Alex, subscibed instantly! Didn't expect so deep, muscular analysis - those Simera lineup seems to be real deal! , def will follow your videos, respect!
I really like Leica, but I know most Leica fans are gonna put Leica on a pedestal no matter what, but all these reviews online of lenses from Chinese manufacturers (which are really closing in on quality, although not there yet) or other brands like Voigtlander (which I prefer amongst all these brands) only show that Leica lenses are definitely NOT worth the price premium they ask for... they're just way way overpriced... and it's ok, buy whatever you can afford or want, but for people like me, Leica lenses clearly do not offer anything more that would justify the cost. Thanks for the comparison, great test!
Don't forget, without Leica these chinese lenses wouldn't exist. Leica isn't just the cameras and lenses, it's way more than that. Go to a Leica store or check out any Leica gallery or even their HQ in Germany. What they give you is also an experience. If you are willing to pay for it, that's totally up to you.
Reading through some old archives of Leica Society literature from the 1940's I was surprised to read comments that reached the same conclusion as stated here. That we live in a time when there are so many choices gives everyone a chance to enjoy photography as they're able and wish to.
What I see from your test is that focal length of the Leica is a bit tighter which aligns with little bit more smoother bokeh but overall the sharpness of the leica is lacking compared to the chinese lens 😢. But I guess I usually dont zoom in 100% on my images to see if the lines are super sharp! For what it is 20 years old design Nice job Leica! Also props on the Chinese brand. PS. I am not Chinese I am Korean. Also, yes I own lux 50 asph and love everything about it :)
ive always wanted a Leica lens, but honestly is hard to justify, especially since I like to edit my images. Typoch is punching above its weight, I have the 28 and it's an excellent lens.
Question if I shoot with my Summicron its obviously a fact that I save tons of time in post processing, because there is something special how this lens renders the pictures. I barely touch the faders, we talk taste. Its also super impressive how the Summicron performs in near dark, end of blue hour conditions. I was able to do hand shots at 1.4 and the picture was good. I would be interested in how this China lens performs in more difficult situations.
Was that distortion in the typoch in the last set of images? The stacks were slanted. No question that Typoch is awesome. Would love to see a comparison on an M body.
I like the fact that the design language on all 3 Simera lenses are the same or at least close. Matching this with the 28mm, is going to make for a powerful combo.
I do agree that the Chinese lens is much more affordable and the performance is really outstanding, however as a Leica M user I do have concerns on how accurate is it when we use the lens on a M range finder, I do find some of the “new comer” lens tends to have some calibration issue with m series rangefinder, and of course all this doesn’t matter when you use it on live view or focus peaking.
Well, that will have to be tested for. I have Leica and CV lenses, and the focus accuracy depends only on how the lens is calibrated. Mine are all calibrated perfectly.
i wonder if you have a bad copy of the 50 Summilux? the Summilux (also) has FLE so the sharpness should be consistent (at least in the center) for the entire focus range.
@@ABarrera one other thing: did you focus the subject closer than 0.7m (the Leica rangefinder near-focus limit)? i presume this is the case...the Summilux CF has the same optical formula as its predecessor IIRC the only difference is the increased number of aperture blades and/or coatings (i didn't upgrade to the newest version because of these minor changes...also i don't have money to upgrade 😅). _maybe_ the Leica's floating element was not designed to correct any aberrations on focus distances shorter than 0.7m? maybe worth testing at distance at around 0.7m to compare 🙃? in any case...as it pains me to say this as a Leica fanboy (assuming the Summilux is not a bad sample) this is not great for Leica getting their a__ handed to them by a relative newcomer...it also highlights the fact that Leica has gotten lazy by "updating" he Summilux with such low effort on "improving" the optical design. Overall, thanks for highlighting the merits of the lens. I only really consider Voigtlander as Leica alternative and a new player in the field that actually puts their best foot forward to compete puts a target on Voigtlander's back if anything (cue Turkish Olympian sharpshooter meme here).
Both lenses should be tested on the M cameras - as that is what they are designed for. The thicker lens coverings on the mirrorless cameras will degrade the optical quality of the Summilux (Absolutely obvious to anyone who has tested the lenses on M and Mirrorless cameras) and possibly also the Typoch. Great for you - you can see what works best on the camera you use, but not so helpful for all those who use M cameras and want to see the lenses compared on the camera the lenses are designed for. In a way the comparison is disappointing and somewhat pointless.
