wlaidlaw Posted November 5, 2015 Share #361 Posted November 5, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Very shocking test results of the 28 lux on the SL at reidreviews. Does the SL sensor have M240 type micro lenses and very shallow detection pits, if not with a very rearward exit pupil on the 21 Summilux, poor results would not be a huge surprise. Using retrofocal or telecentric lenses makes much more sense. Luckily the MF lens I want to use on the SL is retrofocal, the 18SEM. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here Leica SL (Typ 601) - Mirrorless System Camera Without Compromise. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted November 5, 2015 Share #362 Posted November 5, 2015 I would have expected better results with the 28/1.4 but i'm pretty sure that 28/2 and 28/2.8 asph don't show sharp corners below f/8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 5, 2015 Share #363 Posted November 5, 2015 Very shocking test results of the 28 lux on the SL at reidreviews. Not shockingly good I take it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 5, 2015 Share #364 Posted November 5, 2015 Not shockingly good I take it? All Reid Reviews subscribers have been sworn to secrecy. It will cost you $35 to find out. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 5, 2015 Share #365 Posted November 5, 2015 Hmm. A 2x teleconverter sounds like a good idea ... that will bring my Telyt 250 out to a 500/8, just fine for occasional use. Maybe ... :-) Initially, I was not particularly attracted to losing 2 stops with the extender (dropping from 2.8 to 5.6), but then I realised that was just me thinking in old film terms. I generally try to use my digital cameras at base ISO - 320 with the Monochrom and 200 with the M Edition 60. With the SL, base ISO is 100, if I understand correctly. If f/5.6 is too slow, that would mean upping the ISO two stops to 400, which isn't an issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 5, 2015 Share #366 Posted November 5, 2015 All Reid Reviews subscribers have been sworn to secrecy. It will cost you $35 to find out. scott Speak for yourself. Again, it is well worth reading Sean's review of the 28mm RF lenses. Sadly, he doesn't have the Summicron, but he does have the new Summilux. When a poster writes "Very shocking test results of the 28 lux on the SL at reidreviews" what he omitted to write was shockingly good! Sean's review is consistent with other reports - yes, generally the M cameras are better than the SL for M lenses the SL consistently resolves better in the centre of the image than the M cameras with M lenses the 28 Summilux on the SL is "crackling good" Now, as the earlier poster suggests that there is a problem with the 28 Summilux on the SL, it's only fair to say that on the SL this lens out resolves the M(240) in the centre and in the corners - it's that good! I'm so pleased I happen to have one sitting on my desk! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 5, 2015 Share #367 Posted November 5, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have no use for Sean Reid and his idiotic, paranoid distribution and use policies. I'd rather throw my money into the fire than hand it to him. If he acted like a sensible, sane, intelligent businessperson, I'd be recommending people to his site and donating money to support him. Instead, he treats his customers like criminals and thieves. I refuse use to do business that way, with anyone. No review is worth that. If the Summilux-M 28/1.4 doesn't work all,that well on the SL, well, no big surprise to me. That's a rather extreme lens tuned for the M cameras and their sensors, which are different from what's in the SL. The SL's single currently-available native lens covers the focal length, probably performs much better, has OIS, and actually costs less. Why bother with the wrong lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 5, 2015 Share #368 Posted November 5, 2015 I would have expected better results with the 28/1.4 but i'm pretty sure that 28/2 and 28/2.8 asph don't show sharp corners below f/8. Didn't Jono promise to show us results with one of those two lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 5, 2015 Share #369 Posted November 5, 2015 I have no use for Sean Reid and his idiotic, paranoid distribution and use policies. I'd rather throw my money into the fire than hand it to him. If he acted like a sensible, sane, intelligent businessperson, I'd be recommending people to his site and donating money to support him. Instead, he treats his customers like criminals and thieves. I refuse use to do business that way, with anyone. No review is worth that. If the Summilux-M 28/1.4 doesn't work all,that well on the SL, well, no big surprise to me. That's a rather extreme lens tuned for the M cameras and their sensors, which are different from what's in the SL. The SL's single currently-available native lens covers the focal length, probably performs much better, has OIS, and actually costs less. Why bother with the wrong lens. You might want to reconsider the bit about the 28 Summilux ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 5, 2015 Share #370 Posted November 5, 2015 Love all this smoke and mirrors stuff. Maybe someone can just post a photo sometime! From Jono's review it seems the SL doesn't work so well with M lenses for reasons we can appreciate. But they can actually be used - however, I'm not sure I understand the wisdom of spending the money for an SL body to settle with less than stellar performance from your lenses. I remarked before that Leica have made a 'jack of all trades' and it seems I'm not entirely wrong. Of course the main reason for buying an SL must surely be to use the dedicated AF SL lens (and lenses in the future). Hopefully they will prove to be worth buying the body for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 5, 2015 Share #371 Posted November 5, 2015 Sean performs a service which is worth his subscription fee. Yes, he's got weird ideas, and wastes his readers' time reminding you of them, But I've subscribed for at least half a dozen years, and learned some things by talking to him over an occasional email. I was just joining in trolling you guys who were ready for a big Summilux fail. