Size Matters

[Vip]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

… and was not a bad lens

[lanetomlane]

Look at the size of the old zoom for Leica R for a similar focal length excursion. Was not an M size but neither an S size

 

But remember the R lens wasn't autofocus. The autofocus motor in the lens has to be taken into consideration when talking about size.

 

Regards, Tom

[Vip]

Yes I agree. But look At Zeiss size

Regards

[edwardkaraa]

Yes I agree. But look At Zeiss size

Regards

Which Zeiss?

[tom0511]

If I look at the Sony 55/1.8 I also wonder why the 50/1.4 has to be that huge.

One reason might be that IS is in the lens and not in the camera body.

[edwardkaraa]

If I look at the Sony 55/1.8 I also wonder why the 50/1.4 has to be that huge.

One reason might be that IS is in the lens and not in the camera body.

If you look at the sigma art 50/1.4 or Zeiss Otus, the SL 50/1.4 doesn't look that huge anymore. The Sony 55/1.8 is actually larger than 50/1.8 equivalents.

[Vip]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the future the competition to gain market will be: optimal optical quality with compact size remember the Olympus OM 1 success) than the dawn of compact camera then smart phone. If DSLR are loosing is not because of performance. Compare now an actual flagships camera DSLR size to an old Hasselblad. The size is matching more and more. Leica S gain market for its quality for sure and the capability to use other manufacturers lens by adapter but also because it's size was closer to 35 mm flagships camera with an wider sensors. And this was highly underlined by Kaufman at the presentation. So they understand that size matter

[Leicaiste]

If I look at the Sony 55/1.8 I also wonder why the 50/1.4 has to be that huge.

One reason might be that IS is in the lens and not in the camera body.

 

According to LFI, there will be no IS in the SL 50/1,4. 

[mmradman]

Yes I agree. But look At Zeiss size

Regards

You probably think ok of Sony ZE 24-70mm f4 lens, yes is smaller and lighter than 24-90mm f2.8 -f4 but it is also have shorter zoom range and slower F stop so you are not comparing apples with apples.

 

Pysics can't be cheated, if you bother to compar Zeiss/Sony Evsystem primes agains SLR equivalent focal lengths/F stops you will find them similar in size.

 

Compared to modern SLR AF lenses Leica R lens equivalent FL are tiny.  As much as I dislike SL price I think my R and M collection deserves SL or improved M camera which would be better R solution than current M240, only time will tell.  

 

I think lot of people were seduced by marketing and blogger hype about universal application of A7 cameras, in my modest opinion Sony cameras shall be paired with Sony lenses.  Trying to justify Sony over other system by comparisons lacking substance is false premise.

[Vip]

I am not at all fascinated by Sony camera, nor lenses. But still I think the future will be driven by size. The compact camera market has disappeared because of size. Regardless the quality inferior. When Olympus OM 1 came on the market was an immediate success and all other try immediately to reduce size of their cameras. Now DSLR sunset and mirrorless dawn. Size matters. Not all are so careful look at quality first.

[jonoslack]

You probably think ok of Sony ZE 24-70mm f4 lens, yes is smaller and lighter than 24-90mm f2.8 -f4 but it is also have shorter zoom range and slower F stop so you are not comparing apples with apples.

 

Not only that, but in comparison it's absolute rubbish - it has soft corners, it varies in quality at different focal lengths and apertures, I owned and used one, it's a completely different beast.

 

. . . and if you're talking of high quality Zeiss lenses for full frame, better think about the Otus 50 f1.4 - it weighs over a kilo, not much less than the Leica 24-90.

 

I suspect that the 50 f1.4 when it comes, is intended to be better than the Otus.

 

The whole point of the SL is to provide a 'professional' quality kit, to compete with the Nikon D4s and the Canon 1Dx - and the 24-90 is geared to be a competitor for the Nikon 24-70, not the Sony ZE 24-70. 

 

Of course I understand (and thoroughly appreciate) the desire and market for small, quality mirrorless kit - the Olympus E-M1 with the professional lenses springs immediately to mind - of course, those f2.8 lenses aren't that small either. . .  . Leica already have that market covered with the Leica T and it's quality small lenses.

 

High Quality, Fast, Full Frame, Compact, Autofocus, Zoom lenses just don't exist - nobody makes them, and the only way of doing it would be to go back to the old screwdriver lenses. 

 

Sad, but true!

[jonoslack]

I am not at all fascinated by Sony camera, nor lenses. But still I think the future will be driven by size. The compact camera market has disappeared because of size. Regardless the quality inferior. When Olympus OM 1 came on the market was an immediate success and all other try immediately to reduce size of their cameras. Now DSLR sunset and mirrorless dawn. Size matters. Not all are so careful look at quality first.

 

I quite agree that size does matter . . . . it's a very large part of the market, covered admirably by Olympus with the OMD E-M1 and E-M5ii . . . but it's not the Whole market. Leica surely aren't going for the mass market - they're trying to be the first in a smaller market for a truly professional standard FF mirrorless camera. 

 

It's one thing to make an admirably small full frame mirrorless body (Sony A7 cameras) but quite another thing to make small full frame zoom AF lenses . . . 

[Vip]

Dear John

I fully agree with you I know that Leica quality is the best. Even my sons after years of seeing images detect the Leica taste. Quality should remain priority number one.

