3rd party lens performance on SL

[tritentrue]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps a point of frustration for those of us who appreciate Leica's quality and also shoot with longer lenses is that we believe Leica could update their long telephoto options if they were so inclined.  But with their twenty- and thirty-year-old lenses having been surpassed in imaging capability (and other features) by offerings of other manufacturers in recent years, I have to accept second choice when first choice doesn't offer what I need.

 

If that means attaching a plastic D5600 instead of an SL or CL in order to gain more utility from my 300PF lens (and 500PF hopefully soon), so be it. 

 

For me, from ultrawide to moderate telephoto, it will always be Leica glass on a Leica body.  And if Leica decides to update their long telephotos, I'll give 'em a serious look.  If not, so be it.

[Les]

I don't think that Leica will ever produce the long focus lenses that Canon and Nikon produce.  However, if Leica were to produce a 1.4X and/or a 2.0X matched extender for the 90-280mm lens I would purchase without hesitation.  This would provide 392mm and 560mm at the longest focal length and I expect that 280/392/560mm would serve most of the photographic telephoto needs of many/most of those in this discussion, especially if there is to be an SL2 in Leica's future.  This would be a smaller, lighter and less expensive alternative than a couple of long prime lenses for travel and be all Leica glass.  These extenders could also be used with almost all of the prime lenses as well.  We would then have from 16mm - 560mm in all new Leica SL compatible glass.  I know I could live with such a system.  

[Advertisement]

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

[Herr Barnack]

Is early days I realise, but I wonder if we could please have a thread devoted to third party lens performance on the SL please.

 

In my case I would be interested in experiences with Zeiss F mount lenses (ZF/.2), particularly the 1.4/55 Otus, 1.4/85 Otus, and 2/135 Apo-Sonnar. But I also have a couple of C/Y lenses.

 

I'm sure there are others here interested, as well as those with Canon and Nikkor glass.

 

If I end up with and SL I will report first hand, but I haven't decided to pull the trigger yet (I had wished for higher resolution and IBIS), but there is a lot in this camera that appeals, including it looking like a good tool for some R glass I have. 

 

So, anyone with an SL and experience with third party lenses, please share your experiences. Thanks in advance.

 

With regard to "third party lenses,"  will someone please clarify this?

 

If Leica produces the "first party lenses" (as I'm guessing they would be called) and Zeiss, Canon and Nikon produces the "third party lenses,"  who is it that produces "second party lenses?"

 

Or should Zeiss, Canon and Nikon actually be referred to as "second party lenses?"

 

I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here; I seriously have never understood why lenses made by a company other than the maker of the camera body are always referred to as "third party lenses" and not "second party lenses."

 

If anyone understands this, by all means enlighten the rest of us.

[mmradman]

With regard to "third party lenses,"  will someone please clarify this?

 

If Leica produces the "first party lenses" (as I'm guessing they would be called) and Zeiss, Canon and Nikon produces the "third party lenses,"  who is it that produces "second party lenses?"

 

Or should Zeiss, Canon and Nikon actually be referred to as "second party lenses?"

 

I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here; I seriously have never understood why lenses made by a company other than the maker of the camera body are always referred to as "third party lenses" and not "second party lenses."

 

If anyone understands this, by all means enlighten the rest of us.

Good old google/wiki to the rescue.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_source

[dkCambridgeshire]

Some Leica enthusiasts would never contemplate using third party lenses on their Leica bodies and will likely always 'poo poo' the practice and those who are prepared to do so. Some Leica purists have a very biased and 'anti' attitude towards anything not made in Wetzlar or Solms and deem 'foreign' Leica optics, and adapted third party lenses, as being:  'Not quite up to the job … old chap … for God's sake get yerself a 'proper' Leica lens!! '   However, I do not see the purists producing 'superior images' with their allegedly 'pure German' optics. It's a fact that Leica Camera AG has outsourced Leica lenses both in whole and in part for many years and continues to do so with, e.g.,  all the TL/CL optics … all of which are manufactured (Heaven forbid!) in the Far East. This Leica snobbishness and discrimination will likely never cease … it's in some Leica enthusiast's genes from the day they are born.  However, witness Dr Kaufmann's trip to Russia and his willingness to visit the KMZ (Zenit) camera/lens factory … the purists could be in for quite a shock if they unknowingly end up using Zenit manufactured Leica lenses on their Leica bodies … in addition to those already produced in whole or in part in the Far East!  I for one would welcome additional SL lenses manufactured in Russia … partly because I'm very aware of how good and revered some Russian astro telescope optics are in comparison to those made in China. Without a few long focus prime lenses and matched extenders, the SL system is an incomplete system … but there is every possibility that Leica Camera AG will expand the SL 'long lens stable'  … and its third party manufacturing base … much to the chagrin of the 'tunnel visioned' Wetzlar purists.

 

So … as regards SL long focus primes … 'Never say "Never" ' . 

 

dunk 

[wizard]

...

If anyone understands this, by all means enlighten the rest of us.

