Your choice for future native lenses for SL

[Steve Spencer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with that too. Even if I personally don't need to buy any of them, the SL needs a proper, complete lens system that allows all of the features promised by the system. There are a likely lot of people who are holding back on buying an SL right now simply because there aren't enough full-featured, AF lenses for it available just at the present. 

I agree too, but if they build a wide angle zoom, and a 35 and 80/85 Summilux to go with the 50 and the two zooms already announced they will have an excellent start. Those three primes and three zooms would satisfy almost all event shooters if they are good. I think people who want smaller lenses are going to have to go with M glass or wait, and even if they make Summicrons and Elmarits eventually I think they will be quite a bit bigger than M glass because of the AF motor and when you don't have to worry about the rangefinder being blocked I think they will increase in size in the basic optical design as well.

[steppenw0lf]

and even if they make Summicrons and Elmarits eventually I think they will be quite a bit bigger than M glass because of the AF motor and when you don't have to worry about the rangefinder being blocked I think they will increase in size in the basic optical design as well.

 

 

Have a look at the pancake lenses from other manufacturers, e.g. the Canon EF-S 40mm 2.8 STM. These lenses are tiny even though they are AF and good quality. AND they are often cheap/ not expensive. There are many more, and there will be many more because users like them.

Why should Leica not finally start learning ? The old R Elmarits were often built that way. (actually often Elmarit = Tessar)

The big advantage of the "mirrorless" is that it is easy to build pancake lenses, easier than for a DSLR with a mirror.. The pancake lens examples I mentioned are even from a DSLR, so even more difficult to construct.

[Steve Spencer]

Have a look at the pancake lenses from other manufacturers, e.g. the Canon EF-S 40mm 2.8 STM. These lenses are tiny even though they are AF and good quality. AND they are often cheap/ not expensive. There are many more, and there will be many more because users like them.

Why should Leica not finally start learning ? The old R Elmarits were often built that way. (actually often Elmarit = Tessar)

The big advantage of the "mirrorless" is that it is easy to build pancake lenses, easier than for a DSLR with a mirror.. The pancake lens examples I mentioned are even from a DSLR, so even more difficult to construct.

 

The pancake lenses you mention are all very close to normal perspective. These are the easiest to make as pancakes. Wide angle FF mirrorless has the challenge of ray angles to overcome and this often means making the lens longer with a longer exit pupil to enhance edge performance. So mirrorless doesn't have to make wide angles retrofocal to deal with a swinging mirror like SLRs, but mirrorless presents its own challenges. So, yes Leica could make some pancakes, but I don't think it is as easy as you suggest. I also think there will be a temptation and a pull to make them larger as this will increase the performance of the lenses. Without the counter pressure to keep lenses small that you have for M lenses to be able to see out of the viewfinder, I think SL lenses will inevitable be quite a bit bigger than M lenses. 

 

You can even see this with M vs. R lenses. Look at the M 75 Lux vs. the R 80 lux. These are essentially the same optical design, but the R lens is 150g heavier and quite a bit bigger in size. Now add an AF motor that can move all that heavy glass and you have a lens that is about 250g heavier and at least 25% more volume. I think you can expect much the same thing with SL lenses. I would expect that a 28 elmarit for example would weigh about 350g and would be about double the volume of the M 28 elmarit ASPH. Similarly a 35 cron would weight about 400g and be about 75% bigger than the M 35 cron ASPH. 

 

As I said above I don't think these lenses will be built right away, but in time I think they might be and people will like them. On the SL they will fit and seem pretty small, but they won't be little.

[thighslapper]

Just a wide zoom similar to the T ....... 16-24 or so, and an 85mm or so fast macro that could double as a portrait lens. 

 

Happy to use M & R lenses for anything else.

[Joshua Lowe]

135/2

300/4

1.4x converter

[steppenw0lf]

You can even see this with M vs. R lenses. Look at the M 75 Lux vs. the R 80 lux. 

 

 

You make the typical mistake - you extrapolate from the past into the future.

This is mainly guesswork and you know it as well. Just compare with other predictions, e.g. people who in the 50s have predicted the status of the world in the year 2000. Or people of today that predict the status in 2050.

Any example will show that linear extrapolation results in the weirdest predictions. (extremely far off the path history has taken and will take)

If anything, then the future will more deviate from the past than ever before.

 

Not necessary to say more. Just do a comparison with reality.               Stephan

 

Just remember the predictions and expectations a few weeks/days before the announcement of the SL. And the most difficult part was then already confirmed - that there will be a new camera. I cannot recall that anybody (of the pros, the cons or the indifferent) has even slightly pointed into the right direction, the one that the SL has currently taken.

A person humble enough would learn from the past (and not narrow his mind using extrapolation).

[Sandokan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not looking for native lenses that are a competitor to the Otus range but would prefer small AF lenses; image stabilization would be nice but not if it adds to the bulk of a small lens.  Some pancakes would be a lovely idea.

[turbonetics]

I hope for 500mm or 600mm F4 for birding use.

300 F2.8 seems to be a must too.

[Steve Spencer]

You make the typical mistake - you extrapolate from the past into the future.

This is mainly guesswork and you know it as well. Just compare with other predictions, e.g. people who in the 50s have predicted the status of the world in the year 2000. Or people of today that predict the status in 2050.

Any example will show that linear extrapolation results in the weirdest predictions. (extremely far off the path history has taken and will take)

If anything, then the future will more deviate from the past than ever before.

