jaapv Posted November 17, 2015 Share #41 Posted November 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Except - quite a few M lenses are a retrofocus or retrofocus-similar construction nowadays. That comparison will not fly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Size Matters. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Vip Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share #42 Posted November 17, 2015 Yes. So if a non retrofocus lens is of the similar size of a retrofocus lens on a DSLR… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 17, 2015 Share #43 Posted November 17, 2015 It is not needed for performance, but for mirror. You can bet it is needed for performance. Digital sensors don't like oblique light rays. No matter whether you have a mirror or you don't, you need a minimal space for the lens to perform well. That is why Sony lenses are so large, and the small ones are no good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 17, 2015 Share #44 Posted November 17, 2015 With the SL and 24-90 in hand for a few hours now: - The body is just fine. It feels like an even tighter, slightly smaller but denser Leicaflex SL/R8 body. I'm still getting used to the controls and learning how to configure it to my liking, but so far I'm liking it a great deal. - The 24-90 is a glorious lump, big and solid. It handles well with the body but is simply heavy. It's at my limits of what I'd ever consider walking around with for any length of time, and if I did it's the only lens I'd have with me. Luckily, from what I see in my first picture experiments and from others' posted pix, it can handle that chore nicely ... And the camera fitted with 24-90 slots into the Billingham L2 bag, all partitions removed, with the hood fitted for use as if the bag were designed for it and plenty of space for incidentals in the front pocket. For the ability to use AF and OIS, and all the various features/functions of the SL, it's a solid piece. This is fine, it's what I expected the 24-90 would be like and why I decided to buy it, but, also as expected, I'll likely use it relatively infrequently due to the lens' size and weight. In daily use I'd much rather walk around with the SL fitted with appropriate adapters and carrying the Elmarit-R 24, Summilux-R 50, and Summicron-R 90; I'll swap in other lens choices as need/desire moves me. Although the package actually weighs more and takes up a little more space in a bag (it fits in the Black Label Bag "Oskar's One Day Bag Mark II" beautifully as a three lens kit), it's lighter to handle in use and less obtrusive—just like the Leicaflex SL or R8 with the same lenses. The situation reminds me of my Canon 10D and the contrast between using the camera with the 24-70/2.8L vs using it with 28/1.8, 50/1.4, and 100/2 lenses. The camera with the zoom and hood fitted was superb at events and fast-paced situations where I needed quick access to different focal lengths without thinking, but when out and about shooting other kinds of subject matter for my personal work, it was too much, too heavy, too unwieldy with the zoom and better to carry the three primes. So ... I have nothing nasty to say about the 24-90, and the upcoming "ultimate quality" Summilux-SL 50/1.4 will likely be terrific as well. But Leica, please consider the haptics of different kinds of shooting needs and deliver a middling sized range of prime lenses—24/35/50/75/90, with AF (and OIS) where appropriate—to fulfill the promise of the SL as a pro shooter's baseline choice. And yes, please, do whatever it takes to make the dedicated R Adapter SL such that fitting it to the SL body turns the camera into a "digital R8 with extras" as closely as possible for your old friends and customers who own all these fine lenses in R mount already and just want to have all the exposure and information options at their disposal. Don't worry: we'll pay for the adapter. Pretty please...? :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 17, 2015 Share #45 Posted November 17, 2015 Yes. So if a non retrofocus lens is of the similar size of a retrofocus lens on a DSLR…There will be a marked difference in quality - and/or a considerable price difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 17, 2015 Share #46 Posted November 17, 2015 You can bet it is needed for performance. Digital sensors don't like oblique light rays. No matter whether you have a mirror or you don't, you need a minimal space for the lens to perform well. That is why Sony lenses are so large, and the small ones are no good.And a retrofocus lens gives a designer more correction options. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 17, 2015 Share #47 Posted November 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is not needed for performance, but for mirror. Quite wrong. First the adapter does count, since it makes up the extra distance needed to the sensor, if the lens is ever going to focus properly. Second, the latest Zeiss and Leica (and Sigma and ...) lenses have more elements simply because correcting all aberrations, keeping a flat field and staying sharp across the image field requires more degrees of freedom to design with. Modern glass types and computer design programs provide that sort of control. Floating elements give better close performance, cancelling out the focus shift problems that earlier f/1.4 wide angles are famous for. You can't put all that glass inside the camera, even if it is mirrorless, so the result is very high quality lenses stick out a long way. scott (As Jaap also points out, while I was typing.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgktkr Posted November 17, 2015 Share #48 Posted November 17, 2015 +1 ... And yes, please, do whatever it takes to make the dedicated R Adapter SL such that fitting it to the SL body turns the camera into a "digital R8 with extras" as closely as possible for your old friends and customers who own all these fine lenses in R mount already and just want to have all the exposure and information options at their disposal. Don't worry: we'll pay for the adapter. Pretty please...? :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vip Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share #49 Posted November 17, 2015 If a lens needs an adapter to focus this means that the adapter compensate for a different optical scheme ( the space for mirror) not for improving performances. The focus distance from lenses and sensor is an " a priori" condition linked to the original brand. Has nothing to do with performances. For example a Spny or Nikon do not have from the bayonet fitting a difference distance. This would need different camera for different lens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vip Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share #50 Posted November 17, 2015 Too frequently is confused draught and optical design. The first is a choice that a camera company does when a new mount ( as for example the Nikon f ) born this determine for ever the distance from mount and sensors. The optical design is the effort to produce a lens free from optical aberration as possible from the limit imposed by company. Adapter compensate only the difference between different mount. Without any aim to improve performance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.