leica Summilux Asph black chrome. I was actually surprised to see onion rings on the bokeh balls and chromatic abberations even stopped down with my ME240. I think the Sony GM wins here. Its XA glass elements are supposed to minimize the onion rings in the bokeh balls. There are also more glass elements on the GMs, hence the size. I also shoot with the smaller Sony Zeiss 55mm F1.8 on my Sony system. Its images look just as good as the Summilux except for its slower speed. To bad, the GMs are so big. Otherwise, I would have traded up my Zeiss for the F1.2 GM. Zeiss also has a 50mm F1.5 Sonnar classic of which I adore. If you shoot portraits with both of your Leica and Sony bodies, you should check this one out. Ben, have you thought about getting the Leica SL2-S?
That’s wild, I’ve VERY rarely seen CA and have never really seen much onion rings on my vopy
@@benjhaisch I saw a ton of CA on the 50 Lux on an M11 when I had that combo. Kinda shocking. No onion rings but the CA was noticeable. Bad purple fringing in high contrast stuff with tree branches against the sky, too.
what about the new sigma 1.4? have you looked at it as well?
I have! That video is sitting on deck ;)
Both systems are so different that the question, which has the better 50 mm, should never become a serious one. Every manufacturer has a 50 mm good enough for everything you could ever put at it. Viewing the system as a whole makes the differences obvious, not a single lens, especially not the 50 mm. But the Summilux serves another usefull purpose here and that is a reference standard for some very impressive, new lenses. Well done! ❤
For a 50mm with awesome vibe and manual focus, voigtlander 50 1.2
Which one of those three lenses is better for radio? Thank you.
Do part 2 talking about flares
I'm really torn between these two GM lenses here. Can make a case for each.
I'll say this.... you've got a pair...
Can you please compare these FF lenses with GFX lenses (Mitakon is the most interesting)
Already one year ahead of you ;) Is Medium Format Overrated? | Fujifilm GFX vs Sony A1 vs Leica SL2
ruclips.net/video/eIAqOxpAugQ/видео.html
😆
I'm always torn with these bokeh lenses. I want to lean toward Leica because they are a reasonable size that I would actually take it out and use it, but I know I'd never use it at 1.4 without AF, because the DoF is so thin I'd be focusing for days trying to get it just right. So I think my final struggle, if I'm being realistic, is really between a nice f1.8 AF and a 2.8 manual focus. I just know that I'll never use anything that big or that difficult to focus. 😂
Have you used a rangefinder before? It gets surprisingly easy to focus even at 1.4 on one compared to with a DSLR.
@@Macca-95 Yeah, I'm not good at it and I don't have the patience to learn tbh. The frustration of out of focus eyes is too much for me. I tried a couple 1.2 and 0.95 lenses for about six months also, I didn't like the look of eyes in focus nose and ears out of focus either, but my main concern is those definitely those delicate movements to get the eye just in. I really don't enjoy it at all. I cured myself of the desire for ultra fast aperture lenses pretty quick after that. Too fiddly for my personal taste. ✌️
Sony does a lot of computation on the RAW files. So throw the Leica file through Photoshop with all the gizmos and corrections, and compare sharpness then :-DD
When I spend my time watching a lens review, and the reviewer says he likes lens A more than lens B because of some magical quality, I feel that I waste my time.
Haha I mean, fair. Does that make sense with how the focus falls off though? That’s what I’m trying to convey here. Both are sharp but the focus transitions are very different.
Not only the lenses, but the entire systems are whole different beasts. As a fashion/beauty photographers I’ve used most brands over the past 35 years: Canon 5D, Fuji X and GFX, Nikon Z, Sony A7 in all kind of variants. All these are basically very similar and all will get the job done to a certain level. To me these are all ‘tools’ without a specific emotional value. Some are a bit better than others on certain aspects (Nikon Z glass, Sony AF), but in the end of the day it’s just like my microwave oven: it has to fit and it has to work.
Not so with Leica M. Objectively you could argue that there are cameras that produce the ‘same quality’ images at a much lower cost. But with Leica it’s also about the creative process. When I pick up my personal M10-R with the Summilux 50 or the APO-90, I want to create! The camera is demanding, but when you apply yourself, it delivers in return. The 50 Lux is my absolute favourite lens. It is sharp (but not the sharpest), it has beautiful contrast and a buttery focus transition. True, GM or Z lenses are very close or on some areas even better, but they don’t get my ‘juices flowing’. It’s the difference between ‘like’ and ‘love’. No worries when you don’t get that. It saves you a lot of money ;-)
Yeah, the only difference is in our heads. I shot all the cameras (film and digital) and for me personally Leica is an overhyped boring brick. Sony or GFX give me more positive emotions! But i love Leica glass for it's size.