I’d take the Typoch any day simply because I prefer its image quality and its ergonomics. As with most Leica lenses, the Summilux 50/1.4 is way, way overpriced.
It is a little bit of a cop out to shoot m mount lenses on Nikon. Come on use a M body Alex 🤪. On a serious note, I have adapted the 50 lux to many other cameras, but I feel it performs like it intended to be only on M bodies, in terms of rendering and color. From what I understand Leica is about balance, a clinically sharp lens is not desirable to most Leica shooters. And for a portrait photographer you sure shoot a lot of cabbage and random objects. I believe 50 lux is one of my favorite portrait lenses of all times, shoot more portraits 😂
Thanks for this video, but I don't see a "test" here. Since you compare the two lenses at full aperture (and at ƒ/1.4, the resolving power of the lens is no longer visible on the background, making any evaluation of the lens impossible) You are not the only RUclipsr to supposedly "test" lenses only at wide aperture. And that proves how much the functioning of a lens (and a diaphragm ring) is totally misunderstood by the vast majority of "testers". The laughable attempt to interpret the shape of the spots in the background completely out of resolving power is more like "reading coffee grounds" than a real professional evaluation of the lens. In the same way, reading the sharpness in the focal plane (where the focus was made) alone is not sufficient. The fact that this Chinese optic is supposedly "sharper" does not mean that it is better, quite the contrary. Extreme sharpness on the focal plane can cause a lack of homogeneity between the sharp areas and the transition to progressively blurred areas (provided of course that you are in the ƒ/4 - ƒ/16 zone of the lens, otherwise you have a "collage effect" like on your portraits: the very sharp character seems "stuck" on a blurred background without any detail, as if you had done a montage. To see the difference between two lenses, you have to look at the resolving power of the lens in the out-of-focus areas and in the ƒ/4 - ƒ/16 range for example. With these apertures, the lens has a resolving power and is capable of restoring the fine details of one part, and the separation of the image planes in depth, which gives the "3D pop" that many talk about, without really knowing what it is. This is where you will see what it is worth. Your "test" tells us absolutely nothing about what it can give these lenses. We just know that they are both capable of producing large blurred areas without details (like any lens that is beyond its resolving power zone) In French we use the term « piqué » [pi-kai] to designate the resolving power of the lens, and the term "sharpness" to designate the part on which the focus has been made (focal plane). In English unfortunately the two terms are confused which probably explains this enormous confusion about lenses. Large apertures are not made to be used in the presence of full light. Originally, given that in film we could not vary the ISO sensitivity, it was necessary to find a way to let in more light with a fixed ISO. This is how large aperture lenses were born. The large aperture is only used in cases where there is a lack of light, and this to the detriment of the optical rendering (background with large areas completely blurred) Reminder: bokeh is not "background blur" (not only). This false definition is extremely widespread on RUclips. Bokeh is the entire area of the image that is "out of focus". I invite you to consult the excellent Webster Dictionary to find the complete definition.
I mean there are so many comparisons one can make and there are people on RUclips who get even more technical in their lens reviews. This video is already 15 minutes long and I wouldn’t want it any longer. I think Alex’s comparisons are very useful for many potential purchasers of this lens (I for one found it useful).
A very odd reply. he is testing precisely for what most people buy the Summilux for! If it is shot wide open, one of the main reasons people buy the Summilux, then the point of focus is sharp and very obviously the background will be blurred - revealing the lens's bokeh (another reason people buy the Summilux). Any decent lens stopped down is going to be sharp - so you can save your money and buy an Elmarit f2.8, if that is what you want.
