cpclee Posted October 22, 2015 Share #21 Posted October 22, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) To me it would have made more sense if Leica restricted the focal length to 28-70 to make it a smaller lens with a constant 2.8. Let the 24 end be covered by a separate wide zoom like 21-35 or 17-35. The current trend of allowing body & lens to balloon in size and weight is very off-putting to me. Back in the day, the R8 was dissed for being too large and heavy as were the late R zooms. Yet those are quite compact by comparison to today's offerings. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Hi cpclee, Take a look here 24-90 - reaching f4 fast. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
cpclee Posted October 22, 2015 Share #22 Posted October 22, 2015 A variable aperture is also cumbersome if work with a manual flash or filters. Agreed that on some level, I might prefer a constant 4.0 aperture than 2.8-4.0. It was a compromise on size/iq. If it were to be constant, like the Canon, it would be much bigger again. So my comment was in that context. I would trade constant fast aperture for 80-90 focal length any day. Think you might find most pros agree with me.also understand that a changing exposure when you zoom around is really problematic when you're working with fixed and complex lighting. You have to choose the most common and slowest speed, this case being f4. It's the most common reason you need constant max aperture. Therefore, the lens to me is f4 but I understand 2.8 sounds better for marketing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 22, 2015 Share #23 Posted October 22, 2015 You mean the £400 budget L kit lens that students buy? No, it's close to f4 at 50mm. If it were 2.8 at 70mm it wouldn't be such an issue. Yes, the Canon 24-70 2.8 is great. and small. and cheap. Yes the Canon L 24-105 L f4.0 is crappy. I know. I had it and returned it and had it credited toward the wonderful Canon L 24-70 2.8. I've owned both. The Leica is going to run circles around Canons L 24-105. Not sure about the Canon L 24-70. I loved that lens and it was a ver.1. I will tell you that the only thing I could complain about was that I wished it went to 90mm and it focused closer (which the Leica does both). Rick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 22, 2015 Share #24 Posted October 22, 2015 Yes the Canon L 24-105 L f4.0 is crappy. I know. I had it and returned it and had it credited toward the wonderful Canon L 24-70 2.8. I've owned both. The Leica is going to run circles around Canons L 24-105. Not sure about the Canon L 24-70. I loved that lens and it was a ver.1. I will tell you that the only thing I could complain about was that I wished it went to 90mm and it focused closer (which the Leica does both). Rick Cool, yeah the 24-70 2.8L is a great lens, the version II is really very impressive. I find a fast constant aperture far more useful than a slightly longer reach and would make that trade any day. It looks like you've found yourself a match with this new lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 22, 2015 Share #25 Posted October 22, 2015 The current trend of allowing body & lens to balloon in size and weight is very off-putting to me. Back in the day, the R8 was dissed for being too large and heavy as were the late R zooms. Yet those are quite compact by comparison to today's offerings. Let's check that - R8/R9 158mm x 101mm x 62mm and weighing 890g presumably with batteries SL 147mm x 104mm x 39mm and weighing 847g with battery Where's the trend? The SL is shorter by 11mm, narrower by 3mm and 23mm thinner, and 43g lighter. Not much in it, I'd say; but it is smaller and lighter on all dimensions. I looked for the dimensions of the Leicaflex Sl on the web, and weirdly couldn't find them. Jono's comparison photo of the SL2 doesn't make the new SL look huge to my eyes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 22, 2015 Share #26 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) I find a fast constant aperture far more useful than a slightly longer reach and would make that trade any day. Well, that’s one way of setting priorities but it isn’t Leica’s. For Leica, the main design objectives were zoom range, lens speed (not necessarily a constant aperture), a consistently high image quality at all focusing distances, and fast focusing. It was really important that the zoom range of the standard zoom extended to 90 mm and that the telezoom reaches 280 mm rather than just 200 mm. Edited October 22, 2015 by mjh 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 22, 2015 Share #27 Posted October 22, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Perhaps MJH knows ....... our local repository of Leica info ........ There is some correction applied in software, although not for distortion I think. Software correction is here to stay, except with the M and S systems – because M lenses are also used on film bodies and because the S features an optical TTL viewfinder. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravinj Posted October 22, 2015 Share #28 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) 28-90 is a pretty solid reach and I can see it as a two lens solution: 28-90 and then a longer fixed tele. In fact for many cases, it can be a one lens do it all solution. After lugging around 120 and 180 S lenses, carrying this should be a piece of cake. The question is whether this lens with the SL body is something that can give best results hand-held or not? No issues with F4. In fact, Leica should probably have kept it a constant F4 and keep the size/weight down. Why bother with 2.8 if it quickly becomes F4? That would be a good compromise. Edited October 22, 2015 by ravinj Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 22, 2015 Share #29 Posted October 22, 2015 Cool, yeah the 24-70 2.8L is a great lens, the version II is really very impressive. I find a fast constant aperture far more useful than a slightly longer reach and would make that trade any day. It looks like you've found yourself a match with this new lens. I do agree that the Canon 24-70 at 2.8 at 70m is really nice... dreamy. Kind of like the M 75mm Summilux or the Canon 85/1.2, kinda. Which makes realize that Leica has a lot of lenses to make to cover the great Canon and Nikon range of preexisting lenses. I hope the SL sticks around long enough to see it happen. Rick 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 22, 2015 Share #30 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Well, that’s one way of setting priorities but it isn’t Leica’s. For Leica, the main design objectives were zoom range, lens speed (not necessarily a constant aperture), a consistently high image quality at all focusing distances, and fast focusing. It was really important that the zoom range of the standard zoom extended to 90 mm and that the telezoom reaches 280 mm rather than just 200 mm. Well three objectives out of four isn't bad I guess but they missed one of the most important ones, lens speed. It depends on which segment of professional market they are targeting, I guess, but a slow zoom/variable aperture is more limiting, more of a compromise, than putting on another lens for further reach. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I question their research and development given the only lens option they have is not something that most pros I know will want. Not something I see as helpful when trying to get people into a new system. Edited October 22, 2015 by Paul J 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 22, 2015 Share #31 Posted October 22, 2015 I do agree that the Canon 24-70 at 2.8 at 70m is really nice... dreamy. Kind of like the M 75mm Summilux or the Canon 85/1.2, kinda. Which makes realize that Leica has a lot of lenses to make to cover the great Canon and Nikon range of preexisting lenses. I hope the SL sticks around long enough to see it happen. Rick You are right, is very nice. 70mm at 2.8 in general has a very nice look to it, with a good amount of narrow d.o.f., and decent sized airy disk and smoothness. By f4 it's a lot tighter and the magic of these qualities have been lost. I agree that existing lenses cover it, but shooting through stopped down M lenses with an EVF is not a solution, IMO. Wide open, of corse fine. So what do you do, change lenses? two bodies with one Summilux, one Zoom? neither are practical when shooting live, when it could be solved with one lens. R lens owners are better off, of corse. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpclee Posted October 22, 2015 Share #32 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) The digital M is bigger in every dimension compared to the film Ms especially the M240 to enable live view. The X Vario is huge compared to CM Zoom. The new SL is not big compared to any Leicaflex or R bodies but is big as a mirrorless. I find it weird when people say the Q is compact. Google 'Fuji Natura' and look at the size of the 24/f1.9 model. On the lens side the trend is even more apparent. The new 50/1.4 for the SL is be enormous compared to the 50/1.4R or 50/1.4 ASPH M and is probably going to weigh over 750g (about what the 80/1.4 R was). People are willing to accept bulk for vanishing improvements in image quality and manufacturers are happy to oblige. Look at the Zeiss Ortus for another example. There was a time when compactness and lightweight was very important. Look at the (film) Leica M, the Olympus OM, or Pentax LX. Achieving compactness was considered an