Would you prefer an R10 over SL?

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but this, the ability to find a solution to this kind of problem, is Leica's territory. M lenses are, like for like, smaller than Zeiss lenses or Nikon/ Canon MF equivalents. That combination of small size and top quality is the thing that genuinely justifies a premium price. But now we seem to be moving into new territory where we give up that objectively distinguishable and unique advantage. This is why it feels like a step backward.

 

Should we be so ready to start justifying the whole thing on the grounds that Zeiss et al can't do it better?

 

It seems to me you are conflating too many things. 

 

Older M lenses were designed to optimize on the things an RF camera could do that an SLR could not, namely, site the lens deep into the camera with a simpler optical design that was more compact yet performed as well or better. As lens speed increased at any given focal length, lens size increased.  It increased again when evenness of illumination and corner to corner sharpness became higher priorities. It has increased again as Leica has struggled with building digital RF cameras due to the different sensitivities of a digital sensor compared to film, and found that only partial solutions by customizing sensors are actually feasible. 

 

SLR lenses tend to be bulkier due to having to clear swinging mirrors, requiring auto-diaphragms to be usable, and more complex lens formulae necessary to absolutely quash focus shift (without which, auto-diaphragm operation suffers badly). 

 

Zeiss, always more concerned with imaging accuracy than anything else, entered the M mount lens game a bit after higher speeds and even illumination became priority, so their ZM lenses have often been a bit bulkier. Applying their lens craft to DSLR bodies with a performance über alles approach in things like the Otus, they have had to deal with immutable laws of fizziks and optics, and the complex needs of digital sensors, and lenses have grown again. 

 

I suspect Leica is just dealing with the same fizziks and optics problems, and the same sensor issues. It may well be that 24x36 sensors are simply huge things to deal with properly in optics, and APS-C or FourThirds sensor sizing allows far sweeter, simpler lens designs. But everyone wants FF now, so we have to compromise on size vs performance, and performance wins. 

 

Just look at at the size of S lenses... 

[LocalHero1953]

I don't see this as a physics or optics problem, at least not primarily - I see this as an engineering problem. After all, the APO Summicron 50 is a marvel of performance in a small package, and is reported to perform well on the SL. The difference in size is because of the OIS, the AF and the weathersealing. OK so the optics have to be altered to allow just light elements to be moved by the AF and IS motors. But this is an engineering problem of power and miniaturisation.

 

I also accept that the large lenses may be as small as we can expect given the current state of R&D. But I don't believe the laws of physics and optics are the limiting factor. I was disappointed to see the bulk of the SL 24-90 in the shop yesterday, and relieved I had only ordered the body. I hope we will look back in future years and see this as a low point in lens design (in the broadest sense - I am sure it performs well, as an optical device), that was transformed by advances in miniaturised engineering by the gnomes of Wetzlar.

[Peter H]

It seems to me you are conflating too many things.

 

Older M lenses were designed to optimize on the things an RF camera could do that an SLR could not, namely, site the lens deep into the camera with a simpler optical design that was more compact yet performed as well or better. As lens speed increased at any given focal length, lens size increased. It increased again when evenness of illumination and corner to corner sharpness became higher priorities. It has increased again as Leica has struggled with building digital RF cameras due to the different sensitivities of a digital sensor compared to film, and found that only partial solutions by customizing sensors are actually feasible.

 

SLR lenses tend to be bulkier due to having to clear swinging mirrors, requiring auto-diaphragms to be usable, and more complex lens formulae necessary to absolutely quash focus shift (without which, auto-diaphragm operation suffers badly).

 

Zeiss, always more concerned with imaging accuracy than anything else, entered the M mount lens game a bit after higher speeds and even illumination became priority, so their ZM lenses have often been a bit bulkier. Applying their lens craft to DSLR bodies with a performance über alles approach in things like the Otus, they have had to deal with immutable laws of fizziks and optics, and the complex needs of digital sensors, and lenses have grown again.