 

The term "third party" I believe is a judicial term. Consider a contract, where there is usually a buyer and a seller, or a lawsuit, where there is a claimant and a defendant. So there are almost always two parties involved, which is why everyone else is considered to be a third party (which for example may well be the public in general).

 

Cheers, Andy

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some Leica enthusiasts would never contemplate using third party lenses on their Leica bodies and will likely always 'poo poo' the practice and those who are prepared to do so. 

I see that for the M, but not for the SL. The SL encourages the use of third-party lenses, and of Leica lenses with other mounts.

 

Besides, Leica has a long history of selling third party lenses that meet its quality criteria. No doubt there are some small number of M snobs who don't think that a 21mm Super Angulon is a "real" Leica lens.

Those people are collectors who have very little bearing on the SL system. They have no interest in any Leica SLR (Leicaflex, R, S, SL).

[Herr Barnack]

Good old google/wiki to the rescue.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_source

 

Ah, yes - attorneyspeak.

[mmradman]

SL601 & Pentax-F Full Frame Fisheye Zoom, 17-28mm, shot at 17mm and f8, cropped 1:1.

 

Flow Pot - Fisheye by Mladen Radman, on Flickr

 

 

[antigallican]

So is there an 85 or 90 mm 3rd party reliable autofocus lens? I have a 24/90 which I love, but I can't justify the price of the Leica SL 90 for the rare occasions I must have shallow DOF at 90.

Edited August 20, 2018 by antigallican

[dkCambridgeshire]

So is there an 85 or 90 mm 3rd party reliable autofocus lens? I have a 24/90 which I love, but I can't justify the price of the Leica SL 90 for the rare occasions I must have shallow DOF at 90.

 

 

Samyang offer 85/1.4 in Canon EF manual focus c.£299 and same in AF c.£599 but unsure if the latter would AF with the Novoflex EF to SL smart adapter … However, I use a manual focus Canon FD 85/1.2 L lens via a C7 adapter https://c7adapters.com/en/products/category/leica_l-mount/29?page=2 on my SL and the image is easy to manually focus.  

 

dunk 

Edited August 20, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[ajayk]

I see that for the M, but not for the SL. The SL encourages the use of third-party lenses, and of Leica lenses with other mounts.

 

Besides, Leica has a long history of selling third party lenses that meet its quality criteria. No doubt there are some small number of M snobs who don't think that a 21mm Super Angulon is a "real" Leica lens.

Those people are collectors who have very little bearing on the SL system. They have no interest in any Leica SLR (Leicaflex, R, S, SL).

If one has to use third party lenses for a SL then why spend $7500 on SL? Sony and others have better bodies which can take beautiful Sony lenses as well as Canon, Leica and other lenses.

[HeinzX]

It is very simple - some of us have a SL and Leica lenses - includnig me - the 24/90 and the 90/280. But there are some special lenses Leica does not have in their program  and will most probably never have. There is no good reason, why not to use these lenses to enlarge the possiblities of the SL. And regarding the SL body itself, I do no to agree to the point, that other bodies are better, i.e. Sony and so on. Simply the finder of the SL is much better than that of the Sonys. But even that is not the point. All cameras are nothing else than a tool and every one can chose the tool he likes best. The red point itself is of no importance for me nor the name Leica on the camera. But I nevertheless I like the SL and the CL - because of the handling and the results I can achieve with them.

[BernardC]

If one has to use third party lenses for a SL then why spend $7500 on SL?

The SL lists at $5,995, so there is no reason to spend $7,500.

 

Getting back to your original question, the SL's ergonomics and viewfinder are the reason why. It's also the only non-M camera that can use M lenses without compromise.

It's also important to note that the "look" of Leica's lenses has changed in the past decades. Modern Leica lenses (all of the SL and S lenses, and most of the M) don't display many of the artifacts that made vintage lenses endearing for certain types of shots. Don't get me wrong, I love the new stuff, especially in difficult backlighting, but sometimes you need to dig into the lens archives to get a specific look.

[Mr.Q]

Yeah, I sold most of my M glass but the SL is still my body of choice. The ergonomics and EVF can't be matched by Sony and others.

[chuanweeyeo]

Sigma Art 20mm autofocus works. Very Fast

Sigma Art 20-35mm autofocus works.Fast

Sigma Art 24-105mm autofocus works. Normal

Sigma Art 24 autofocus works. Very Fast

[helged]

Sigma Art 20mm autofocus works. Very Fast

Sigma Art 20-35mm autofocus works.Fast

Sigma Art 24-105mm autofocus works. Normal

Sigma Art 24 autofocus works. Very Fast

 

 

In Canon or Nikon mount?

[chuanweeyeo]

In Canon or Nikon mount?

Canon.

[ericborgstrom]

Low water due to drought. Zeiss Distagon 15/2,8 ZF2, Novoflex LET/NIK adaptor. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 3, 2018 by ericborgstrom

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Ivar B]

Low water due to drought. Zeiss Distagon 15/2,8 ZF2, Novoflex LET/NIK adaptor. 

 

Lens seems to perform impeccably on the SL with little if any vignetting.