achievement. The market has changed and pixel peeping is a driving factor towards ever larger sizes. I don't even think there is any doubt about it. Some of the increase in sizes is inevitable. Digital necessitates that. But a lot of it is also choice. Like live view for M240 or the size difference between the 50/1.4 ASPH M and the new 50/1.4 for the SL. The latter is probably going to be very slightly better in image quality but will be more than twice the size. I wouldn't want that for myself but the market is there Let's check that - R8/R9 158mm x 101mm x 62mm and weighing 890g presumably with batteries SL 147mm x 104mm x 39mm and weighing 847g with battery Where's the trend? The SL is shorter by 11mm, narrower by 3mm and 23mm thinner, and 43g lighter. Not much in it, I'd say; but it is smaller and lighter on all dimensions. I looked for the dimensions of the Leicaflex Sl on the web, and weirdly couldn't find them. Jono's comparison photo of the SL2 doesn't make the new SL look huge to my eyes. Edited October 22, 2015 by cpclee Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted October 23, 2015 Share #33 Posted October 23, 2015 I won't buy such an expensive, large, and slow lens that is compromised, difficult/awkward to use, because of its variable aperture. How can they think people want this? How can Leica seriously market this new system as "no compromise", and then in the next breath explain that the 2.8-4 aperture is a compromise on size/IQ? It's an awkward compromise that I have no interest in what so ever. What's worse, it is the very first and only lens on offer, the others coming later the following year, the Summilux apparently coming late next year. I loved this design and am excited by what it might be some day, I really wanted to consider it, but using stopped down M lenses on it it will be an awkward compromise too. It's full of compromises and I have lost interest. I guess R lens owners may feel differently. I hope, for Leica, this works out. I think it was a mistake to launch this so soon when it has no lenses. All engineering is a compromise. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bencoyote Posted October 23, 2015 Share #34 Posted October 23, 2015 As has been pointed out elsewhere there is no point having high mp count sensors without lenses that can match or exceed that resolution with significant distortion or aberrations. For gods sake ..... we are moaning about a lens here with 18 elements, four of which are aspherical and 11 of which have anomalous partial dispersion ....... show me another manufacturer that goes to that extent to optically correct things ...... There were loads of moans about the XV, T and Q lenses which were made compact by resorting to firmware rather than optical correction of aberrations ...... and then when Leica does the opposite they get moaned at because the lenses are too big. Make your mind up Leica folk .... which do you want ???? Heh, I think you just sold me on the lens. :-) To quickly fill out the lens portfolio, I wonder why Leica doesn't just take the R optical formulas and turn them into electronic SL lenses. Then based on sales go back and make second versions of of the popular ones better optimized for the SL. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 23, 2015 Share #35 Posted October 23, 2015 You are right, is very nice. 70mm at 2.8 in general has a very nice look to it, with a good amount of narrow d.o.f., and decent sized airy disk and smoothness. By f4 it's a lot tighter and the magic of these qualities have been lost. I agree that existing lenses cover it, but shooting through stopped down M lenses with an EVF is not a solution, IMO. Wide open, of corse fine. So what do you do, change lenses? two bodies with one Summilux, one Zoom? neither are practical when shooting live, when it could be solved with one lens. R lens owners are better off, of corse. I have a boxed R 50mm Summilux set aside for something like this. Jamie Roberts the amazing Canadian wedding photographer loved the lens. He was a member here but probably got tired of battling the crap here. I miss his posts here... and Kristian's. Anyway, would the R 50mm lens work open on the SL and then stop down for the photo? Rick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 23, 2015 Share #36 Posted October 23, 2015 I have a boxed R 50mm Summilux set aside for something like this. Jamie Roberts the amazing Canadian wedding photographer loved the lens. He was a member here but probably got tired of battling the crap here. I miss his posts here... and Kristian's. Anyway, would the R 50mm lens work open on the SL and then stop down for the photo? Rick Don't think I saw Jamie or Kristian here, but I've looked at Kristian's blog and I like his reviews and they