Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 on SL or get the 24-90?

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here are two corner crops with the MATE at 28mm/f4 and the 24-90 at 28mm/f2.9.

 

Q.E.D. 

 

Wilson

 

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 April 25, 2016 by wlaidlaw

[Advertisement]

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

[jonoslack]

Wider M lenses don't perform well on SL. The tri-elmar don't even perform that well on digital M bodies. Unlike film , sensors just do not forgive, but the 50 mm setting on the tri-elmar should give acceptable results on the SL, in theory. If you like the SL and want to go wider than 50mm ,using SL lenses will be the only solution to make Leica quality images. 

 

HI There Patrick

I've read all your remarks on the thread, but I thought it was easier to just pick the first one.

I spent a lot of time discussing this issue with Sean Reid whilst we were both field testing the SL over three 6 week periods last year. I also spent a great deal of time testing M lenses with the SL . . . We pretty much agree.

I tested - WATE, 28 summilux, 28 summicron (old and new versions), 28 elmarit (old and new versions) 35 summicron (old and new versions) 35 summilux, 50 APO, Noctilux and Summilux, 75 Summilux and summicron, 90 macro elmar and elmarit M, 135 APO Telyt.

The lenses were tested on the M240, the Leica SL and the Sony A7mark ii. 

 

You should do this sort of testing (largely) at infinity, which is where the rear element is nearest to the sensor, and thus the light falling on the corners is at it's most oblique. 

There are two principal aspects to the problem:

1. The thickness of the coverglass on the sensor - the M is pretty thin - the A7 pretty thick and the SL is somewhere in between

2. The curvature of field of the lens 

 

The 28 summicron you were using is actually quite soft at the corners on the M240, but this is due to curvature of field rather than the camera (although film is more forgiving). That's why Leica produced a new summicron with less curvature of field (same goes for the 28 elmarit). For the type of sample you've provided lots of M lenses will have soft corners on both the SL and the M240 (again, curvature of field). 

 

Some M lenses actually do better on the SL than they do on the M, for example the new 28 summilux (and I imagine also the 24 and 21 summiluxes, which are a similar design - but I didn't test these).

 

The older 28 summicron is slightly less good on the SL at the corners at f2 - but quickly evens up as you stop down. For lenses of 35mm and longer there is really no distinction between the two, and absolutely no disadvantage on the SL (this is not the case with the Sony A7 ii, which performs badly at infinity with some 50mm M lenses, most 35s and all the 28s).

 

These results come after literally hundreds of hours of testing - boring as hell, and Sean does it much better than I do!

 

Anyway - my point is that I absolutely disagree with your remark, but I would strongly suggest that if you're fond of sharp corners wide open you should replace your old 28 summicron with one of the new ones.

Edited April 25, 2016 by jonoslack

[jonoslack]

I just had a very good offer on a one month old SL and could not resist. Like the saying goes, I can resist everyting but temptation.

 

I have owned M bodies for many years and now I have an M (240) which I will sell.

 

snip . . 

 

HI Ivar

congratulations on your SL . . . . . but should you really be selling your M240? I love my SL, but somehow it's not the same for shooting people in relaxed situations . . . grandchildren on the move, certainly, but grandparents having dinner - no!

I haven't tried the MATE on the SL, so I can't comment, but the 24-90 is a cracking lens, and you soon get used to the weight . . I shot a 3 year old's birthday party with it the other day, mostly held in one hand at 3 year old height with face recognition and framing on the LCD - it worked really well!

 

But I've no intention of getting rid of my M cameras . . quite a different thing. 

[ramarren]

 

Gee Ramarren, I can’t believe you made made me look up diatribe. Cic maith sa toin ata de dlith air. Why would you assume I did not try the camera? I did and I like it. Sucks with a 28mm summicron, great with the 24-90. So far the only cameras I did not try and spoke about have been about their aesthetics. Sir, here is the middle and the corner of the photo you posted.(corner is titled “corner”, I know you have a problem recognizing things) What kind of a proof is this for good edge performance?

