Kirk's Take: Leica 25mm Summilux Review

It's the available lenses that make Micro 4/3 an
easy choice. Especially this one.

By Kirk Tuck

There's a lot of pressure put on reviewers to be fair and balanced in a way that seems the same as the social pressure to give everyone who participates in a contest a medal or a trophy. If we say we really like a small camera, we feel some sort of compulsion to moderate the statement with a rejoinder like, "for a small sensor camera...." It's almost as though there is consensus now that an objective prioritized list of camera features exists, and we, as writers and as astute image makers, have to hew to that conventional value.

Yes, the new Nikon and Canon cameras have bigger sensors than the Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4/3 cameras. By extension, we realize that the big cameras will have less electronic noise in the images taken at higher ISO settings. But does that really make those cameras the "obvious" choice for all serious photographers?

From my point of view a lot of what makes a system work is the available lenses. And for many of us there are one or two focal lengths (or, more precisely, the angles of view) that we keep coming back to over and over again for our own work. If the system we shoot with has a great example of the lensmaker's art in the focal lengths that we gravitate to, then that system has more value. If the cameras are much more fun to shoot with, then that has more value as well. The combination of great optics and great handling goes a long way to minimize the perceived value differences between "differently abled" systems.

I'm a sucker for two specific angles of view/focal lengths. On a full frame, 35mm-type camera I am drawn to the way 50mm and 85mm or 90mm lenses make images look. I think of the short telephotos as my "normal" lenses, and what most people think of as normal lenses I consider my moderate wide angles. So I was interested when I started hearing good news about two recently introduced lenses for the Olympus/Panasonic Micro 4/3 system: the 25mm Leica Summilux ƒ/1.4 and the Olympus 45mm ƒ/1.8. I bought them and I've been using them (to the exclusion of everything else) for the last two weeks.

Nighttime image taken at ISO 1250, 1/60th sec., ƒ/2.2. Handheld with no image stabilization. Lens: 25mm Summilux. Camera: Panasonic G3

I like them both very much. But for now I would like to report my opinion of the Leica 25mm Summilux. It slots into the Micro 4/3 world as a very high quality high speed normal optic. In a word, it is superb. On my first foray out with the lens, attached to a Panasonic G3, I walked all over Austin. I was heading back to my car in the dark when I came upon the architectural detail above. I aimed the camera, took a meter reading and shot. The auto white balance of the camera nailed everything in the scene, from the deep, rich blue of the sky to the white light indoors.

But what I really found compelling about the shot was the structure of the image and the impression of sharpness. Considering that the shot was taken at ƒ/2.2 I find the final product even more interesting. I'd done a similar shot with a Zeiss 50mm ƒ/1.4 ZE on a Canon 5D Mark II a few weeks earlier, and found that the lens needed to be stopped down a lot to yield the same impression of sharpness. The smaller format and the greater depth of field of the shorter focal length lens creates a different look that, for things like architecture, seems better than longer focal lengths on bigger sensor cameras.

This image is interesting for another reason. There's a series of bare street lights just outside the right side of the frame—but there isn’t a hint of flare or veiling. This structure and lack of artifacts is good news but there's one aspect of the lens, and indeed most of the recent Leica lenses, that is harder to describe. It's an almost three-dimensional character in the images. It may not be obvious in the small, compressed JPEGs that accompany the article [the blogging software also degrades images subtly —MJ] but if you borrow the lens from your local dealer and shoot it you’ll see what I mean. It's just more...dimensional.

This image shows both a resistance to flare and the 3D quality I tried to describe. In the larger file the edges of the bright areas roll off more gracefully, but even in this smaller file I think the overall effect will be noticeable.

This afternoon I had the assignment of photographing one of Austin's top chefs and a highly successful restauranteur, Emmett Fox. I have photographed Emmett on other occasions and have always brought along lights, stands and high-dollar cameras and lenses. Today I decided I would go in light. Very, very light. I tossed a Panasonic G3 with the 25mm Summilux over one shoulder and I stuck the 45mm ƒ/1.8 on the front of an Olympus E-P3 and slung it over my other shoulder. I brought along a tripod just in case but I left it in the car.