But I remeber many years ago when Leica present lenses like Apo 180 f3,4 or 90 f 2 Apo the 16/21 for M and many others before this seems an impossible task to get. Than they did.

I am sure if they want can get not an M size but lenses of the same quality smaller. They are the best

[IkarusJohn]

Perhaps another way of looking at this is that if size matters, the SL is not for you?

 

Leica quite clearly designed this camera and the lenses with quality in mind, and not size. The camera itself doesn't sound like it's that big, and the lenses are comparable to other AF image stabilised zooms of this quality. I hope the 24-90 zoom is better than the Sony zoom for the A7 - I found that rather disappointing, despite contrary reviews from Tim Ashley and others. 

 

As Jono points out, the Otus lenses were designed to be the best they could be in their focal lengths. Leica is aiming similarly high, but with AF. 

[mjh]

I am sure if they want can get not an M size but lenses of the same quality smaller.

Leica have made it quite clear that their AF lenses would never be nearly as small as M lenses – and that was long before the SL system was introduced. Also there is no reason lenses for mirrorless systems should be smaller than those for SLR systems – telephoto lenses are actually longer while some wide-angle lenses can be smaller; on average it cancels out.

[mmradman]

Leica have made it quite clear that their AF lenses would never be nearly as small as M lenses – and that was long before the SL system was introduced. Also there is no reason lenses for mirrorless systems should be smaller than those for SLR systems – telephoto lenses are actually longer while some wide-angle lenses can be smaller; on average it cancels out.

Just by looking on offerings form Canon and Nikon it is crystal clear what size to expect in modern AF lens, they both share similar focusing and stabilisation technologies, I wouldn't believe for a second that they make them equally big following some secret agreement in order to corner the market.  Leica has rightfully earned reputation for excellence in optical design but no claim to magic abilities.

 

What is possible and how M and R lenses compare in size can be gleaned by comparing equivalent or near equivalent lenses like Summillux 75/80 pair or Summicron 90 APO. By adding R-M adapter to R lens combination is equally long as M counterpart.

[viramati]

I tried out the camera and 24-90 twice in the Leica store and while I could quite easily live with the size and weight of the body when combined with the lens it really is just to much for me. Maybe when they come out with some good primes and if I can afford it I will consider the SL but for now even though it is no Leica I will be sticking with the Sony A7 system with it's fast growing series of fine Zeiss lenses.

[IkarusJohn]

I tried out the camera and 24-90 twice in the Leica store and while I could quite easily live with the size and weight of the body when combined with the lens it really is just to much for me. Maybe when they come out with some good primes and if I can afford it I will consider the SL but for now even though it is no Leica I will be sticking with the Sony A7 system with it's fast growing series of fine Zeiss lenses.

 

Which lenses do you use on the A7?

 

The reason I ask is I just read through Ming Thein's recommendations for lenses to use with the A7RII - not surprisingly, he doesn't think much of the 24-70 FE mount zoom I also didn't really like.  For the quality of lenses Leica will offer, you're still getting into or close to the 1kg Otis lenses, aren't you?

 

My plan is to get the 24-90 zoom as my only zoom, and to then be selective about primes.  As I have M mount primes in the range 15 - 90, and an R 180mm and 2x extender (giving me 360mm f/5.6).  Apart from the temptation of the 50 Summilux-SL (if it's as good as Leica says), I'm not sure I need to add anything.

 

An AF version of the f/4 280mm brought up to date for the SL would probably be interesting.  The problem with that particular candy store is that the lenses get huge very quickly - have a look at the highly rated (and now I suspect highly collectable) Summicron-R 180/2, and try to imagine holding it!

[viramati]

I have the 24-70 which as Jono says is not the greatest lens in the Sony line though it does perform well on the A7s (only 12mp sensor) when used for documentary work, that said it gets little use. My main lenses on the A7rII and A7II are the FE55, FE16-35, FE 90 macro, CV 15 mkIII  and apo-telyt 135. The FE16-35 is good for a zoom especially in the 16 to 28 range though it is a little large and I really miss a focussing scale and will most likely be replacing it with the new Loxia 21/2.8 which I have on order. My copy of the FE90 macro is superb and though large I really like it. The FE55 is again well known to be one of the best standard FF lenses. I have the Leica Q which I personally feel to be Leica's best digital camera so far, it just fits their ethos and the IQ is out of this world. My main walk around kit is the Leica Q, A7rII with FE55 mounted and the CV 15 mkIII and it all fits in Billingham Hadley small and basically use the same kit when doing documentary work but will sometimes add the A7s with the FE24-70

Maybe when Leica come out with a dedicated 50, 90 and 21mm lenses then I might consider the system but that could be years away!!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Vip]

It is well known how a retrofocus optical system needed to host the moving mirror needs much more space not only in the camera but also in the lens.

Look at the Zeiss Hologon for Leica M and compare to the same brand, Zeiss 15 mm for Leica R. Not only size but the difference of the needed lens numer in the two 15 mm. Or the 90 macro for M or R. Even if the R one had a f of 2.8. In Leica Compendium of Erwin it is well explained.

Any way compare two lens size adding in the comparison the adapter is not fair.

Because the adapter is needed to re- establish the needed distance from the sensor that the retrofocus optical scheme had to host the moving mirror. It is not needed for performance, but for mirror.