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

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.... Leica lenses are the best when it comes to edge to edge performance, especially the apo series are famous for this. ...

Patrick,

 

I trust you're aware that APO lenses are designed to converge green, blue, and red wavelengths at a coincident point on a film or sensor and that their apo-chromaticity does not affect edge to edge performance anymore than it affects centre performance.  APO lenses are renowned (or 'famous' as you prefer) for minimising Chromatic Aberration that shows up as coloured fringing in aberrant lenses.  

 

M-series APO lenses are normal focal length and longer, ie 50 mm to 135 mm, because shorter focal lengths naturally converge R,G, and B wavelengths quite well so apo-chromatic correction would make little difference (and presumably the cost of low dispersion glass cannot be justified to provide such a limited correction).  Rays from normal and telephoto lenses will strike the sensor at a less oblique angle than those from wide angle lenses owing to the M's (short) 27.8 mm flange to sensor distance so naturally edge to edge performance on the perfectly flat surface provided by a digital sensor can be expected to be better from normal and telephoto focal lengths than the oblique rays from wide angle lenses but this has nothing to do with whether the lenses have been apo-chromatically corrected or not, it's simple physics.

 

I regret that your statement above is flawed.

 

Pete.

[Ivar B]

Hi my old friend backwards Ravi

 

If you are comfortable with the combined weight and size of SL with 24-90, then gp ahead and replace the M lenses. However, i use the M lenses as they are still excellent on the SL (although I am still plying with my 50's on it) and apart from the MS 24/4 triplet, I havemt tried any wides (and that is just as interesting on the SL as on the M240).

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

How nice to hear from you again. I have warm memories from our gathering in Solms and Wetzlar. I will test it out and decide.

[Advertisement]

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

[Sandokan]

There is a bag thread in the SL section. I will post some photos there. The SL by itself is not a big camera and with the M lenses is lightweight and carryable all day and usable without a tripod. I dont think I could carry and use the 24-90 without a monopod or tripod.

 

And good to hear from you too. Hope all is well in the world of universities and economics.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited April 24, 2016 by Sandokan

[helged]

Hei Ivar,

 

I happen to have both lenses. Users may disagree about this, but I find the handling (and quality) of M-lenses on SL is not very different from M-lenses on M-bodies. This also includes most WA lenses. So I sold my M240 one month or so after getting the SL. No regret.

 

The 24-90 on SL is a totally different animal. The quality and flexibility of the combo is great, but the added weight and size make a huge difference compared to an M-lens. I would be very hesitant bringing the 24-90 for strenuous hiking or for non-obstructive shooting, whereas one/a few M-lenses and the SL will be quite similar wrt weight/size to that of an M-system.

 

Last summer I was hiking in the Alps for about 2 weeks, bringing only the MATE and 90Macro-Elmar on a M246. A quite compact combo. Keeping the SL+24-90 in front, ready for shooting, for 10+ hrs a day? No way. Taking the SL+MATE (or most of the M-lenses): No problem.

[patrick parker]

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. 

 

 

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?

 

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 24, 2016 by patrick parker

[IkarusJohn]

It is unfortunate that Patrick perpetuates the theories that some rather hopefully espoused when the SL was released. The testing and user experience does seem to confirm that with some variance modern Leica wides perform as well if not marginally better on the SL as on the M(240). My Zeiss 15 Distagon 2.8 has colour shift on both the digital M and the SL. 

 

So it pretty much seems beyond doubt that there is little point trying to draw distinctions between these cameras based on the sensor; that really leaves form and functionality. 

 

The 24-90 zoom range is very useful, but the lens is big.  It weighs (on my scales) 1.223kg with hood and lens caps. By comparison, M lenses covering roughly the same range, 28 Summilux, chrome 50 Summilux and 90 AA Summicron weigh 1.449kg.  Granted, none of these lenses are selected for being light, but they are the lenses I have. 

 

For me the choice is one of functionality. My M mount lenses are generally all big - 21, 28 & 75 Summiluxes, Noctilux and 90 Summicron. I like the heft and size in my hands, and they all feel good on both the SL and M cameras. The best choice is the lens which feels good in the hands, balanced on the camera and gives the most rewarding images. 

 

Theoretical technical issues with sensors, and truisms over M lenses only working with M cameras, were laid to rest months ago. The SL is pretty close to a universal platform for Leica lenses. 

 

PS - I see Patrick is referring to the 28 Summicron. I'm not sure of the logic that if one Leica wide, designed for film, does not provide the edge to edge sharpness Patrick is looking for, then no Leica wide performs well on the SL. Try the 28 Summicron. Does the fact that this lense performs better on the SL than on the M(240) mean that all wides perform better on the SL?

 

Of course not. 

 

Patrick, if you're interested in this topic, I recommend you read Sean Reid's extensive testing (you have to subscribe) and Jono Slack's reviews (his are free, and more relevant and readable). They are informative.  Sean's conclusion was that compact Leica wides (particularly made in the film era) are likely to be problematic if you like pixel peeping in the corners. 

 

Modern Leica wides, designed in the digital era, not so much and in some cases better on the SL than on the M(240) - the truth is some of these problem children are just as problematic on the M cameras.