Emmett greeted me at the door and I decided to get started right there.

ƒ/2.8 @ 1/3200

This next series of images is a full frame image followed by a 100% image followed by a 250% image. Even though I was handholding the camera and shooting nearly wide open, the lens is sharp across its plane of focus, lusciously contrasty and full of detail.

Just for the record, Emmett’s Apron is the robin’s egg blue that you see in the image. It's not an anomaly.

What I discovered during today’s shoot is that the Leica 25mm is much sharper at its maximum aperture and in the range of one stop down than my Carl Zeiss 50mm ƒ/1.4 ZE is until you stop it down to ƒ/4 or ƒ/5.6.  And the combined "system" of the G3 camera and the 25mm lens also gave me the opportunity to cheat. I did something I'd never been able to do on a commercial assignment before. I used the face detection autofocus for every shot. And of the 220 or so images I ended up taking, only a handful needed to be rejected for minor focus issues.

All the images in this article were done with existing light in the restaurant.

The real magic in using a "normal" lens is that you can step in a create the illusion that the lens is longer or, as in the image just above, you can step back a few feet, include more environment, and mimic the feel of a shorter lens.

Emmett and I worked around his restaurant and I felt freed up not having lights and cable and triggers in tow. The small cameras worked well and the files have the necessary image quality to be used in  printed publications, and certainly on the web. The ability to shoot quickly and without effort was a different experience for me. I am used to setting up in one or two locations, lighting the subject and the background, putting the camera on a tripod and so on. Working without all that made changes of direction quick and seamless.

The color rendition of the lens is unobtrusively neutral. It’s not a lens
that calls attention to itself.

My tests show me that my copy is sharp in the center two-thirds of the frame even wide open. As I stop down it becomes even sharper in the center (although its wide-open performance more than satisfies me) and the sharpness spreads across the frame so that by ƒ/2.5–2.8 you've probably reached the maximum performance of the lens.

Being able to shoot at those apertures brings the whole Micro 4/3 system to life and explains why Micro 4/3 photographers like their Panasonic 20mm ƒ/1.7 lenses. In comparison, the 25mm is a good bit sharper wide open and has a solid feel to the frame. It maintains a certain feeling of depth to the details in the files that the Panasonic doesn't share, right through the useful aperture range.

The 25mm is big. The supplied square lens hood makes it appear nearly twice as big. The aperture "chatters" in bright light when mounted on an Olympus camera but there is no issue with the visual quality. If you manually focus you'll be "focusing by wire." Those are the cons.

Wide open table top. The front fork is in focus.

As I mentioned in the beginning of this article, I also brought along the Olympus 45mm ƒ/1.8 and I find many things to like about that lens as well. I included two images of chef Emmett taken with the 45mm and the Olympus E-P3. In this instance I got to cheat even more. I used face detection auto focus and I "instructed" the camera to focus on the closest eye. It did. If we’re going to demand cameras that do all the heavy lifting, we may as well use the features.

The two images above were taken with the 45mm ƒ/1.8 Olympus lens on an E-P3 body. Adding the 12mm Olympus lens to the two I've written about here would give me an easy-to-use and very high-performance camera system that can be packed into a shaving kit and which is able to go toe-to-toe with just about any system out there.

The 25mm Summilux is quickly becoming the anchor in my small system. I'm loathe to take other systems out anymore. The addition to a product line of an exceptional optic (or three) can make all the difference in the world.

Kirk

Photographer, photo book author, and photography blogger Kirk Tuck is a successful commercial and editorial photographer in Austin, Texas. His latest book, about "the hottest new trend in lighting technology"—LED lighting for digital photography and video—has just been published by Amherst Media.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by mbka: "I couldn't agree more. I had the sister of this lens (the 4/3 version with adapter on a Panasonic G1) and when the native Micro 4/3 version came out I bought it right away. I have shot literally thousands of frames with it (mostly preschool kids assignments) and the quality is superb. But the eeriest thing was right at the start, when I stuck the lens on my aging G1 in the store to check it before I bought it. Even on the so-so back LCD of the G1 the image seemed more plastic, with much better color than the kit zoom I also had around. I now almost loathe to use any other lens. It's that addictive."