come from a relevant place. I will check out Jamie, thanks. Yes battling crap is really strange, just the internet I guess, and mostly why I don't use my real name. I'm not here for the battling or the crap for that matter, but there are some interesting people here and it's a direct link to Leica that is much appreciated and they really do listen and care. "the squeeky wheel gets the oil". Yes, that lens would work well it seems. I've not tried any of the R Lenses but like the look of them. I'm guessing they are amazing, though, I do see some differences in rendering between R and M. I'm in two minds about collecting R Lenses - especially when I get everything I want in my M lenses which work perfectly well on my M bodies. It's my favourite system, so much of it is so right, and the lenses to me, are so close to perfection. Yet there are a few things I'm vocal about wanting some change. The SL has some of those changes and it is the first real contender for a decent cine camera to use natively with our lenses. But I really hope Leica don't lose focus on the M. Since the R's seem like a such a good option for this new system, and marry particularly well on cine, then, well, I guess I'm screwed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted October 25, 2015 Share #37 Posted October 25, 2015 Heh, I think you just sold me on the lens. :-) To quickly fill out the lens portfolio, I wonder why Leica doesn't just take the R optical formulas and turn them into electronic SL lenses. Then based on sales go back and make second versions of of the popular ones better optimized for the SL. Lens design and manufacturing methods have moved on considerably since the last R lenses were in production. And Leica needs the very best telecentric designs for the SL - not 13 to 50 year old R lens formulae. dunk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Lss- Posted October 25, 2015 Share #38 Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) A variable aperture is also cumbersome if work with a manual flash or filters. Agreed that on some level, I might prefer a constant 4.0 aperture than 2.8-4.0. I am not suggesting that this would be an optimal solution (the lens will remain what it is), but giving an option of limiting the lens to max aperture of 4.0 across the range should be easily done in a modern digital camera firmware. There is no physical ring that would create confusion or even prohibit this after all. I'm actually surprised I have never seen this obvious feature. For most people this would, of course, be utterly useless and seen as compromising the performance, but those folks would be free to ignore the feature. Ten seconds of thinking would even solve the issue of overriding the setting on the fly in a customizable UI such as the one in SL. (I'll add that anyone suggesting you don't just use a larger aperture than 4.0 is missing the point.) Edited October 25, 2015 by -Lss- Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted October 25, 2015 Share #39 Posted October 25, 2015 My guess is that the slow AF in low light will be improved in FW updates or at least I hope so. The low light AF on Olympus MFT lenses certainly has. I remain to be convinced about the need for more pixels. Lens rentals did some tests on the resolving power of various lenses for Nikon D800 when it came out with a 36MP sensor and the conclusion they came to was that most of the lenses resolved to less than 20MP. My guess is that only the Leica 50APO and the Zeiss Otus lenses resolve to much in excess of 24MP. OTOH, when I have been on a day out with just the 35 ASPH Summicron on my M240 and am cropping to get the effect of a longer lens, I do sometimes seem to see pixellation before I see lens softening, so maybe Lens Rentals are wrong and more pixels are beneficial. Wilson PS Does the SL have an AF illumination light? I assume it must do. Yes it does … it's mentioned on page 210 of the instruction manual. dunk 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted October 25, 2015 Share #40 Posted October 25, 2015 Let's check that - R8/R9 158mm x 101mm x 62mm and weighing 890g presumably with batteries SL 147mm x 104mm x 39mm and weighing 847g with battery Where's the trend? The SL is shorter by 11mm, narrower by 3mm and 23mm thinner, and 43g lighter. Not much in it, I'd say; but it is smaller and lighter on all dimensions. I looked for the dimensions of the Leicaflex Sl on the web, and weirdly couldn't find them. Jono's comparison photo of the SL2 doesn't make the new SL look huge to my eyes. If you add the size and weight of the DMR to the R8/R9's ( total 158 x 140 x 89mm - 1.395 g ) it will be even more in favor of the SL. And the sensor of the DMR was only an APS-C. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.