?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Leica Summilux vs Canon Serenar - if you can't be witty, then at least be bombastic [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
kyle cassidy

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Leica Summilux vs Canon Serenar [Jan. 2nd, 2015|09:19 am]
kyle cassidy
[mood |accomplishedaccomplished]

I've been using a 1950's era 50mm f1.8 Canon Serenar on my Leica since 1999 or so and lately I've been worried that I'm not getting as much out of my camera as I might be and was luckily able to test a mid 1990's pre-asph Leica Summilux side by side with the Serenar.




Side by side, clickenzee to Embiggen!



There's definitely a difference wide open in the bokeh -- the Summilux is a lot smoother. It's also half a stop brighter and the color is a bit different. And the Summilux focuses closer, which is a distinct advantage, though it's also significantly larger and heavier.

In the 100% crop it seems a bit sharper but at this aperture it could also be a focusing variation as well.



100% crop


My ultimate conclusion is that the Summilux, while nice, isn't $1,200 nicer than the Serenar.





Add me: [LiveJournal] [Facebook] [Twitter] [Google ] [Tumblr] [Ello]
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: againstathorn
2015-01-02 11:11 pm (UTC)
Very cool. I personally think longer lens, if used accordingly, can produce some excellent portraits. My main beef is the excessive use of wide lens for portraiture, which more often than not results is distorting and elongating the subject's features.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)