Featured Comment by Kenneth Tanaka: "I agree that the Leica 25mm ƒ/1.4 DG Summilux is a wonderful little lens for all the reasons you cite, Kirk.  I, too, really like the 50mm field of view and jumped at the first availability of this lens for my E-P3.  (Although, no, a 25mm lens does not produce the mild compression of a real 50mm...my personal gritch with the Micro 4/3 format.)

"Of course I immediately wanted to know how this light plastic lens compared with the 'real' Leica Summilux 24mm ƒ/1.4 ASPH M-mount at less than 10% of its price tag. [The 24mm Summilux ASPH is $6,995 when it's available, which it isn't now —Ed.]

"Short answer: On my E-P3, this little lens easily takes the crown for sharpness, contrast, and, of course, all-around usability. The 'Lux 24mm is unquestionably the superior optic. On a Leica M body it features very good corners, excellent flare resistance and beautiful rendering at nearly all apertures. And, of course, it's built to withstand a D-Day invasion. But on my E-P3 the 25mm DG 'Lux, no doubt in cooperation with the E-P3's firmware, produces a superior wide-open image to the big guy. (Of course the 'big' 24mm 'Lux can only focus down to three feet...ah, that rangefinder intimacy!...versus the cute 25mm which focuses to a few inches.)

"I posted four casual comparison images for those interested.

"My main complaint with the Leica 25mm on my E-P3: that incessant chattering!  I don't know if it's really the iris, a stabilizer, or if the damn thing's cold up here in Chicago, but it drives me nuts. Chat-chat-chat-chat...shut up!"

Featured Comment by Marcin Wuu: "I absolutely love the first paragraph of this article. I just hope you're willing to cut some slack for those of us photogs who like our cameras properly black, bulky, and big...

Featured Comment by Oskar Ojala: "Nice review, thanks. However, it makes me want to buy the 25mm ƒ/1.4, even though I have a perfectly working 20mm ƒ/1.7! It's comforting to hear that other people have similar experiences.

"I'm completely sold on face detect; my last portraits with the 45mm ƒ/1.8 were entirely with face detect AF and the eyes were perfectly sharp, even when the subject was wearing glasses. It allows me to practically ignore focusing, so that I can pay more attention on the composition and the subject, a very important factor to me."

Mike replies: John Kennerdell wrote a nice piece here on TOP about using face detect...and trans-species face detect.

Comments

[Simon]

Good shots and a great review, but i still feel that in this world of fast lenses and great ISO's that an off camera flash would have made those images really sing.

[Eolake]

There are too many wonderful cameras and lenses now, it's an embarrassment of lenses. Uh, riches. And a tsunami of choices.

I have like four different *systems* I can hardly choose between, they are too good. (Pentax, Panasonic, Canon, Olympus. And I even have Nikon bodies and lenses I haven't used in years. And a Fuji X10 which could replace most of it on its own, to the shame of all.)

[Roland]

"I 'instructed' the camera to focus on the closest eye."

Suddenly, a sentence that made me perk up. Looking up the specs of the E-P3, I found that it has "eye detect AF": Near side eye priority mode, right side eye priority mode and left side eye priority mode.

Does this work fairly reliably? If yes, I'm sold...

[Jerome]

"I 'instructed' the camera to focus on the closest eye."

It would never have occurred to me that a camera manual would contain any useful information, or all those buttons and dials would conceal such a gem of a feature. In fact, I used my new cameras almost the way I used my old mechanical ones.

[Graham Dew]

As ever, another really interesting post Kirk, and some very attractive portraits.

It seems to me that we have now entered a new era in picture taking, in that most of the technology now works together and allows us to trust the camera to do what we want it to do. In current mirrorless cameras, the face recognition works so fast and so reliably, that we cannot really do better by ourselves. We have lenses like the Summilux that can be used wide open, very clean high resolution sensors that mean that you might just as well use auto-ISO as set it yourself, and matrix-meters that get the exposure nailed pretty much every time. Coupled with that articulated viewfinders and good EVFs, we now have all the parts of the jigsaw fitting together.