@@Wolfloid Bokeh is not just "background blur" but "all parts of the image that are out of focus" and this, regardless of the aperture used (and therefore regardless of the depth of field). Bokeh is therefore always present, even with small apertures. It therefore does not need to be "revealed". Furthermore, when the diaphragm is fully open, the blur in the background no longer contains any detail, but only large undefined areas: the lens has lost its resolving power (separating power) and is unable to restore details, which is quite normal. All lenses have a limit, including the most expensive ones (these are the laws of optical physics). You can look up the terms "separating power" and/or "resolving power" (in a good dictionary or a book on optical physics) So in fact what this "test" "reveals" to us is that they are both capable of generating a background without details, but we already knew that, no need for a test. All lenses do it, whatever their price. And in this background without details, there is nothing to see (except perhaps for those who naively believe what the brand's marketing department is trying to make them believe) By closing the diaphragm, the lens is again capable of restoring detail to the background (or in any other plane) and this is precisely where we see the qualities of the lens. It is in the "ƒ/4 - ƒ/16" zone (to simplify) that the lens gives its full potential, not only in the focal plane (where the focus was made) but also in all the "out of focus" zones, i.e. 99% of the image (to simplify) Naively believing that you buy a ƒ/1.2 lens to use it only at ƒ/1.2 is a bit like saying that you buy a Porsche 911 Turbo S **exclusively** to drive at 280 km/h Obviously this is not the case. A lens can be used at all apertures, and so if you test it, you must test it **at all apertures**. The ƒ/1.2 aperture is reserved for low light (which is why the lens was designed). In your opinion, why is the Nocti-lux called that, and not Daily-lux? I don't know where you get this data that "most people buy the Summilux to use it at full aperture" but I can assure you that this is not the case for everyone. Just for fun : fstoppers.com/originals/portrait-photographer-surprised-discover-his-lens-has-apertures-other-f14-315779
What a lot of very obvious verbosity just repeating what everyone knows. The point about testing the lens wide open is, for most people, to look at the character of the bokeh - how it looks wide open or how it renders - all 50/1.4 lenses render differently. Everyone knows that it will be blurred at f1.4, that is very basic. But what is the character of that blur? With some lenses that blur is ‘busy’ or ‘swirly’ or, in other words distracting. In others, like the Summilux it has a certain reputation for being smooth, but with a very sharp in-focus plane. The Typoch looks similarly smooth, and that is what the test reveals. Frankly, your comments about the Noctilux are completely beside the point, since all it means is that it is fast enough to shoot in dark conditions, not that you have to use it only at night.
Haven’t seen any videos in a while. Did Alex and Leica get a divorce ? What did I miss? I heard the word hideous used for 50 lux and couldn’t hold in my laugh 😂
I still think the Leica still looked much nicer in real world in how nice it made the model look. It was a subtle but significant difference IMHO. That is often what I found when comparing Leica with other lenses I tried that are meant to be just as sharp etc. The character is still much nicer in real world use.
Why not test both lenses on an M11? You mention "how ugly" the Leica bokeh is at f/2.8, but honestly, I don't share your opinion. A lens like this is designed to be shot wide open; otherwise, there are far cheaper options available. What about viewfinder blockage on a rangefinder? What about the missing focus tab? What about flaring or chromatic aberrations? To me, it seems like you're trying to make the Summilux look bad in this comparison. Yes, the Simera is good for the price, but someone looking to buy a Leica lens likely won't care about that. The Summilux is made in Germany, and there's no way Leica could produce it at a comparable price level.
Leica fans will always love Leica despite its flaws. Regardless of how you feel, Leica is not perfect and the bokeh stopped down is unacceptable for the price.
a) Viewfinder blockage will be less on the Simera since it's smaller and has a hole in the hood. b) There is a focusing tab. c) You could see pretty clearly that the CA looks comparable. d) Not sure how anyone could argue that the octagon aperture blades looks good.
@@ABarrera This is a typical pixel peeper argument. None of my clients would ever complain about the bokeh stopped down. Leica has done questionable things in the last few years and I've been criticizing them a lot. But how you are bashing the 50 lux is a little over the top.
At f2.8 the Typoch has smooth edged bokeh balls and the Leica has octagons. That is objective. You may like the octagons, but many do not, since it is distracting. It is also shorter than the Summilux, so less viewfinder blockage (obvious). At close distances, if focusing was correct, then the Typoch was also sharper.
To all the Leica fundamentalists present on this site, I would ask them to inquire to know where Thypoch comes from before uttering their disparaging remarks about this manufacturer. This confirms the indigence of the uneducated people’s words on subjects they believe to know but which they only touch, period !
