S Lenses on the SL

[wjdrijfhout]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When putting an S lens on an SL (through the yet to be released adapter), how does that 'affect' (equivalent) focal length and maximum aperture?

When putting an 'APS-C lens' (e.g. T lens) on a full frame camera, one adds a crop factor of 1.5 and aperture remains unchanged. I would have expected with an S lens on the SL the reverse to happen (crop factor about 0.7 and aperture unchanged)? However, I saw a video of a Leica technical expert who claimed that if you put a 100mm 2.0 S lens on the SL, in effect you have a 100m/1.2 lens. That sounds a bit strange.

Anyone having any thoughts on this?

[Advertisement]

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

[Jared]

A 100mm f/2.0 S lens on the SL is... A 100mm f/2. No crop factor since it is already a 35mm chip. No equivalence to worry about (unless you are talking about equivalence to an S standard). Most photographer's "think" in terms of 35mm format, and that's what the SL already is. The fact that the S lens is creating a larger imaging circle than the SL can use won't matter.

 

- Jared

[Jared]

Oh, you get a crop factor with a T lens because the camera literally turns off over half the pixels since they won't be properly illuminated by the T lens, but you can't do the same with an S lens. There are no additional pixels you can turn on over those from the native lens, so no reverse crop factor. You can crop a chip, but you can't enlarge it.

[lik]

Just in addition - On the S the 100/f2 is like a 80mm with an aperture 1.6 depth of field. 

But on the SL - like Jared already said. 

I have it and I'm impatiently waiting for this adapter because I really hope this can become my standard portrait lens on the SL then. 

Regards lik

[wjdrijfhout]

Thank you both. Is clear and when you explain it like that, it fully makes sense. 

As you say, lik, in the absence of medium tele -primes in the foreseeable future, a 100 or 120mm S lens seems like a very interesting alternative.

 

Regards, WJ

[ramarren]

Thank you both. Is clear and when you explain it like that, it fully makes sense. 

As you say, lik, in the absence of medium tele -primes in the foreseeable future, a 100 or 120mm S lens seems like a very interesting alternative.

 

It is an interesting thing, but you are talking a US$7,000 lens (new, B&H Photo pricing; ebay pricingon used $5500-6500) plus the cost of an adapter. That's a bit rich for me, considering that an outstanding APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 100mm f/2.8 lens plus the adapter stack will run you less than half that price. Of course, you don't get AF with the R system lens, but I can do a lot of focusing for $4000... ! 

 

To me, the ability to fit an adapter and use S system lenses is a boon if and only if you are an S system user and have a complement of S lenses available already. I wouldn't buy S lenses to use on an SL exclusively unless..  

• I could buy them second hand at very competitive prices, much more competitive than I see in the present Leica S marketplace, or
• I was planning to also buy a Leica S body as well. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

It is an interesting thing, but you are talking a US$7,000 lens (new, B&H Photo pricing; ebay pricingon used $5500-6500) plus the cost of an adapter. That's a bit rich for me, considering that an outstanding APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 100mm f/2.8 lens plus the adapter stack will run you less than half that price. Of course, you don't get AF with the R system lens, but I can do a lot of focusing for $4000... ! 

 

To me, the ability to fit an adapter and use S system lenses is a boon if and only if you are an S system user and have a complement of S lenses available already. I wouldn't buy S lenses to use on an SL exclusively unless..  

• I could buy them second hand at very competitive prices, much more competitive than I see in the present Leica S marketplace, or
• I was planning to also buy a Leica S body as well. 

 

 

 

I would also consider that it is likely that all future LS lenses (is that the right name for the mount/lens?) will probably be in that price ball park anyway. Maybe they'll be a grand cheaper but at leica prices that's hardly a consideration. SL lenses would probably be smaller or faster but if you're building a native system using S lenses would make it easier to enter the S body market in the future rather than rebuy all the lenses you have in SL. That is if you can wait a decade for it to actually be a system. And if you need/want AF then S lenses are it for several years at least as far as primes go.

 

Gordon

[ramarren]

I would also consider that it is likely that all future LS lenses (is that the right name for the mount/lens?) will probably be in that price ball park anyway. Maybe they'll be a grand cheaper but at leica prices that's hardly a consideration. SL lenses would probably be smaller or faster but if you're building a native system using S lenses would make it easier to enter the S body market in the future rather than rebuy all the lenses you have in SL. That is if you can wait a decade for it to actually be a system. And if you need/want AF then S lenses are it for several years at least as far as primes go.

 

Well, it's too rich for my blood. The SL and its 24-90 lens was the single most expensive piece of photographic equipment I've ever purchased, and I will likely be using my R lenses for the remainder of Time. 

[lik]

....the ability to fit an adapter and use S system lenses [...] only if you are an S system user and have a complement of S lenses available already....

Oh yes - of course! Anything else would be foolish [emoji28]

I think it is interesting how close the SL's user interface is to the S. That seems to be the idea - to attract also medium format photographers to have a compatible 35mm system as well.

I guess all MF users have 35mm cameras too but no one has a system integration and compatibility like that....