[Marcelo Guarini]

I got this lens a couple of weeks ago and has been on my EP3 since then. As Kirk says, the lens is very sharp wide open and images look more 3D than with other lenses. The Olympus 45 f1.8 is a great sharp lens too. The 25 completed the lens set I want with me all the time (12 f2, 25 f1.4 and 45 f1.8). The 12 f2 is a little behind of the other two, but it's also a great lens. It is better than the Olympus and Panasonic 7-14 both set at 12, and better than my Olympus ZD 11-22 set at 12.
Great review Kirk.

[Marc Rochkind]

Kirk: Do you use an EVF on your E-P3?

[Carsten Bockermann]

What I've seen so far from this lens looks great. However, comparing it to the Zeiss 50/1.4 doesn't tell your readers a lot. I had the ZF version of the Zeiss for two years and found it to be among the weaker 50s I know.
I wish there was a 50mm lens with Nikon mount in the same league as Leica's 50/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH.

[kirk tuck]

Roland. Yes, it is very reliable. It's changed the way I shoot portraits.

[Karl]

I don't get it. Not to take anything away from this review/system/lens, but why couldn't you have done any of this with your 5DII and Zeiss?

The review implies that you wouldn't even have tried it, preferring to bring along lights, cables and stands. I would think that shooting 'loose and free' like you did with the G3 would only favour the larger system, would it not?

[Godfrey]

I have the FourThirds SLR version of this lens too. It remains the lens in that kit which does most of the work. Even though I've mostly abandoned SLRs, replaced them with mirrorless and RF cameras, that lens on the Oly E-1 or Panasonic L1 has a presence to rival them all.

[Christer]

Next time, please make pictures of a good looking waitress!

[mlmd]

I opted for the 20mm 1.7. Not much slower and more in the 'spirit' of m43. Excellent quality too.
mlmd

[Craig]

Leica do it again, time after time. Their reputation is based on it, its probably better to group all the bad Leica lens in a review than review 'another good one' so we all know which ones not to buy!

Great review and that lens really sings to me. Shall i trade in the nikon..... hmmm tough question

[Ben Syverson]

Ha, it's Emmett! My Mom goes to Asti all the time!

Great appraisal, Kirk, and fantastic images. Lens choice really is one of the best things about m43 these days.

[Soeren Engelbrecht]

You mean it also offers "closest fork priority" ?? Genuinely stunned.

[Ed]

Kirk,

Just a personal question.....I'm wondering how do you convince clients that Kirk + G3 = kick ass photographer. Or better phrased, how do you convice a client that Kirk + G3 = kick ass photographer instead of Kirk + D3x/5D3/D700/D800/M9 etc. Eh, a client Kirk not me, I'm convinced (both of you and the G3).

Greetings, Ed

[Dean Forbes]

As usual, Kirk forces those of us wedded to our dSLRs to think differently. I admire him for that. His work makes the best case for considering a smaller-format system.

[Rob Grey]

Great assessment Mr. Tuck. It's inspiring to see someone - a working professional - successfully using Micro-4/3 gear commercially. And the lens is indeed fantastic, I'm very happy with my copy as well, it's one of my favorite lenses. The chattering noises don't bother me, and outdoors or in a busy cafe you don't notice it anyway.

Great photos, great review, great lens. I must be happy today or something. Cheers!

[Steve Biro]

So many lenses, so little time! I'm another one with multiple systems: My Pentax APS-C DSLR kit and my micro four-thirds kit with both Panasonic and Olympus bodies and lenses.

Because I am curious by nature, I have been considering trying Sony's NEX system. Perhaps a 5N body and the two new Sigma primes for NEX to keep costs down. But Kirk's review of the 25mm Summilux has me ready to toss that plan out the window.

I thought I'd been getting by fine with the Panny 14mm and 20mm but it looks like I'm missing out on something good.

[Andy K]

Can you reveal some trade secrets of environmental portraiture? In the image with a background of a lovely patron entering the store - was that a remarkable "decisive moment" or was that planned with a model appropriately positioned?

