The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Phase One LS vs Leica S glass comparisons

Paratom

Well-known member
Has anyone done a Schneider comparison of LS glass vs. their lenses for Rollei? Or Schneider Rollei lenses vs. Leica S2?
I havent done direct comparison, but had Hy6 with Schneider (40mm, 50/2.8, 80mm, 180/2.8) lenses before and now have the S2.
Overall I would say the Rollei glass draws maybe somewhat smoother while the Leica glass "pops" a little more and looks a little more 3d by having a very sharp subject kind of popping out of the image.

Out of the 4 Leica lenses I find the 120/2.5 to be closestto the Schneider lenses.
If you are ineterested I can send you some images, but no direct comparisons
I stay with my comment that I believe the handling and user interface between the systems make a much bigger difference.

By the way I dont agree regarding S-glass being less special than Leica M lenses. It is a slightly different look but having used the S system for some time now I dont miss anything compared to my M-lenses, it is more that now images from the M sometimes do look slightly to smooth/dreamy for my taste.
But I guess thats a matter of personal taste.
Regards, Tom
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Does anyone want to speak about drawing style of the lenses (that has used both)... one of several factors that has me using an RZ now, instead of an AFD, is that I like the drawing style of the lenses better.
Shelby,

I agree that we are at a point where ultimate resolution is great to look at on our monitors at 100% views, but for the most part when you are over 40MP of data, most of the critical resolution is academic in terms of what it adds to overall image "quality," especially in a print. In fact, I have found digital technology has removed so many intrinsic classic lens rendering traits that I selectively add some back during post via a few simple "secret sauce" processing techniques.

In a simple summary, I would say the LS lenses draw similarly to the later-gen RZ lenses. However, the LS lenses are critically sharper, while retaining a classic smoothness, definitely have more micro-contrast than RZ glass does, like 40 points of clarity in C1 more. In Leica parlance, I would say the RZ lenses render more like Pre-Asph M Summilux's, while the LS lenses more like Apsh Summilux's. To my eyes, the Leica S lenses are much more brittle and more sterile, and like Guy said, render more like Summicron M lenses.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I havent done direct comparison, but had Hy6 with Schneider (40mm, 50/2.8, 80mm, 180/2.8) lenses before and now have the S2.
Overall I would say the Rollei glass draws maybe somewhat smoother while the Leica glass "pops" a little more and looks a little more 3d by having a very sharp subject kind of popping out of the image.

Out of the 4 Leica lenses I find the 120/2.5 to be closestto the Schneider lenses.
If you are ineterested I can send you some images, but no direct comparisons
I stay with my comment that I believe the handling and user interface between the systems make a much bigger difference.

By the way I dont agree regarding S-glass being less special than Leica M lenses. It is a slightly different look but having used the S system for some time now I dont miss anything compared to my M-lenses, it is more that now images from the M sometimes do look slightly to smooth/dreamy for my taste.
But I guess thats a matter of personal taste.
Regards, Tom
Tom lets be careful I never said less special i said more looking like a summarit or summicron which is special in itself but they don't have the dreamy draw of a summilux. This goes for both the M and R which are very similar in how they render.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Starting with an 80mm LS or a 70mmS it is a simple task to make their "looks" fairly interchangeable.
I have a action for "dreamy" :ROTFL:
Most of the difference that you cannot "reconcile" by adjustments is in the extreme OOF areas The design of the lens is much more visible there, so if the element diagram is very close to matching, the OOF areas are too but it is tough to fake a double gauss out of a retrofocal with an aspheric element
-bob
 

dfarkas

Workshop Member
As far as lens design goes, the 70mm S uses a modified double Gauss design with a floating element, extremely similar to the 50 Lux ASPH for the M. The longer lenses are based on R designs. The 120 APO Macro S is essentially the same design as the 100 APO Macro R but has the addition of a floating element and ups the resolution. The 180 APO S is based on the design for the 180 f/2 APO R, just in a much more compact package.

So, as far as the look of the lenses go, I'd say they are quite similar to their M and R counterparts just with less aberrations, less distortion and higher contrast and resolution (especially wide-open). For the 120, the addition of a floating element allows it to outperform its R ancestor as the performance is more consistent from close focus all the way to infinity.

David
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
Love these popcorn reading threads that stir passions and preferences up once in awhile. At least it temporarily steers the conversation away from all of the boring tech camera discussions. :D

The bottom line is still testing out the different choices and seeing how each of the total systems match up with what and how you like to shoot.

And, like Shelby and Guy have mentioned, take a look at what the rendering of the images look like with the different lenses available with the various systems. We're all very lucky as there are quite a few more excellent medium format glass options out there than there were just a few years ago. It's still a head-scratcher as to why it took so long for a variety of the manufacturers to offer better glass.
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
Popcorn is all any of us can afford after jumping into medium format. ;)

Seriously though, once you work with bigger sensors for awhile, I don't know how you could ever go back. The detail and richness of the files is really quite amazing. On a daily basis, I open up files on my computer and am blown away at how good these bigger files look.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
That is so true, and for me it is more the detail and the color depth that makes the image to a large degree more than the lens.
-bob
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Popcorn is all any of us can afford after jumping into medium format. ;)

