stevieg Posted October 27, 2015 Share #1 Posted October 27, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Andreas has a great summary of the SL lenses, but the dimensions/weight section of the table is blank. Does anyone know these figures, particularly the 90-280? I'm wondering how it compares to my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII. Apologies if this info is available. I have had a quick look through the Leica site and here, to no avail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Hi stevieg, Take a look here SL lenses dimensions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mjh Posted October 27, 2015 Share #2 Posted October 27, 2015 Does anyone know these figures, particularly the 90-280? Apo-Vario-Elmar-SL 1:2.8–4/90–280mm Diameter: 88 mm Length: 238 mm Weight: 1780 g Vario-Elmar-SL 1:2.8–4/24–90mm Asph. Diameter: 88 mm Length: 139 mm Weight: 1130 g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 27, 2015 Share #3 Posted October 27, 2015 238mm! Yikes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 27, 2015 Share #4 Posted October 27, 2015 238mm! Yikes! The Nikon 70–200mm 1:2,8G ED VR II measures 87 mm x 205.5 mm. Due to the SL having a shorter flange distance (and the body being thinner than that of a Nikon DSLR) the lens must be 26.5 mm longer anyway (232 mm) – but then the Nikkor maxes out at 200 mm while the SL zoom reaches 280 mm. Not bad at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted October 27, 2015 Share #5 Posted October 27, 2015 The Nikon 70–200mm 1:2,8G ED VR II measures 87 mm x 205.5 mm. Due to the SL having a shorter flange distance (and the body being thinner than that of a Nikon DSLR) the lens must be 26.5 mm longer anyway (232 mm) – but then the Nikkor maxes out at 200 mm while the SL zoom reaches 280 mm. Not bad at all. Michael, I believe, if I understand you correctly, you want to state that to compare the SL + SL lens with the Nikon + Nikon lens, in overall length (including the camera) you have to add 26,5 mm, because of flange difference.. It is not because of lens design parameters of the Leica lenses, that the lens has to be that much longer. Perhaps some rephrasing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 27, 2015 Share #6 Posted October 27, 2015 When the flange distance is shorter the body gets slimmer and the lens correspondingly longer; with a similar lens design this cancels out. But if you are comparing just the lengths of lenses, you have to take into account that telephoto lenses for mirrorless cameras will general be longer than those for DSLRs, due to the shorter flange distance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasAM Posted October 27, 2015 Share #7 Posted October 27, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) When the flange distance is shorter the body gets slimmer and the lens correspondingly longer; with a similar lens design this cancels out. But if you are comparing just the lengths of lenses, you have to take into account that telephoto lenses for mirrorless cameras will general be longer than those for DSLRs, due to the shorter flange distance. So there is a need to have a greater distance (26,5 mm in this case) from the back element of a (telephoto?) lens to the sensor, than the flange distance itself, to have a (more) optimal lens design? Thus still in the region of 45 mm, like the M and R. A slimmer body gives, besides weight and handling advantages, room for the different adapters, obviously. Larger lenses negates a bit the total weight advantage of a mirrorless camera, comparing it to the DSLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bencoyote Posted October 27, 2015 Share #8 Posted October 27, 2015 When the flange distance is shorter the body gets slimmer and the lens correspondingly longer; with a similar lens design this cancels out. But if you are comparing just the lengths of lenses, you have to take into account that telephoto lenses for mirrorless cameras will general be longer than those for DSLRs, due to the shorter flange distance. I follow you up to: "...the lens correspondingly longer..." I've got 3 books on optics on my shelf but I admit that they are 20 years old and I have no practical experience in lens design but I don't understand the logic behind that. Do you hit some sort of practical limit on how much you can bend the light at any given time while keeping the colors together by using aspherical lenses and coatings or something like that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted October 27, 2015 Share #9 Posted October 27, 2015 Wow the 24-90 is more than 200g heavier than the Nikon 24-70 2.8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 27, 2015 Share #10 Posted October 27, 2015 So there is a need to have a greater distance (26,5 mm in this case) from the back