Photography is 1% talent and 99% moving furniture. -Arnold Newman

[Mike Johnston]

"I don't get it. Not to take anything away from this review/system/lens, but why couldn't you have done any of this with your 5DII and Zeiss? The review implies that you wouldn't even have tried it"

Karl,
No, I think you're misreading. The review explains that Kirk normally would have "brought along lights, stands and high-dollar cameras and lenses"...that, in fact, he had done so on previous occasions...but that this time he wanted to "go in light. Very, very light" despite the prevailing conventional wisdom that smaller sensors aren't as good for professional work.

Mike

[Mike Johnston]

"Next time, please make pictures of a good looking waitress!"

Nobody was paying for that.

Mike

[kirk tuck]

Marc asked, "Kirk: Do you use an EVF on your E-P3?" Yes. Always. I've hot glued it on so that no one will ever see me treat my camera to the "stinky diaper baby hold."

[Jeff]

@ Ken...

Are you sure that 24 Summilux, and the camera you're using it on, are calibrated correctly for focus? No reason those pics shouldn't be really sharp.

[Peter Simmons]

While I don't have the same max aperture with my Pentax primes, I find the K5 with the DA15, DA35 Macro and the FA 77 offers a fairly small and light travel kit with exceptional performance in a similar fashion to what you describe here.

[Chris Lucianu]

Carsten Bockermann writes:
"I wish there was a 50mm lens with Nikon mount in the same league as Leica's 50/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH."

I suspect Carsten knows pretty well there is currently no 50mm lens quite in the same league as the Summilux. Certainly nowhere near full aperture.

However, whether in ZF-mount or ZE-mount, there is an exceptionally competent lens, and a suprisingly good one.
The Zeiss Makro-Planar 50mm f/2 is certainly outstanding. It takes the other-worldly performance (and price!) of the Summilux to dwarf it.

The Voigtländer Nokton SLII 58mm f/1.4 is surprisingly good for the going price (1/12 of the Summilux). I had the opportunity of comparing it at length with the Zeiss Planar ZF 50mm f/1.4, and found the Zeiss, much against all my expectations, the weaker contender.

[Steven ralser]

Much as I'd like this lens, I'll make do with the panny 20mm, which I'm really enjoying, when I can find the time to get out and use it.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

@ Jeff: The Leica 24mm Summilux is entirely manual. (In Leica's world AF is for ... soccer moms .) There's no such thing as calibration to the E-P3. Wide open it's not even sharp on a Leica. It would sharpen dramatically by f/2.8. But the baby 'Lux is not too bad, even open. I'm sure the camera's firmware does some doin's on it, as it does detect it.

[Brad Calkins]

I agree with the idea that it is the available lenses that makes this system. My use of MFT cameras is based on the availability of fast primes that can be used wide open. Sure Nikon, Canon and others have a bigger selection, but MFT seems to be keeping up in the core focal lengths I use, and at more affordable prices - nifty-fifty excepted... Even better, one can access some of the primes in kits!

[Mark Chan]

The chattering of this gorgeous lens on the EP3 is a result of the full time autofocus that can be switched on or off in the detailed menu.

Kirk - kudos to your review - i REALLY look forward to a possible review of the EM-5 and the 45mm f1.8.

[Jeff Smith]

Kirk,

Thanks for the a good review of the new Leica lens. Sounds like a need to put this lens on my list to get. I was also curious about your use of the G3 and the EP-3, seems like you prefer the G3, but perhaps I am reading too much into it. Which camera do you prefer to shoot with and why? Thanks again for the review JEFF

[Jeff]

Back @ Ken...

Thanks. Yep, I forgot you were shooting with the lens on the E-P3 rather than a Leica. I know full well about manual Leica lenses; I was referring to the calibration that Leica Service Dept. now routinely does on lenses and digital M cameras. Tolerances are tight and even some of the best lenses, e.g., the 50 Summilux asph I own, needed to be re-calibrated to a standard, while at the same time my camera was calibrated to its standard. This helps address back or front focus issues, if any.

But, you're right, it's not the sharpest wide open in comparison to many other lenses in the Leica array.

[Richard]

re FF and 4/3 comparisons - remember the DOF difference. Not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs, but it seems that with an example like Kirks building you would have to stop down the Zeiss more just for DOF reasons

[Carsten Bockermann]

>>The Zeiss Makro-Planar 50mm f/2 is certainly outstanding.

