What's better on the T ... M lenses or T lenses?

[bencoyote]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

According to b&h website, the T lens is only 5mm longer (70 vs 65mm). The diameter does not matter too much to me as the camera is still bigger than the lens.

What matters more is the difference in lens performance, at least that is what I hope for. People have been complaining about software corrections on Leica lenses, so the approach is now different. 12 elements in 8 groups (Leica) vs 8 elements in 6 groups (Fuji) might make a difference as well.

 

 

I think that you have your dimensions reversed there. Here is a longer list where the full frame lenses are bolded:

 

Fuji XF 35mm f/1.4 2.56"x2.16" (which is 16mm shorter rather than 5)

Sony E 35mm f/1.8 2.55"x1.77"

Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 2.54"x2.78"

Summicon-T 23mm 2.5"x1.5"

Summilux-M 50mm 2.1"x2.1"

Summilux-T 35mm 2.5"x3" estimate

Summilux-M 35mm 2.2"x1.8"

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 3.1"x3.4"

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 II 3.17"x4.15"

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 2.9"x 2.0"

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 3.38"x 2.58"

Nikon DX 35mm f/1.8 2.76"x2.07"

Nikon FX 50mm f/1.4 G 2.9"x2.1"

 

I think from this broader list it is undeniable that Leica focused more on quality rather than size for this lens. Looking at the relative sizes, it it looks like it would slot in nicely as an appropriately sized 35mm f/1.4 SL lens rather than a TL lens.

 

I think that the real standout are the rangefinder lenses which are amazingly small by comparison to everything else.

 

I did a tiny bit of deeper research last night and found out a few things. Part of the reason that rangefinder lenses can be so small is that for wide angles they do not need to be retrofocal like SLR lenses. They also are smaller than SLR lenses because they can approach the film plane or sensor much more closely. This shouldn't matter for a mirrorless system.

 

Finally and this is fairly important, because of the limitations of the rangefinder they do not allow you focus very closely.  This greatly reduces the length of the lens. .7m to infinity is a lot easier to make small with than going down to .25m

 

Leica has made several generations of the M lenses over the years to address real and imagined problems and there are even several versions of the M lenses in common focal lengths to suit different people's needs. Hopefully Leica will do the same with the TL and SL lenses.

 

Maybe someone needs to pick up a copy of Applied Photographic Optics by Sidney Rey and carefully dissect Leica's current designs.

[gbealnz]

Thank you Ben, I was worried SirPiet had me. Certainly from a "looking at it" point of view the Fuji lens looks "about the right size", whereas the views I have has of the Summilux T 35mm looks huge.

Gary

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[SirPiet]

I have to admit though that i own a Fuji X-E1 with 35 f/1.4 - what disturbs me most about the Leica lens is the dimensions of the hood - the fuji hood is tiny and yet efficient. i guess the "giant" feeling results from the fact that the Summilux is longer than it is wide despite being a 35mm lens. I'm maybe not worried about size because i have been using Leica R zooms on the Fuji with great results and don't care too much about weight/size.

[BerndReini]

 

 

I now stand by my earlier statement, the new lenses are too big. The common complaint with regard to the Sony/Zeiss models for the A series is size/bulk, and these are the same. 

Way too big. Why?

The T lenses are bigger because they are optimized for a digital sensor AND because they T mount was designed to accommodate a full frame sensor, as used now in the SL, and is bigger tan the mount on the Fujis. The bigger throat size enabled Leica to design the lenses more tele centric, with shallower angle of incidence at the corner, which is the Achilles heel of M lenses on digital cameras. The M lenses were designed for film. 

 

Imagine the backlash if Leica had used a smaller mount and designed smaller lenses that in turn would be more expensive and inferior in performance with digital sensors than lenses from the competition. All the internet testers would have a field trip and small size would weigh in very lightly in such tests.

[gbealnz]

OK, the wider mount throat I can see and accept, but your first sentence I cannot. The XF35 Fuji (and I am using this purely as an example) is made for a digital sensor, and given the results virtually every user of this lens gets, I'd say it's optimized.

 

And while I stand corrected if necessary, tele-centric is a length issue, not a (throat) width/diameter issue surely?

Gary

[bencoyote]

I'll totally buy the telecentricity argument regarding why current digital lenses from Leica are big.  The high angle of incidence for the light rays coming out of M lenses onto the image sensor was purportedly originally considered to be an impossible to solve problem leading to the M8.  Having been burned once and wanting to maintain their reputation for high optical standards I can very easily see leica using more nearly telecentric designs for their digital cameras to avoid vignetting.

 

We know that mirrorless lens vendors do a lot of software correction of optical defects with their embedded lens profiles. It looks like Leica doesn't want to play that game except where necessary.  Considering the nature of engineering trade-offs and the inability to get absolutely everything you want simultaneously I would bet that they are trying to limit the software corrections to things where if they fix them optically they would have other side effects that would be harder to fix optically. 

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In my comparison to Fuji, I am emphasizing that the throat size of the T mount was chosen in anticipation of a full frame sensor. The Fuji was not.

[Peter H]

In my comparison to Fuji, I am emphasizing that the throat size of the T mount was chosen in anticipation of a full frame sensor. The Fuji was not.

 

 

Have Leica said anything about a full-frame T-sized camera, or do we think it was the SL they had in mind in this regard?

 

If the latter, I'd much rather have seen a smaller-sized T mount system and let the SL take care of itself. Sacrificing the optimum T system to support the SL (if this is the case) would be regrettable, in my view, and a great opportunity missed.