Hey Alex, my name is Johnny and I'm a freelance logo designer, currently I'm looking for more works, do you love to have a logo for your channel's branding to have a memorable graphic based monogram logo to help your audience recognise and follow your channel easier? I would love to design a photography themed logo inspired by your direction for you! Let me know if you interested to make it happen! :-)
No , I go straight the point . None of the cheap Chinese lenses are as good as Leica , they are copy of Leica at theirs best but not Leica quality and Iq but only cheaper and more affordable so everyone can buy it . Too many RUclipsrs has review these china made lens and all are say the same thing .
@@YinZheOperaLee you are Chinese and proud of your country product . I’m not bias. I did buy some china made lens the tt artisan 50mm 0.95 and love it but sorry it’s not a noctilux quality but it’s only 1/20 of the price which most people can afford. The thypoch 50mm is a copy clone of the old summicron is the same . I test them they good but not as good as Leica .
@ductritran8637 i am Singaporean I am also not biased too. This guy did the test and the result speaks for itself. If you look at the test carefully there's also more 3d pop on the thypoch which he didn't mention.
No. Leica has been sitting on its laurels too long. There is no excuse for the terrible aperture blades on the Summilux. And as we can clearly see in the video the Summilux is not worth 7x as much.
Alex, subscibed instantly! Didn't expect so deep, muscular analysis - those Simera lineup seems to be real deal! , def will follow your videos, respect!
Great video ! Thypoch seems to be bringing the heat . Not only are they bringing great options to rival VC , but Leica also .
Thank you for such a detailed, scientific and extensive review. You have saved a lot of us a lot of $$$.
The 50lux ASPH v2 11728 shares the same optical formula with the old one 11891 which debuted back in 2004, not surprising it’s showing its age.
I really like Leica, but I know most Leica fans are gonna put Leica on a pedestal no matter what, but all these reviews online of lenses from Chinese manufacturers (which are really closing in on quality, although not there yet) or other brands like Voigtlander (which I prefer amongst all these brands) only show that Leica lenses are definitely NOT worth the price premium they ask for... they're just way way overpriced... and it's ok, buy whatever you can afford or want, but for people like me, Leica lenses clearly do not offer anything more that would justify the cost. Thanks for the comparison, great test!
Couldn’t agree more
Don't forget, without Leica these chinese lenses wouldn't exist. Leica isn't just the cameras and lenses, it's way more than that. Go to a Leica store or check out any Leica gallery or even their HQ in Germany. What they give you is also an experience. If you are willing to pay for it, that's totally up to you.
Reading through some old archives of Leica Society literature from the 1940's I was surprised to read comments that reached the same conclusion as stated here. That we live in a time when there are so many choices gives everyone a chance to enjoy photography as they're able and wish to.
What I see from your test is that focal length of the Leica is a bit tighter which aligns with little bit more smoother bokeh but overall the sharpness of the leica is lacking compared to the chinese lens 😢. But I guess I usually dont zoom in 100% on my images to see if the lines are super sharp!
For what it is 20 years old design Nice job Leica! Also props on the Chinese brand.
PS. I am not Chinese I am Korean.
Also, yes I own lux 50 asph and love everything about it :)
ive always wanted a Leica lens, but honestly is hard to justify, especially since I like to edit my images. Typoch is punching above its weight, I have the 28 and it's an excellent lens.
love the video, i am deciding between thypoch and voitlander apo F2, any suggestions? which one is better overall, and sharper
I would pick the Thypoch for the flexibility of the 1.4. Stopped down to F2.0 you will get stellar performance.
@@ABarrera ok thankyou very much
Question if I shoot with my Summicron its obviously a fact that I save tons of time in post processing, because there is something special how this lens renders the pictures. I barely touch the faders, we talk taste. Its also super impressive how the Summicron performs in near dark, end of blue hour conditions. I was able to do hand shots at 1.4 and the picture was good. I would be interested in how this China lens performs in more difficult situations.
Was that distortion in the typoch in the last set of images? The stacks were slanted. No question that Typoch is awesome. Would love to see a comparison on an M body.
The last shot was taken handheld, I should have noted that. My apologies
Wait, so is there distortion you can replicate?
No, the stacks were slanted because of how I held the camera.