element of a (telephoto?) lens to the sensor, than the flange distance itself, to have a (more) optimal lens design? No, for the sake of the argument I am assuming that the lens design is the same. The back focus distance between rear element and sensor must be the same and as the flange distance (mount to sensor) is shorter, the distance between rear element and mount must be longer by the same amount. Now of course a lens designed by Nikon for a Nikon DSLR will differ from a lens designed by Leica for a Leica mirrorless camera, resulting in a different length – that’s why Leica’s 90–280mm lens is roughly the same length (if the flange distance is taken into account) as the Nikon 70–200mm, despite its longer maximum focal length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° Posted October 28, 2015 Share #11 Posted October 28, 2015 What happens (crop ratio) when you attach a S lens to the SL body? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 28, 2015 Share #12 Posted October 28, 2015 There is no crop. The S lenses will behave like the listed focal length in 35mm format terms. As the 70mm behaves roughly like a standard lens on the S sensor (55mm in 35mm terms), it will behave like a 70mm on the S. It will be mild telephoto, full frame - 70mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted October 28, 2015 Share #13 Posted October 28, 2015 These two photos, posted over from another thread, do a good job of showing how the thin SL body affects total lens length: The 24-90 seems almost petite when compared against the Nikon lens, but the 90-280 is a bit of a howitzer. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieg Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share #14 Posted October 28, 2015 Many thanks one and all! I agree with ramarren that the 90-280 looks seriously big! However, it does reach another 80mm further, I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 28, 2015 Share #15 Posted October 28, 2015 I need my head read, but in a moment of weakness, I've just bought an APO-Elmarit-R 180/2.8 (reminiscent of a Nikkor lens of the same specs I loved). 132mm long, E67 filter and weighs 970g (cf the SL 24-90mm, 138mm, E82 filter and weighs 1.140kg) Granted, the SL AF zoom is 90-280mm and f/2.8-4, but it's huge, heavy and for some reason I find 180mm about the limit I want handheld. I am rather hoping in years to come, Leica will populate the SL system with some very good primes - a new AF 180 Summicron? of a new version of the 280/4? I did look at the 280/4 (Holy Moley, that's expensive) and the 180/2 (I don't have a Sherpa available to carry that beast) - the 180/2.8 looked like a nice compromise, and not in the same price stratosphere. I did also look at the Contax 200/2 - it comes in what looks like its own Louis Vuitton case, and priced at the same levels as the Leica 280/4! Hey ho ... I wonder if I'll ever get the camera (still don't have a price)! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted October 28, 2015 Share #16 Posted October 28, 2015 I'm sure you'll love the APO-Elmarit-R 180/2.8. I have the original Elmarit-R 180/2.8 v1 (a beast of a lens but beautiful bokeh) and it's little brother, the Elmar-R 180/4. The latter is actually small and light, and renders beautifully too. Check out this series, just testing bokeh with it. Focus on the left at about 7' distance, each photo shows the same scene from f/4 to f/22 in whole stops: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/Leaves-Test/Leaves-Test-1.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/Leaves-Test/Leaves-Test-2.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/Leaves-Test/Leaves-Test-3.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/Leaves-Test/Leaves-Test-4.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/Leaves-Test/Leaves-Test-5.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/Leaves-Test/Leaves-Test-6.jpg The f/2.8 is even nicer. (Taken with Leica M-P fitted with R Adapter M.) I've got my SL on order at two shops ... Which ever gets one in for me first gets the gold. US$7500 ... G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 28, 2015 Share #17 Posted October 28, 2015 Thank you for posting that - I agree, it is a very nice lens. Initially, I thought it was a little soft af f/4, but then as you cycle through the images, it isn't bad at all. Lovely booked, as you say. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheikhrafiq79 Posted January 26, 2016 Share #18 Posted January 26, 2016 What length of 90 to 280 lens hood Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 26, 2016 Share #19 Posted January 26, 2016 Given that the 105-280 4.0 R is 77x239 mm @ 1950 gr., the SL lens is about the same, just a bit thicker and considerably lighter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.