Seriously though, once you work with bigger sensors for awhile, I don't know how you could ever go back. The detail and richness of the files is really quite amazing. On a daily basis, I open up files on my computer and am blown away at how good these bigger files look.
I do agree! (On both the affordability of popcorn and the quality of the files!)
Bill
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
That is so true, and for me it is more the detail and the color depth that makes the image to a large degree more than the lens.
-bob
Could not agree more and it makes me wonder why these silly comparison are even brought up . Your in MF land it simply does not get any better.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Shelby,

(snip)

In a simple summary, I would say the LS lenses draw similarly to the later-gen RZ lenses. However, the LS lenses are critically sharper, while retaining a classic smoothness, definitely have more micro-contrast than RZ glass does, like 40 points of clarity in C1 more. In Leica parlance, I would say the RZ lenses render more like Pre-Asph M Summilux's, while the LS lenses more like Apsh Summilux's. To my eyes, the Leica S lenses are much more brittle and more sterile, and like Guy said, render more like Summicron M lenses.
This is a great explanation... and I'll take your word on it. I am noticing with my 110/2.8 I'm getting a TON of detail and smoothness, but it hangs ever so slightly more towards the pre-asph "glow" than the non-schneider 645 mammy glass did. I love the look for portraits. I have all the detail I want (more than I need), but skin isn't rendered quite so brutally as it could be.

One of these days, I'll catch up with you guys and try those LS lenses alongside my RZ and get some like-subject comparisons. It would be nice to have an S2 alongside as well!
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Best question asked all month. The LS glass has a very nice smooth graduated look over the non Schneider glass, reason why I have the schnieders . It draws much nicer at least with the 40 , 60 and 80 mpx sensors that I have or tried... (snip)

Right now I like shooting my Cambo, tomorrow it maybe my Phase and Saturday maybe my Sony. Another words it don't matter as long as your happy with it.
Thanks for the in-depth and thoughtful reply, Guy. :thumbup:
 

bensonga

Well-known member
One of these days, I'll catch up with you guys and try those LS lenses alongside my RZ and get some like-subject comparisons. It would be nice to have an S2 alongside as well!
Hi Shelby,

I think you should bring your RZ/Leaf to one of the GetDPI workshops where all that LS and S2 glass will be found in one convenient location.....and then post the comparison images here for all of us to enjoy! :)

Gary
 

dfarkas

Workshop Member
That is so true, and for me it is more the detail and the color depth that makes the image to a large degree more than the lens.
-bob
Since the image is rendered optically onto a sensor, it would beg to reason that the detail and depth in an image is created by the lens, is it not? :)

A better lens will render more detail across the entire image from center to edge, offer excellent wide-open sharpness and contrast, have smooth transition from in focus to OOF areas, and perform well close up and at infinity. It will also minimize veiling flare, ghosting, coma, astigmatism, chromatic aberrations, spherical aberrations and vignetting. All of these factors combine to produce the depth, detail and 3D rendering of a lens. Balancing all of these design goals and excelling at most/all of them is extremely difficult (and costly).

Speaking to the Leica S lenses, the current range meets these criteria in spades and as a result, combined with the fact that they are designed specifically for use with digital sensors (computing the cover glass as part of the optical path), offer exceptional performance under almost every shooting situation. To quote Peter Karbe, head of optics at Leica (and designer of the famed 50 Lux ASPH), "The S lenses are the best lenses we have ever made... for any system... ever."

David
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Since the image is rendered optically onto a sensor, it would beg to reason that the detail and depth in an image is created by the lens, is it not? :)
Only if the sensor and the in-camera processing--and RAW images are processed in-camera--are not a factor, which they are. Spacial filtering alone will do a lot to change the look and feel of an image never mind the color controls. :D
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Since the image is rendered optically onto a sensor, it would beg to reason that the detail and depth in an image is created by the lens, is it not? :)

--snip--.



David
wrong mostly. The lens has nothing to do with the color depth
and please, enough vendor hawking.
-bob
 

craigrudlin

New member
If I am not mistaken and my memory serves me correctly, most sensors have micro-lenses immediately above the "wells" that direct the photons into the wells. For most sensors, the array of micro-lenses is uniform.

For the Leica S2, the microlenses are actually NOT uniform, in that they are designed such that the "power" or directionality of each micro-lens varies as a function of the distance from the center. Thus, as you move toward the periphery, the lenses change so that the photons which in the periphery would be coming toward the sensor's wells at a more acute angle, are properly "bent" and directed into the wells. This may also have an impact on the "clarity" and "sharpness" of the image.

David can address this more precisely.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
If I am not mistaken and my memory serves me correctly, most sensors have micro-lenses immediately above the "wells" that direct the photons into the wells. For most sensors, the array of micro-lenses is uniform.

For the Leica S2, the microlenses are actually NOT uniform, in that they are designed such that the "power" or directionality of each micro-lens varies as a function of the distance from the center. Thus, as you move toward the periphery, the lenses change so that the photons which in the periphery would be coming toward the sensor's wells at a more acute angle, are properly "bent" and directed into the wells. This may also have an impact on the "clarity" and "sharpness" of the image.

David can address this more precisely.

That is not unique to the S2 sensor.
What is effected is color cast due to oblique angles as well as fall-off, not sharpness since that is limited by the sensor cell pitch.
It assumes that all lenses have the same rear nodal distance from the sensor and is at best a compromise. Since the S2 is a traditional dslr design, the lens to sensor distance is larger than the M system for example. Wide angles need a retro-telephoto design which tends to make the microprisms less important.
All this is often accomplished by in-camera or out of camera post-processing.

-bob
 
Top