 

I suspect Leica is just dealing with the same fizziks and optics problems, and the same sensor issues. It may well be that 24x36 sensors are simply huge things to deal with properly in optics, and APS-C or FourThirds sensor sizing allows far sweeter, simpler lens designs. But everyone wants FF now, so we have to compromise on size vs performance, and performance wins.

 

Just look at at the size of S lenses...

Yes, all that, plus the need to build in something to drive the AF.

 

But I wasn't advocating an assault on the laws of physics. Im not a complete C'nute. I was pondering over whether it might have been possible to concentrate on prime lenses where, with genuine ingenuity of the type Leica have previously been capable of, and without compromising quality, something interesting could have been achieved, possibly alongside the larger zooms.

 

If there's really no scope at all for smaller top quality AF lenses than the ones currently planned, I'd be surprised. I expect the reality is that it is possible but the compromise matrix you described, which emphasises quality v size, overlooks the real constraints which are time and research and development costs.

[lct]

Hard to follow this discussion from this M + R user's point of view. Leica did make small and bulkier bodies and lenses since the sixties. We had the choice then and some of us did use both M and R systems. What we could not do is using M lenses on R bodies though. We can do it with the SL610 now and the latter is smaller than R8 and R9 bodies. I sure would have preferred an R4-like body as far as size is concerned but it is a matter of tastes and i feel comfortable when i use my R lenses on my bigger 5D1. So what to complain about? i would have ordered an SL610 without hesitation if its ergonomics had matched my expectations.

 

Edit: The L 24-90 is indeed bulkier than the R 28-90 (138 x 88mm, 1,140g vs 99 x 80mm, 740g) but the R zoom does not go down to 24 mm and has no AF capabilities. Nobody has to buy either zooms anyway. The good R 35-70/4 is significantly smaller, considerably cheaper and should shine on the SL610 hopefully. 

[Peter H]

I'd just like to add that my musings are not complaints about what does exist. The new SL lenses sound wonderful in their own right. Im just hoping something else is also possible.

[dkCambridgeshire]

I don't see this as a physics or optics problem, at least not primarily - I see this as an engineering problem. After all, the APO Summicron 50 is a marvel of performance in a small package, and is reported to perform well on the SL. The difference in size is because of the OIS, the AF and the weathersealing. OK so the optics have to be altered to allow just light elements to be moved by the AF and IS motors. But this is an engineering problem of power and miniaturisation.

 

I also accept that the large lenses may be as small as we can expect given the current state of R&D. But I don't believe the laws of physics and optics are the limiting factor. I was disappointed to see the bulk of the SL 24-90 in the shop yesterday, and relieved I had only ordered the body. I hope we will look back in future years and see this as a low point in lens design (in the broadest sense - I am sure it performs well, as an optical device), that was transformed by advances in miniaturised engineering by the gnomes of Wetzlar.

 

Try saying that to Peter Karbe and his team. The lens was probably designed over two years ago using the best of available technology - and that technology is likely still the best for the lens' specification. We need to have a bit more faith in Leica engineers who know far more about lens design than us mere end users who never seem satisfied … so often wanting what is not possible … too often comparing to e.g. existing M lens' sizes and designs. Those recent M lenses were also designed by the PK team. 

 

dunk

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Indeed. I am looking more seriously at the 35-70R now, as a stop gap till the R&D produces results.

[Leicaiste]

Edit: The L 24-90 is indeed bulkier than the R 28-90 (138 x 88mm, 1,140g vs 99 x 80mm, 740g) but the R zoom does not go down to 24 mm and has no AF capabilities. Nobody has to buy either zooms anyway. The good R 35-70/4 is significantly smaller, considerably cheaper and should shine on the SL610 hopefully. [/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/color]

To be fair to the L 24-90 you should add the length and weight of the R to L adapter to the measurement of the R 28-90.