[BerndReini]

Of course they had the SL in mind when they came up with the T-mount. Sure they could have made the T-lenses a bit smaller, but from a compatibility and manufacturing standpoint this was absolutely the right decision.

[gbealnz]

Maybe right decision for them, but not to this consumer. Too big for me, I'd be better going to a dedicated APS sized system, with suitably sized lenses.

Maybe I'm the only one that thinks like this though, and in that respect it is/was the right decision.

Gary

[Peter H]

Of course they had the SL in mind when they came up with the T-mount. Sure they could have made the T-lenses a bit smaller, but from a compatibility and manufacturing standpoint this was absolutely the right decision.

It strikes me as a very clumsy sort of cross-system compatibility though, where the entire T system is compromised (by virtue of being larger than strictly necessary for its own functionality) so that its lenses will work on a considerably bigger and more expensive body with a smaller effective sensor when T lenses are attached.

 

I wish the T system were designed to optimise its own strengths. If this is unrealistic, so be it, but it is a shame.

[BerndReini]

 

 

It strikes me as a very clumsy sort of cross-system compatibility though, where the entire T system is compromised (by virtue of being larger than strictly necessary for its own functionality) so that its lenses will work on a considerably bigger and more expensive body with a smaller effective sensor when T lenses are attached. 

 

I wish the T system were designed to optimise its own strengths. If this is unrealistic, so be it, but it is a shame.

It isn't quite that straightforward. Yes, the throat size of the T-mount is large enough to make high quality lenses that cover a full-frame sensor, but this also allows the design of better lenses for an APS-C size sensor. Michael (MJH) knows a lot more about this topic than I do, but it has been discussed on the M forum and he covered it in LFI. The larger the mount, which in turn makes the lenses larger, the better the lenses can be optically corrected for digital sensors.

 

Leica found what they saw as a good compromise between size and quality. Smaller lenses already exist with the M line, and the fact that they cover full-frame means that you are not using the most problematic area at the edges of the image circle.

Edited January 8, 2016 by BerndReini

[Peter H]

.............................................

 

Leica found what they saw as a good compromise between size and quality. Smaller lenses already exist with the M line, and the fact that they cover full-frame means that you are not using the most problematic area at the edges of the image circle.

 

 

That makes good sense.

 

I thought from your previous post that the reason for the T-mount and consequently the size of the lenses was compatibility with the SL, which I thought would have been a poor reason. If as you now suggest it is a case of optimising the quality of the T series lenses, that is a different and better reason. Thank you.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Peter H

[Yuhau]

I see the T system is the prototype or forerunner  for the FF SL systems . From the aluminium block drilled out body mirrorless body to the T/ TL mount.

T can be dropped if and when the SL is selling well. Actually in Hong Kong , the T body is now discounted to  6900 HK ( $880 USD)  which is less than a Fuji X-T.

I use both T and M bodies and still enjoying the T with 11-23 . I am  anticipating my  T11-23 will  be used in the SL when the prices comes down to a more reasonable prices for FF digital body. In the meantime , when the SL is using the T / TL mount , I can hope that the T firmware will be upgraded continuously.    

[tom0511]

It strikes me as a very clumsy sort of cross-system compatibility though, where the entire T system is compromised (by virtue of being larger than strictly necessary for its own functionality) so that its lenses will work on a considerably bigger and more expensive body with a smaller effective sensor when T lenses are attached.

 

I wish the T system were designed to optimise its own strengths. If this is unrealistic, so be it, but it is a shame.

 

 

I dont see why using the same mount on a DX camera and a FF camera would be any disadvantage for the T system?

I am quite happy with the T and dont see the compromises you are talking about.

[BCMielke]

Both Nikon and Canon have been doing this for awhile. From my perspective it only makes sense. For that matter you could take the SL and the T out and share lenses if you were that type of shooter.

[robert blu]

I dont see why using the same mount on a DX camera and a FF camera would be any disadvantage for the T system?

I am quite happy with the T and dont see the compromises you are talking about.

 

 

The disadvantage for the T system is that the new lenses will be large and heavy. I believe for many the interest in the T is due to size and weight, smaller and lighter than a conventional DSLR. Even than an M.

Of course the possibility to use same lenses on bodies with different characteristics brings other advantages for the photographers interested in that.

We all have different needs and desires...

robert

[Petercoll]

Nobody mentions the fact , so I'm told, repeatedly changing lenses in this camera risks contaminating the sensor and thence  coming home to find dust particles in one's imaging ? Surely then, having an array of prime lenses sounds ideal and somewhat geekish, but the excellent Leica Zooms cover all bases, and are less likely to lead to the horrifying thought of the sensor becoming dirty, because using them leads to less lens swapping over !

[jdlaing]

Nobody mentions the fact , so I'm told, repeatedly changing lenses in this camera risks contaminating the sensor and thence  coming home to find dust particles in one's imaging ? Surely then, having an array of prime lenses sounds ideal and somewhat geekish, but the excellent Leica Zooms cover all bases, and are less likely to lead to the horrifying thought of the sensor becoming dirty, because using them leads to less lens swapping over !

 

Why on earth buy an interchangeable lens camera? Go for the X-Vario.

You get dust on a sensor you deal with it. No big deal.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[pop]

Why on earth buy an interchangeable lens camera? Go for the X-Vario.

You get dust on a sensor you deal with it. No big deal.

I got dust on the X-Vario. Removing dust from an M is faster than from an X-Vario as you have to send the X-Vario in.