 

 

 

Yes, I consider that excellent performance for an ultra wide lens. And, due to your delightful way of making snarky and insulting insinuations, you are now ignored. 

Bye. 

[Ivar B]

HI Ivar

congratulations on your SL . . . . . but should you really be selling your M240? I love my SL, but somehow it's not the same for shooting people in relaxed situations . . . grandchildren on the move, certainly, but grandparents having dinner - no!

I haven't tried the MATE on the SL, so I can't comment, but the 24-90 is a cracking lens, and you soon get used to the weight . . I shot a 3 year old's birthday party with it the other day, mostly held in one hand at 3 year old height with face recognition and framing on the LCD - it worked really well!

 

But I've no intention of getting rid of my M cameras . . quite a different thing. 

 

Hi Jono

 

​Am I right that you said you had a grandchild names Silas as well? Actually, my best portraits of him were shot by Panasonic M43 With the hugely impressive Olympus 1.8/75.

 

​My problem is that I take on so much work that there is very little spare time. I am trying a bit to do something about it, and have just said no thanks to renewal of 3 Board positions I had. However, with the use I have the SL is probably insane and keeping the M in addition is double insane. I hope the SL with 24-90 will serve me well and replace both the M and the M43 system.

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono

 

​Am I right that you said you had a grandchild names Silas as well? Actually, my best portraits of him were shot by Panasonic M43 With the hugely impressive Olympus 1.8/75.

 

​My problem is that I take on so much work that there is very little spare time. I am trying a bit to do something about it, and have just said no thanks to renewal of 3 Board positions I had. However, with the use I have the SL is probably insane and keeping the M in addition is double insane. I hope the SL with 24-90 will serve me well and replace both the M and the M43 system.

 

HI Ivar

I'm pretty busy as well,  and my M isn't getting much use now . . but it will again!  µ43 is a slightly different issue, and I'm not quite sure what I'm going to do there.

 

But unless you need the cash - why not keep the M240?  it won't be worth much less in a year from now . . . and you might want it!

 

I have a son called Silas - he's the father of Scarlett the grand-daughter (and Oscar as well).

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

MATE.jpg24-90.jpgHere are two corner crops with the MATE at 28mm/f4 and the 24-90 at 28mm/f2.9.

 

Q.E.D. 

 

Wilson

 

 

 

HI Wilson

I'm not a bit surprised, it rather does say it all doesn't it!

. . . now the 28 'lux would be a different thing altogether!

[wlaidlaw]

HI Wilson

I'm not a bit surprised, it rather does say it all doesn't it!

. . . now the 28 'lux would be a different thing altogether!

 

Jono, 

 

I suppose I should really have included a corner crop from my 28 ASPH/V.1 Summicron with the SL as well, so here it is. To level the playing field this is taken at f2.8 not f2. It is a little better than the MATE but not as good again as the 24-90. However, I am not sure mine is a particularly good example of the 28 Summicron, as its front section has frequently had to be screwed back on. Time for a visit to Wetzlar. 

 

Wilson

 

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 April 26, 2016 by wlaidlaw

[ramarren]

The real arbiter of whether these corner and edge images with the SL or M-P are good, with a given lens, is to test the lens on a film camera as well in a controlled setup. If the film and digital camera images agree, you're seeing the lens' characteristics as they are, otherwise you're seeing the lens characteristics as modified by a particular camera's sensor setup. 

 

I've got some Delta XP2 Super ready to load into the M4-2 and the R8. Time for some comparison exposures to really evaluate what works well on what. 

[jonoslack]

 

 

I've got some Delta XP2 Super ready to load into the M4-2 and the R8. Time for some comparison exposures to really evaluate what works well on what. 