I like the fact that the design language on all 3 Simera lenses are the same or at least close. Matching this with the 28mm, is going to make for a powerful combo.
I do agree that the Chinese lens is much more affordable and the performance is really outstanding, however as a Leica M user I do have concerns on how accurate is it when we use the lens on a M range finder, I do find some of the “new comer” lens tends to have some calibration issue with m series rangefinder, and of course all this doesn’t matter when you use it on live view or focus peaking.
Mine work fine on my M10
Well, that will have to be tested for. I have Leica and CV lenses, and the focus accuracy depends only on how the lens is calibrated. Mine are all calibrated perfectly.
i wonder if you have a bad copy of the 50 Summilux? the Summilux (also) has FLE so the sharpness should be consistent (at least in the center) for the entire focus range.
I thought the same thing, just can’t believe how unsharp it was at close focus
@@ABarrera one other thing: did you focus the subject closer than 0.7m (the Leica rangefinder near-focus limit)? i presume this is the case...the Summilux CF has the same optical formula as its predecessor IIRC the only difference is the increased number of aperture blades and/or coatings (i didn't upgrade to the newest version because of these minor changes...also i don't have money to upgrade 😅). _maybe_ the Leica's floating element was not designed to correct any aberrations on focus distances shorter than 0.7m? maybe worth testing at distance at around 0.7m to compare 🙃? in any case...as it pains me to say this as a Leica fanboy (assuming the Summilux is not a bad sample) this is not great for Leica getting their a__ handed to them by a relative newcomer...it also highlights the fact that Leica has gotten lazy by "updating" he Summilux with such low effort on "improving" the optical design.
Overall, thanks for highlighting the merits of the lens. I only really consider Voigtlander as Leica alternative and a new player in the field that actually puts their best foot forward to compete puts a target on Voigtlander's back if anything (cue Turkish Olympian sharpshooter meme here).
The Leica design is now 20 years old, and very good for its age. Newer lenses can be designed even more effectively.
Both lenses should be tested on the M cameras - as that is what they are designed for. The thicker lens coverings on the mirrorless cameras will degrade the optical quality of the Summilux (Absolutely obvious to anyone who has tested the lenses on M and Mirrorless cameras) and possibly also the Typoch. Great for you - you can see what works best on the camera you use, but not so helpful for all those who use M cameras and want to see the lenses compared on the camera the lenses are designed for. In a way the comparison is disappointing and somewhat pointless.
I’d take the Typoch any day simply because I prefer its image quality and its ergonomics. As with most Leica lenses, the Summilux 50/1.4 is way, way overpriced.
It is a little bit of a cop out to shoot m mount lenses on Nikon. Come on use a M body Alex 🤪. On a serious note, I have adapted the 50 lux to many other cameras, but I feel it performs like it intended to be only on M bodies, in terms of rendering and color. From what I understand Leica is about balance, a clinically sharp lens is not desirable to most Leica shooters. And for a portrait photographer you sure shoot a lot of cabbage and random objects. I believe 50 lux is one of my favorite portrait lenses of all times, shoot more portraits 😂
I agree with the portraits, but I wanted to minimize any manual focusing errors and chose to shoot stationary subjects.
Herr Kaufmann will soon start to lose sleep over these Chinese lenses!
Thanks for this video, but I don't see a "test" here. Since you compare the two lenses at full aperture (and at ƒ/1.4, the resolving power of the lens is no longer visible on the background, making any evaluation of the lens impossible)
You are not the only RUclipsr to supposedly "test" lenses only at wide aperture. And that proves how much the functioning of a lens (and a diaphragm ring) is totally misunderstood by the vast majority of "testers". The laughable attempt to interpret the shape of the spots in the background completely out of resolving power is more like "reading coffee grounds" than a real professional evaluation of the lens. In the same way, reading the sharpness in the focal plane (where the focus was made) alone is not sufficient. The fact that this Chinese optic is supposedly "sharper" does not mean that it is better, quite the contrary. Extreme sharpness on the focal plane can cause a lack of homogeneity between the sharp areas and the transition to progressively blurred areas (provided of course that you are in the ƒ/4 - ƒ/16 zone of the lens, otherwise you have a "collage effect" like on your portraits: the very sharp character seems "stuck" on a blurred background without any detail, as if you had done a montage.