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 5, 2015 Share #372 Posted November 5, 2015 Sunshine is the best desinfectant. I have no interest in subscription sites! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 5, 2015 Share #373 Posted November 5, 2015 Speak for yourself. Again, it is well worth reading Sean's review of the 28mm RF lenses. Sadly, he doesn't have the Summicron, but he does have the new Summilux. When a poster writes "Very shocking test results of the 28 lux on the SL at reidreviews" what he omitted to write was shockingly good! the SL consistently resolves better in the centre of the image than the M cameras with M lenses the 28 Summilux on the SL is "crackling good" Now, as the earlier poster suggests that there is a problem with the 28 Summilux on the SL, it's only fair to say that on the SL this lens out resolves the M(240) in the centre and in the corners - it's that good! I'm so pleased I happen to have one sitting on my desk! I do, too. Based on Sean's results, I'm expecting that both the 28 and 35 SXes will be outstanding on the SL. But, frankly, I'd rather shoot with the M240 at 35 mm and probably also at 28. They just feel right there. For landscapes and stuff on a tripod, I suspect the SL would add some image quality. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 5, 2015 Share #374 Posted November 5, 2015 From Jono's review it seems the SL doesn't work so well with M lenses for reasons we can appreciate. Where does he say that? He does say M lenses don't work so well with the A7 (and he is going to post a review at some stage), and he says the M cameras work better with M lenses (though apparently the 28 Summilux works better with the SL) but nowhere have I read him saying "M lenses don't work so well with M lenses." Edit - James, I'm beginning to wonder about your posting. It's one thing (and perfectly reasonable) to say the camera isn't for you for any number of reasons, but you've been straying into the world of knocking the camera for the sake of it, on the flimsiest of grounds for some time. There is a word for this, but I'm told I'm not allowed to use it ... you haven't taken to living under bridges have you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 5, 2015 Share #375 Posted November 5, 2015 Didn't Jono promise to show us results with one of those two lenses? Jono said he had dusted off his tripod, the one that he claimed to have loaned and lost, and was shooting careful comparisons. He has both the 28 and 35 Summiluxes with FLE and ASPH and all that. His initial impression was that the M did a llittle better than the SL with these two. But he and Sean talk frequently, so let's see what his next report says. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 5, 2015 Share #376 Posted November 5, 2015 I have no use for Sean Reid and his idiotic, paranoid distribution and use policies. I'd rather throw my money into the fire than hand it to him. If he acted like a sensible, sane, intelligent businessperson, I'd be recommending people to his site and donating money to support him. Instead, he treats his customers like criminals and thieves. I refuse use to do business that way, with anyone. No review is worth that. If the Summilux-M 28/1.4 doesn't work all,that well on the SL, well, no big surprise to me. That's a rather extreme lens tuned for the M cameras and their sensors, which are different from what's in the SL. The SL's single currently-available native lens covers the focal length, probably performs much better, has OIS, and actually costs less. Why bother with the wrong lens. If Sean's policies were as idiotic and paranoid as alleged, unlikely Leica Camera AG would have continued asking him to review their equipment over the years. Also, his review archive covers many other non-Leica brands and offers a wealth of information and knowledge not necessarily easily available elsewhere. The relatively small subscription (£22 $equivalent) has saved me hours of browsing elsewhere and enabled saving ££hundreds by buying e.g. alternative but little known DSLR wide angle lenses. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 5, 2015 Share #377 Posted November 5, 2015 John, If the lenses work better with the M, doesn't that imply they are not so good on the SL? Anyway it's a moot point, surely the point of the SL is SL mount AF lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 5, 2015 Share #378 Posted November 5, 2015 John, If the lenses work better with the M, doesn't that imply they are not so good on the SL? Anyway it's a moot point, surely the point of the SL is SL mount AF lenses? No, it doesn't - there are many shades of grey between better on the M(240) and not so good. So far, how many M lenses have we seen tested? Trick question - so far Sean has published three, the 35 Summicron, 28 Elmarit and 28 Summilux. The 28 Summilux is fantastic. You can read about the other two in your own time. The point of the SL for you may be SL AF mount lenses, but it isn't for me. It means I can use longer and wider lenses than the RF on the M cameras is good for, with a better EVF solution than the M(240), along with better video, better macro ... all in all better at the things my M cameras don't do, than the M(240). I will probably get a couple of AF lenses at some stage - the 24-90 zoom looks useful, the long zoom just too big and I already have three really good 50mm lenses in M mount, so adding an AF looks pointless. Sounds like a great solution, don't you think? It's a "Jack" which does what it does really well! And I don't have to go back, oh 4 decades? or is it 5? to clunking around single lens reflex cameras which will soon be extinct ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 5, 2015 Share #379 Posted November 5, 2015 Maybe you should really be waiting for the next M, with the new improved EVF…….. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 5, 2015 Share #380 Posted November 5, 2015 And I don't have to go back, oh 4 decades? or is it 5? to clunking around single lens reflex cameras which will soon be extinct ... Leica are about to drop the S then? What do you know about that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.