Yes, Chris, and fortunately I have one :-)

[Alfredo]

I have a question, I googled for the lens and it turned out there are two 25 Summiluxes: one is bigger.
May I please ask which was used by Kirk?
Many thanks in Advance.

[Mike Johnston]

Hi Alfredo,
The larger one is for the 4/3 system; the smaller, later one is for the Micro 4/3 system, and that's the one Kirk used. It fits on all Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4/3 cameras.

Mike

[Mark]

This review comes at a great time, I am just in the process of selling up my DSLR kit. Since using film cameras for my project work I've hardly lifted the DSLRs up. In fact last time I used them in anger was probably June last year.

While I'd love the new Fuji I am seriously looking at the Micro 4/3s system because of the wider choice of cameras and lenses and lower cost.

This 25mm the olympus 45mm, now I just need my 28/35mm equivalent and I'm set.

[Roger Bradbury]

(Sigh) I wish it fitted my Pentax! Makes me want to take up portrait photography.

Unlike you, Kirk, I prefer the wider lenses. 16mm suits me very well. My 12-24mm lens would be better if it were just slightly more wide angle....
Quite a few of my people shots are taken around the 16-18mm mark, but with lots of environment around the edges. I don't fill the frame with the face. Well, not usually.... http://www.flickr.com/photos/41506914@N04/6956068837/in/photostream
: ]

[Alan Halfhill]

I use this lens extensively on my GH2 and love it. Wonderful. Worth every penny I paid for it. I have done a review as well:

http://frugalfilmmakers.com/2012/03/05/panasonic-leica-25mm-summilux-review/

[Roger Bradbury]

Alan, you show in your review that the three dimensional rendering works with cat's faces as well.

Nice out of focus rendering there too. (He said, avoiding the 'b' word) : ]

[RT]

Being a 20mm 1.7 user, I wonder if it would be worth it to buy this lens.

I'm really happy with the colors and low light capability that the 20mm provides, and pretty happy with the sharpness. I'm not particularly happy with focusing speed and the smoothness of the out-of-focus bits leaves a bit to be desired. Probably most importantly, I've found that I prefer a narrower angle of view than the ~57 degrees than the 20mm provides.

Anyone have experience with both? Insights appreciated.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

@ RT: I've both the 20 mm and the 25mm lenses. Honestly, if you're most comfortable with a smaller lens save your money. The lenses have different optical designs and, at least in my opinion, the 25mm is a noticeably superior optic. They render slightly differently. But all that is chaff if you're just going to be more comfortable using the 20mm. The better lens is the one you learn and use often.

[David Grieveson]

£900 in the UK. For a lens with a plastic body and "focus by wire".

How much better does the optical performance of a lens have to be to put up with these cons?

[Jim Tardio]

@RT: It comes down to what focal length you prefer. I shoot mostly travel and the 40mm equivalent of the 20/1.7 works better for me because it is significantly wider than the 50mm equivalent of the 25. For that reason I ended up selling my 25. But that's just me.

If I want to move in closer, the Oly 45/1.8 fills that need...or the 14-42 zoom if I don't need a shallow dof.

While the 25 may perform better than the 20, I think many here are overlooking that it is a different focal length. You must answer the focal length question first. And, in reality, the performance between the two is different, but both are beyond excellent.

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

Roger, for Pentax you have a choice of at least two great portrait lenses, the 70mm and the 77mm. The latter is a bit expensive. The former (F:2.4) is astoundingly compact.
But even the 50mm 1.4 is a good portrait lens on Pentax (which is not full-frame, so it's like a 75mm lens).

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

David,
Amazon UK is currently selling this lens for £450, so far as I can see, not £900. If it's the one cosily called "Panasonic H-X025E LEICA DG SUMMILUX 25mm Digital Interchangeable Lens"...

[Joe Kashi]

Adorama apparently has the 25mm M43 Summilux f1.4 back in stock. I just got an Email that my back-ordered lens was shipped on Thursday evening.

[ArtP]

When m43 was announced, my vision of it was a small camera and two or three good small primes... looks like we're there.
With a macro on the way, just need a good, small tele to complete the kit. (and the cash to buy it all!)