@@Huginn1000 Yep. The key thing about the Leica M is the system size is TINY. I loved that part, but hated everything else-- manual focus meant so many missed shots where the eyes were just a bit out of focus, no IBIS, slow buffer, etc. And this was all on an M11. With the Sony systems you can get tack sharp focus on eyes wide open at f1.2, repeatably, in a wide range of lighting conditions.
want magic? pentax 67
Haha I mean, yes.
yes, but have you seen the videos comparing the GFX100S + Mitakon 65mm to the Pentax 67 with 105mm lens? They're equivalent focal lengths when you convert the sensor/film size. They are INCREDIBLY close in terms of the look.
@@namiryedid1390 I have both :)
@@benjhaisch awesome! I was replying to the other guy who brought up the 6x7, but having both is rad.
I know you want to stay Sony, but the Sigma 50 1.4 DG DN maybe worth a look
I’ve tried it too :)
@@benjhaisch what are your thoughts? I was considering picking up the sigma 50 f1.4
It's a metaphorical question. Fact is - if i would own a Leica M Series, there's absolutely no alternative for it, period. But i don't. 🙂 (No social insecurities) But here's the thing - the Leica would hold it's value *much* better over the ages, decades to come. Since it's only metal & glass elements, nothing but a TLC all decades should being enough. The Sony - any kind of USM AF drive would fail after decades, and it doesn't hold it's value after you bought it, put it out of the box. Think buying a new car - the moment you driving out of the car house, it's much less worth. And any Sony body is financial like rubbish some 10-20+ years later - not so, the Leica.🙂
Sure, but the cost of any Sony lens would be less than the initial cost of going from new to used from a Leica lens haha
I see your point on the value over time. But I don’t see it that way. For me it’s about the use and reliability not resale value. Even if it doesn’t last as long will get a lot of use out of it and for less money than a M lens.
@@marvoski547 The Sony lens wouldn't hold a candle against the expected Leica lens lifespan...a lens, you can grow into all your life, and give it as gift away to your kids....the Sony isn't being that reliable from the materials...and one thing is for sure, after handling electronics, semiconductors since the later 80s - it's prone to failure, one way or the other, sooner or later. That's why i do love old, manual focus lenses...not only for their specific looks, haptics and rendering style, but since there are no semiconductors, af drive motors, and such...nothing is really there, which could just brake up and failure...after years...decades...it's a pure mechanical thing...which lifespan could being extended with some TLC, and a CLA all couple years....
@@marvoski547 Only thing is, the M lens doesn't last only longer, but is being made out of high quality components. If i'd being richy rich, i'd buy 2-3 Leica M series, two 35mm Film, and one digital, and a handful of lenses...and sell my other gear. But i am not, so i am happy with the old stuff i own, and use that, no envy about photographers with much better gear.
@@benjhaisch It doesn't need to be a original Leica lens, as you'd know, Benj. 🙂
Canon has been making EF 50mm f/1.2 and 50mm f/1.4 lenses since 2007, so I'm not sure what makes the Sony pair "amazing"?
The EF Canon 50/1.2L is a really fun lens but it has some MAJOR issues with sharpness, chromatic aberration, etc. their new RF version is much much better but it is significantly larger than the Sony offerings.
Their 50/1.4 never worked well for me either. Went through multiple copies.
If you have ever shot those lenses and then compared to the Sony's, you wouldn't say this. Those EF lenses have a lot of aberrations and softness and are not in the same league as the GM's. If you like aberrations and soft images, go with the EF lenses. The Sony's are obviously the sharper and cleaner lenses, especially wide open.
Leica have that 3d pop, i own the summilux
🤣
lmao 3D pop is a function of the light, subject to camera distance, and subject to background distance. It's not an inherent property of any lens.
Well, that was not a good video. Not feeling the passion here.
Those GM lenses are amazing but honestly too big and bulky
Compared to an M, yes. Compared to other mirrorless lenses in the same category, no ;)
It’s all the same at the end of the day. What is not the same is how huge that Sony system is.
It’s huge compared to an M but small compared to the others ;)
As a Leica shooter i will never go to Sony's because of the colors
🤣
I really dislike RUclipsrs spending the first 3 minutes of the video telling us about you bought it with your own money. We don’t care, just get on with the video. You’re literally losing so much retention because people will all skip your monologue
Fwiw it’s incredibly important for context. I will always assume someone got things for free unless otherwise stated which can influence my impressions of their review.
You have 30 subscribers. Maybe he's doing something right.
Stick a Summilux on a M9 and watch it destroy everything else for colour, resolution and feel.