 

Hi Godfrey

i wish I could watch you putting that XP2 into your SL and M240

[ramarren]

Hi Godfrey

i wish I could watch you putting that XP2 into your SL and M240

 

 

LOL! I did say that was going into the M4-2 and R8, didn't I?

[LucisPictor]

Interesting discussion, gentlemen. I also like that even when argueing the tone stays civilised.

 

It's a shame I only used the pre-APO Sumicron 90 on the SL - and, boy, that's a dream of a combo!

I should go to Wetzlar again and test the others of my Mandler set: Elmarit 21, Elmarit 28 and Summicron 50 on the SL, 'cause all those were made for film. 

 

Is there a doctor here who can write me a leave of absence for my boss? So I can go there.  

[ferdinand]

 

..... Is there a doctor here who can write me a leave of absence for my boss? So I can go there.  

 

 

It is always the same, German teachers have no time for hobbies, they are just working round the days and nights

 

Meanwhile I rebuilt my R lenses (from Leitax/Nikon back to R) and I'll do some tests for qualifying them to use at the SL v.s. M lenses.

[rc53]

...Like the saying goes, I can resist everyting but temptation...

 

 

Oscar Wilde said it first.

Edited April 28, 2016 by rc53

[adli]

Hi Ivar,

 

I didn't see your question before now.  I have not done any extensive testing, but I did take it out one afternoon just to check how it performed. First impression is much easier to use the 105-280 on the SL that on the M. Was a dream to use it on the SL.  The resulting files also looks pretty good, as expected.

 

Since i seldom use longer lenses that 90, it is unfortunately not much used....

 

If you want to try it, you can borrow it for a few days.

 

 

Arne, have you tested the 105-280 on the SL?

[Craggs 101]

Patrick, 

 

Your diatribe sounds like the words of an armchair camera theoretician with no experience using the equipment you are discussing at all. The vast majority of us know all the theory you have offered, but those of us who actually bought and use the SL, with M and R and SL lenses, speak from experience. 

 

Rent an SL, put your favorite wide-angle M lenses on it, and get some first-hand experience using the camera. Then you'll understand much better why those of us who use it say what we do. 

 

Oh yes, full-frame examples of the WATE on the SL are here: 

 

21mm: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1449/26491758256_1e2b4792fa_o_d.jpg

16mm https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1491/25914831853_a3e0efe5f0_o_d.jpg

 

Comparing the WATE on the SL against its performance on the M-P, if any thing, it performs slightly better on the SL than on the M-P. 

 

Wow! Those samples are incredible. I'm gonna get me one!

 

Well, I would do if I had any use for those focal lengths. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Craggs 101

[Einst_Stein]

I sold my MATE2 after replacing M9 to SL.

There is no major issue, but not being enable to Leica SL know which FL is quite annoying. Not sure if this can he solved by the expensive Leica M to L adapter.

 

With SL, even R35-70 works better than MATE. To me 70mm is a better trade-off to 28mm. When 28mm seems make sense, I end up want 25mm.

 

Will you appreciate 24-90 given its size? Your call. It did not make sense to me at all, but somehow I am assimilated and 24-90mm stays on my SL almost all the time. Only when it becomes impolite to carry such a monster will I switch to 35-70mm or a prime.

 

MY advise is to get 35-70mm f4 and resist the 24-90mm temptation as long as possible.( I am not joking).

[ramarren]

...

MY advise is to get 35-70mm f4 and resist the 24-90mm temptation as long as possible.( I am not joking).

 

 

The problem is that the SL24-90 out-performs virtually all the other lenses in the focal length range.

There aren't many bad choices in Leica lenses! The joy of the SL24-90 is that it allows the SL to deliver on all of its spec'ed features.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lx1713]

The SL 24-90 did break quite a few glass ceilings in my photography needs so yes it's a must have lens. The OIS, 90mm that gives a little bit of extra reach & a macro is totally satisfactory to me. I carry less to do more.