 

Not necessary to say more. Just do a comparison with reality.               Stephan

 

Just remember the predictions and expectations a few weeks/days before the announcement of the SL. And the most difficult part was then already confirmed - that there will be a new camera. I cannot recall that anybody (of the pros, the cons or the indifferent) has even slightly pointed into the right direction, the one that the SL has currently taken.

A person humble enough would learn from the past (and not narrow his mind using extrapolation).

 

I suppose we could completely ignore the past and throw up our hands and say it tells us nothing about the future. It is always true as you say that the past is not a perfect guide to the future or anything close, but neither is it a completely blind guide. At times the past can give us some glimpse of what the future may be like. Will it always predict in a linear way? Of course not. Is completely useless to consider the past when speculating on the future? Of course not. I for one am not saying that the past tells us exactly what the future will be, but I also think it is foolish to completely ignore the past when considering the future. You can call it a lack of humility or guesswork or whatever you like, but I will call considering the past, while recognizing its limitation of its ability to predict the future, wisdom. I think there is a long tradition of doing so.

[steppenw0lf]

I suppose we could completely ignore the past and throw up our hands and say it tells us nothing about the future. It is always true as you say that the past is not a perfect guide to the future or anything close, but neither is it a completely blind guide. At times the past can give us some glimpse of what the future may be like. Will it always predict in a linear way? Of course not. Is completely useless to consider the past when speculating on the future? Of course not. I for one am not saying that the past tells us exactly what the future will be, but I also think it is foolish to completely ignore the past when considering the future. You can call it a lack of humility or guesswork or whatever you like, but I will call considering the past, while recognizing its limitation of its ability to predict the future, wisdom. I think there is a long tradition of doing so.

 

 

I am not telling you to completely ignore the past, on the contrary - just read that I recommended learning from the past.

But you sound so self-assured because of what you know from the past, that I wanted to show you that this "certain future" is the exception, not the normal case. And that in our lives many things regarded as unchangeable can change in any direction all of a sudden and for no obvious reason. And that you can take almost any prediction of the past 50 years to prove this.

As a european or asian you would see this much clearer than as a north american, where the direction history takes seems to be straight since 200 years.

You have to realize that simple continuity is the exception, even in our modern world. (But maybe not in the place where you live). Even your "neighbours", the members of the "first nation", would probably agree.

 

If you would not so foolishly insist on differences, you would find that our opinions are now much closer than at first. Again, I did not call it a lack of humility, you did. (Ah, just forget my mentioning it. If you want to wear this shoe, do it, it's your choice, but let me out of this nonsense).

 

Let's stick to the facts: Change is the only constant. And your first comment did completely ignore this. (And I thought I could not let this unanswered).

[Steve Spencer]

I am not telling you to completely ignore the past, on the contrary - just read that I recommended learning from the past.

But you sound so self-assured because of what you know from the past, that I wanted to show you that this "certain future" is the exception, not the normal case. And that in our lives many things regarded as unchangeable can change in any direction all of a sudden and for no obvious reason. And that you can take almost any prediction of the past 50 years to prove this.

As a european or asian you would see this much clearer than as a north american, where the direction history takes seems to be straight since 200 years.

You have to realize that simple continuity is the exception, even in our modern world. (But maybe not in the place where you live). Even your "neighbours", the members of the "first nation", would probably agree.

 

If you would not so foolishly insist on differences, you would find that our opinions are now much closer than at first. Again, I did not call it a lack of humility, you did. (Ah, just forget my mentioning it. If you want to wear this shoe, do it, it's your choice, but let me out of this nonsense).

 

Let's stick to the facts: Change is the only constant. And your first comment did completely ignore this. (And I thought I could not let this unanswered).

 

I didn't mean to sound self-assured. That wasn't my intention, and I do think we are in agreement on many fronts, but not all. I hope that's ok with you. I think we are in agreement that we would like to see Leica develop some small lenses for the SL. I think we both have some skepticism about whether this will happen, but I probably have more skepticism. I also would not mind having some larger fast excellent performing lenses. For example, I would like to see an excellent 35 lux and 80 or 85 lux to go with the upcoming 50 lux. I'm not sure how you feel about that. I guess I would summarize my position as I would like a set of small primes and a set of larger fast primes for the SL, and I expect to get the latter but am more sceptical about getting the former.

 

Yes, I have made arguments about both what I would like to see and about what I expect Leica will actually do, but I don't see how that makes me someone who foolishly insists on differences, or that has no appreciation for the scope of history, but if you want to see me that way so be it.

 

I would prefer that we stick to discussing lenses and not make broad characterizations of one another or equate philosophical proclamations with fact, but if you want to do so and feel these issues cannot go unanswered then this is a broad discussion and you are free to discuss your beliefs as you wish. I just wish you would take a bit of time to get to know me better before you make decisions about whether I like difference and how my continent of origin affects my beliefs and arguments.

[steppenw0lf]

Some people hope for a UWA AF zoom from Leica. But with WA and UWA lenses I do not need AF. 

I think I have finally found my favourite zoom for this range - actually I have finally bought the corresponding adapter for the SL

 

Typically I use the WATE, which is VERY wide. But sometimes I wish for a zoom closer to normal focal lengths and with a slightly larger aperture.

And now I remembered my long-time favourite. Somehow I had had a block and never thought about using AF lenses on the SL  Finally I tested the Nikon AF-S 2.8/17-35 IF-ED and this is really the perfect zoom range, aperture and quality for many purposes. 

I always liked the lens, but never liked to use the AF function (I found it rather unnecessary in this range). Now on the SL it is "MF" and all the rest is still excellent. It is not as small as the WATE, but it is still quite nice to use.

[Leicaiste]

A pancake Summicron 40mm.