[LocalHero1953]

Try saying that to Peter Karbe and his team. The lens was probably designed over two years ago using the best of available technology - and that technology is likely still the best for the lens' specification. We need to have a bit more faith in Leica engineers who know far more about lens design than us mere end users who never seem satisfied … so often wanting what is not possible … too often comparing to e.g. existing M lens' sizes and designs. Those recent M lenses were also designed by the PK team. 

 

dunk

I don't doubt they have done the best they can. My point was simply that engineering R&D is the solution, not altering the laws of physics.

[biglou]

We will never ever have a smart adapter for R lenses, too complicated for a small market.

What would be clever would be a special edition of the SL not limited in numbers and with a realistic price (Leica loves special editions, about the price i must be dreaming) dedicated for R lenses and actuating the diaphragm, this would be i think much simpler.

Working with 3 cams and eventually rom lenses...

Such a move would enhance Leica image and be finally the R solution.

[Peter H]

Try saying that to Peter Karbe and his team. The lens was probably designed over two years ago using the best of available technology - and that technology is likely still the best for the lens' specification. We need to have a bit more faith in Leica engineers who know far more about lens design than us mere end users who never seem satisfied … so often wanting what is not possible … too often comparing to e.g. existing M lens' sizes and designs. Those recent M lenses were also designed by the PK team. 

 

dunk

 

I don't think anyone's asking for what is not possible. That's a little disrespectful to some who have gone to lengths to explain their opinions.

 

And Dunk, it's not a case of never being satisfied. That really is a deep misunderstanding of the the bulk of the conversation that has spread itself across many threads in this forum. 

[jaapv]

biglou, on 11 Nov 2015 - 12:25, said:

We will never ever have a smart adapter for R lenses, too complicated for a small market. What would be clever would be a special edition of the SL not limited in numbers and with a realistic price (Leica loves special editions, about the price i must be dreaming) dedicated for R lenses and actuating the diaphragm, this would be i think much simpler. Working with 3 cams and eventually rom lenses... Such a move would enhance Leica image and be finally the R solution.

Leica would never do that. For the simple reason that they cannot service R lenses fully any more, nor do they have the tooling to produce new ones or new spare parts.

One cannot sell a body and be unable to produce or give service on the lenses.

[dkCambridgeshire]

I don't think anyone's asking for what is not possible. That's a little disrespectful to some who have gone to lengths to explain their opinions.

 

And Dunk, it's not a case of never being satisfied. That really is a deep misunderstanding of the the bulk of the conversation that has spread itself across many threads in this forum. 

 

I could start quoting … but would be a waste of time … and it's inevitable that the 'not satisfied / never satisfied' posts will continue. 

 

dunk

[Peter H]

I could start quoting … but would be a waste of time … and it's inevitable that the 'not satisfied / never satisfied' posts will continue. 

 

dunk

 

OK, but not being satisfied is one thing, because there may be legitimate reasons for that, whereas when you (or anyone) says some people are  "never satisfied" it's  simply a blanket dismissal of all they have to say. I've not come across enough of that to even warrant a mention.

 

Anyway, this subject of smaller AF lenses: it's very reminiscent to me of the interminable conversations we had a few years ago when people were asking about whether a digital M was a possibility. They were told why it was impossible. When the M8 arrived  they asked about a Full Frame digital M and were told, in some cases with hugely detailed technical reasoning, why it was simply not possible and daft to ask for it.

 

It may not be a parallel with the current conversation. But we can't know that and there's little reason to accept the word of anyone who believes they do know that unless, as you say, they are the person working on the project right now, and even they may be proven wrong in the fullness of time. We can but hope!

[dkCambridgeshire]

OK, but not being satisfied is one thing, because there may be legitimate reasons for that, whereas when you (or anyone) says some people are  "never satisfied" it's  simply a blanket dismissal of all they have to say. I've not come across enough of that to even warrant a mention.

