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]

[User Picture]From: drksoulhuntress
2015-01-04 10:14 am (UTC)
Hi Kyle! My word, in any focus Trillian is lovely.

Do you have any advice to photographing make up? I do some free lance work and want to start building my portfolio, anything I can get refurbished I will, I was thinking about the T3i with a few softbox lights. I really admire your work, so I was hoping you might have some thoughts.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kylecassidy
2015-01-04 08:11 pm (UTC)
the camera's less important than the lights. a couple of softboxes would be great.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: drksoulhuntress
2015-01-05 05:40 am (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)