To see the difference between two lenses, you have to look at the resolving power of the lens in the out-of-focus areas and in the ƒ/4 - ƒ/16 range for example. With these apertures, the lens has a resolving power and is capable of restoring the fine details of one part, and the separation of the image planes in depth, which gives the "3D pop" that many talk about, without really knowing what it is. This is where you will see what it is worth. Your "test" tells us absolutely nothing about what it can give these lenses. We just know that they are both capable of producing large blurred areas without details (like any lens that is beyond its resolving power zone)
In French we use the term « piqué » [pi-kai] to designate the resolving power of the lens, and the term "sharpness" to designate the part on which the focus has been made (focal plane). In English unfortunately the two terms are confused which probably explains this enormous confusion about lenses.
Large apertures are not made to be used in the presence of full light. Originally, given that in film we could not vary the ISO sensitivity, it was necessary to find a way to let in more light with a fixed ISO. This is how large aperture lenses were born. The large aperture is only used in cases where there is a lack of light, and this to the detriment of the optical rendering (background with large areas completely blurred)
Reminder: bokeh is not "background blur" (not only). This false definition is extremely widespread on RUclips. Bokeh is the entire area of the image that is "out of focus". I invite you to consult the excellent Webster Dictionary to find the complete definition.
I mean there are so many comparisons one can make and there are people on RUclips who get even more technical in their lens reviews. This video is already 15 minutes long and I wouldn’t want it any longer. I think Alex’s comparisons are very useful for many potential purchasers of this lens (I for one found it useful).
A very odd reply. he is testing precisely for what most people buy the Summilux for! If it is shot wide open, one of the main reasons people buy the Summilux, then the point of focus is sharp and very obviously the background will be blurred - revealing the lens's bokeh (another reason people buy the Summilux). Any decent lens stopped down is going to be sharp - so you can save your money and buy an Elmarit f2.8, if that is what you want.
@@Wolfloid
Bokeh is not just "background blur" but "all parts of the image that are out of focus" and this, regardless of the aperture used (and therefore regardless of the depth of field). Bokeh is therefore always present, even with small apertures. It therefore does not need to be "revealed".
Furthermore, when the diaphragm is fully open, the blur in the background no longer contains any detail, but only large undefined areas: the lens has lost its resolving power (separating power) and is unable to restore details, which is quite normal. All lenses have a limit, including the most expensive ones (these are the laws of optical physics).
You can look up the terms "separating power" and/or "resolving power" (in a good dictionary or a book on optical physics)
So in fact what this "test" "reveals" to us is that they are both capable of generating a background without details, but we already knew that, no need for a test. All lenses do it, whatever their price. And in this background without details, there is nothing to see (except perhaps for those who naively believe what the brand's marketing department is trying to make them believe)
By closing the diaphragm, the lens is again capable of restoring detail to the background (or in any other plane) and this is precisely where we see the qualities of the lens. It is in the "ƒ/4 - ƒ/16" zone (to simplify) that the lens gives its full potential, not only in the focal plane (where the focus was made) but also in all the "out of focus" zones, i.e. 99% of the image (to simplify)
Naively believing that you buy a ƒ/1.2 lens to use it only at ƒ/1.2 is a bit like saying that you buy a Porsche 911 Turbo S **exclusively** to drive at 280 km/h
Obviously this is not the case. A lens can be used at all apertures, and so if you test it, you must test it **at all apertures**.
The ƒ/1.2 aperture is reserved for low light (which is why the lens was designed). In your opinion, why is the Nocti-lux called that, and not Daily-lux?
I don't know where you get this data that "most people buy the Summilux to use it at full aperture" but I can assure you that this is not the case for everyone.
Just for fun : fstoppers.com/originals/portrait-photographer-surprised-discover-his-lens-has-apertures-other-f14-315779
What a lot of very obvious verbosity just repeating what everyone knows. The point about testing the lens wide open is, for most people, to look at the character of the bokeh - how it looks wide open or how it renders - all 50/1.4 lenses render differently. Everyone knows that it will be blurred at f1.4, that is very basic. But what is the character of that blur? With some lenses that blur is ‘busy’ or ‘swirly’ or, in other words distracting. In others, like the Summilux it has a certain reputation for being smooth, but with a very sharp in-focus plane. The Typoch looks similarly smooth, and that is what the test reveals.