 

Anyway, this subject of smaller AF lenses: it's very reminiscent to me of the interminable conversations we had a few years ago when people were asking about whether a digital M was a possibility. They were told why it was impossible. When the M8 arrived  they asked about a Full Frame digital M and were told, in some cases with hugely detailed technical reasoning, why it was simply not possible and daft to ask for it.

 

It may not be a parallel with the current conversation. But we can't know that and there's little reason to accept the word of anyone who believes they do know that unless, as you say, they are the person working on the project right now, and even they may be proven wrong in the fullness of time. We can but hope!

 

 

Peter, I hope just as much as you and others do … In the fullness of time there will inevitably be advances to bring about our desires. But for the present, we should maybe be a little more satisfied with what was probably 'on the CAD screen' two years ago.  Lead times are a fact.

 

dunk

[LocalHero1953]

To be fair to the L 24-90 you should add the length and weight of the R to L adapter to the measurement of the R 28-90.

Yes. TBH my concern with the SL24-90 is its fatness and, to a lesser extent, weight, rather than its length.

[scott kirkpatrick]

 The good R 35-70/4 is significantly smaller, considerably cheaper and should shine on the SL610 hopefully. 

 

This I have already done.  Added one to the stockpile.  Now to see if my SL delivery date and my time in the US manage to connect.

 

scott

[ramarren]

Yes, all that, plus the need to build in something to drive the AF.

 

But I wasn't advocating an assault on the laws of physics. Im not a complete C'nute. I was pondering over whether it might have been possible to concentrate on prime lenses where, with genuine ingenuity of the type Leica have previously been capable of, and without compromising quality, something interesting could have been achieved, possibly alongside the larger zooms.

 

If there's really no scope at all for smaller top quality AF lenses than the ones currently planned, I'd be surprised. I expect the reality is that it is possible but the compromise matrix you described, which emphasises quality v size, overlooks the real constraints which are time and research and development costs.

 

I suspect there is. However, concentrating on the top zooms and ultra primes first is what others have done for pro-grade equipment (Olympus, to be specific, with the E-1 system) because if you are targeting professional photographers, that's what they're going to want first in most cases. Particularly if you've got options for lots of other, non-dedicated lenses within your portfolio that will also work well. 

 

All will come about in time. :-)

[ramarren]

This I have already done.  Added one {R 35-70/4} to the stockpile.  Now to see if my SL delivery date and my time in the US manage to connect.

 

I considered doing the same. But I realized that I'd rather put $5000 into a dedicated zoom lens that provided full functionality of the body than $1200 into an adapted zoom lens. Personal thing ... I have enjoyed working with adapted primes quite a lot, but adapted zooms always seem to just sit in the closet. 

 

It's just the way my head is wired. :-) After handling the 24-90 for ten minutes, I was no longer put off by its size or weight. And even if I end up fitting my Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4 most of the time anyway, I don't mind having it in my closet for when I want all that the body can do at my disposal. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Leicaiste]

I considered doing the same. But I realized that I'd rather put $5000 into a dedicated zoom lens that provided full functionality of the body than $1200 into an adapted zoom lens. Personal thing ... I have enjoyed working with adapted primes quite a lot, but adapted zooms always seem to just sit in the closet.

 

It's just the way my head is wired. :-) After handling the 24-90 for ten minutes, I was no longer put off by its size or weight. And even if I end up fitting my Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4 most of the time anyway, I don't mind having it in my closet for when I want all that the body can do at my disposal.

It make sense.

 

I am mainly interested in the SL because I have the R Vario's and R lenses (and M's).

 

If I had sold all the R's (and also the M lenses that I seldom use), I am not sure that I would have been interested in the SL.

 

When I had the opportunity to handle the SL, I almost immediately removed the 24-90 and tried (some of) my lenses, including the R 28-90.

 

The match was feeling so great for me with all of them that I immediately confirmed my order of the SL body.

 

But I certainly don't write of the possibility to buy SL lenses in the future.