Frankly, your comments about the Noctilux are completely beside the point, since all it means is that it is fast enough to shoot in dark conditions, not that you have to use it only at night.
100%
What about the corner sharpness?
I dont really test that in portrait lenses
believe me its even worse there
For film, they are all great. I love cheap old leica lenses.
Haven’t seen any videos in a while. Did Alex and Leica get a divorce ? What did I miss? I heard the word hideous used for 50 lux and couldn’t hold in my laugh 😂
ahhchhahahah
I still think the Leica still looked much nicer in real world in how nice it made the model look. It was a subtle but significant difference IMHO. That is often what I found when comparing Leica with other lenses I tried that are meant to be just as sharp etc. The character is still much nicer in real world use.
You have a vivid imagination.
@@Wolfloid thank you
Why not test both lenses on an M11? You mention "how ugly" the Leica bokeh is at f/2.8, but honestly, I don't share your opinion. A lens like this is designed to be shot wide open; otherwise, there are far cheaper options available. What about viewfinder blockage on a rangefinder? What about the missing focus tab? What about flaring or chromatic aberrations? To me, it seems like you're trying to make the Summilux look bad in this comparison. Yes, the Simera is good for the price, but someone looking to buy a Leica lens likely won't care about that. The Summilux is made in Germany, and there's no way Leica could produce it at a comparable price level.
Leica fans will always love Leica despite its flaws. Regardless of how you feel, Leica is not perfect and the bokeh stopped down is unacceptable for the price.
a) Viewfinder blockage will be less on the Simera since it's smaller and has a hole in the hood.
b) There is a focusing tab.
c) You could see pretty clearly that the CA looks comparable.
d) Not sure how anyone could argue that the octagon aperture blades looks good.
@@ABarrera This is a typical pixel peeper argument. None of my clients would ever complain about the bokeh stopped down. Leica has done questionable things in the last few years and I've been criticizing them a lot. But how you are bashing the 50 lux is a little over the top.
At f2.8 the Typoch has smooth edged bokeh balls and the Leica has octagons. That is objective. You may like the octagons, but many do not, since it is distracting. It is also shorter than the Summilux, so less viewfinder blockage (obvious). At close distances, if focusing was correct, then the Typoch was also sharper.
To all the Leica fundamentalists present on this site, I would ask them to inquire to know where Thypoch comes from before uttering their disparaging remarks about this manufacturer. This confirms the indigence of the uneducated people’s words on subjects they believe to know but which they only touch, period !
To buy chinese lens for Leica it's like buy chinese wheels for Mercedes! 😆
1000% tru
Hey Alex, my name is Johnny and I'm a freelance logo designer, currently I'm looking for more works, do you love to have a logo for your channel's branding to have a memorable graphic based monogram logo to help your audience recognise and follow your channel easier? I would love to design a photography themed logo inspired by your direction for you! Let me know if you interested to make it happen! :-)
No , I go straight the point . None of the cheap Chinese lenses are as good as Leica , they are copy of Leica at theirs best but not Leica quality and Iq but only cheaper and more affordable so everyone can buy it . Too many RUclipsrs has review these china made lens and all are say the same thing .
You can keep on deceiving yourself 😂😂😂
@@YinZheOperaLee you are Chinese and proud of your country product . I’m not bias. I did buy some china made lens the tt artisan 50mm 0.95 and love it but sorry it’s not a noctilux quality but it’s only 1/20 of the price which most people can afford. The thypoch 50mm is a copy clone of the old summicron is the same . I test them they good but not as good as Leica .
@ductritran8637 i am Singaporean I am also not biased too. This guy did the test and the result speaks for itself. If you look at the test carefully there's also more 3d pop on the thypoch which he didn't mention.
What do you expect?
It’s free for them and most like to shoot at f/1.4 all the time…
None can compete with a Leica lens!
No. Leica has been sitting on its laurels too long.
There is no excuse for the terrible aperture blades on the Summilux.
And as we can clearly see in the video the Summilux is not worth 7x as much.