 

The problem with generalisations is they mislead. Hence some of the strong reactions here to your apparently ill-informed comments. 

Edited April 24, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[patrick parker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Patrick,

 

I trust you're aware that APO lenses are designed to converge green, blue, and red wavelengths at a coincident point on a film or sensor and that their apo-chromaticity does not affect edge to edge performance anymore than it affects centre performance.  APO lenses are renowned (or 'famous' as you prefer) for minimising Chromatic Aberration that shows up as coloured fringing in aberrant lenses.  

 

M-series APO lenses are normal focal length and longer, ie 50 mm to 135 mm, because shorter focal lengths naturally converge R,G, and B wavelengths quite well so apo-chromatic correction would make little difference (and presumably the cost of low dispersion glass cannot be justified to provide such a limited correction).  Rays from normal and telephoto lenses will strike the sensor at a less oblique angle than those from wide angle lenses owing to the M's (short) 27.8 mm flange to sensor distance so naturally edge to edge performance on the perfectly flat surface provided by a digital sensor can be expected to be better from normal and telephoto focal lengths than the oblique rays from wide angle lenses but this has nothing to do with whether the lenses have been apo-chromatically corrected or not, it's simple physics.

 

I regret that your statement above is flawed.

 

Pete.

 

 

Why is it flawed?  I did not say edge performance I said edge to edge performance. I stand by my comment.How about an APOlogy?

[farnz]

 

Why is it flawed?  I did not say edge performance I said edge to edge performance. I stand by my comment.How about an APOlogy?

 

 

Perhaps you might re-read what I wrote.  I didn't mention edge performance, only edge to edge performance so no APOlogy I'm afraid.  I stand by what I wrote and I maintain that your statement is flawed for the reasons I gave.

 

Pete.

[patrick parker]

Make an effort and check Reid Reviews to find out how completely wrong you are. 

 

I don’t need to read his review on this, I don’t want to pay him again until he gives us  little more.He is very good and if he really says M lenses perform just as good on the SL , I will apologize to all of you. Sean Reid remembering from a few years ago knew what the hell he was talking about.

 

I can’t see him claiming something that would prove me in your words “ completely wrong”.

[patrick parker]

Dear Patrick, do you actually have an SL or have you ever used one?  Just answer with a simple yes or no.   If yes, please provide evidence of the performance you describe.

The theory you propound is simply not supported by the experiences of many of use here as well as other testers.  If the theory holds up under sound testing evidence, I will be happy to concede error.  If it doesn't hold up, will you do the same?

 

Sound testing? Would correct eyesight do? Yes I used one, we shot quite a bit for a day in Toronto, tried it with the summicron 28, nothing wrong with the lens. It performs as it should on both the MM and the M9. I don’t own one and don’t plan to unless I am convinced that it doesn’t suck with an 35mm R summicron . I don’t understand why everyone is so defensive. It’s a great camera if you use it with the 24-90. If I knew I had to defend my life I would have kept those pictures of trash cans and grafitti. I’m going to reply to this other guy now, he wanted to show off with the edge clearity but for some reason he didn’t crop enough.

[IkarusJohn]

No one is being defensive; just pointing out that your statement is wrong. 

 

Yes, the 28 Summicron is soft in the corners, but that doesn't justify your statement. That you don't wish to read Sean's review suggests that you're happier making broad and wrong generalisations. That you don't accept what people tell you of Sean and Jono's findings really just reinforces the general perceptions here of your posting.

 

Are you actually interested in being informed, or is it better to be right ...

Edited April 24, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[Steve Spencer]

 

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?

 

 

Patrick is this the 28 summicron that was just released this year with a new hood and with a slightly different design to work better on digital? If it was an older 28 summicron, then yes the older version of the lens does not work well with the SL but the just recently released version works quite well--probably at least part of the reason they released the new version. The SL seems to work quite well with all the newest versions of Leica M lenses (including the wides), but does show some performance decrements for older versions that were designed for film.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Steve Spencer

[patrick parker]

No one is being defensive; just pointing out that your statement is wrong. 

 

Yes, the 28 Summicron is soft in the corners, but that doesn't justify your statement. That you don't wish to read Sean's review suggests that you're happier making broad and wrong generalisations. That you don't accept what people tell you of Sean and Jono's findings really just reinforces the general perceptions here of your posting.

 

Are you actually interested in being informed, or is it better to be right ...

 

How can I argue when you talk so gentlemanly? Ok I'll read Sean's report, tomorrow I shall let you know if he started using heavy drugs or not.

[patrick parker]

Patrick is this the 28 summicron that was just released this year with a new hood and with a slightly different design to work better on digital? If it was an older 28 summicron, then yes the older version of the lens does not work well with the SL but the just recently released version works quite well--probably at least part of the reason they released the new version. The SL seems to work quite well with all the newest versions of Leica M lenses (including the wides), but does show some performance decrements for older versions that were designed for film.

It's the first coded version. I think it came out with the M9. At least that's when I puchased it.

[Steve Spencer]

It's the first coded version. I think it came out with the M9. At least that's when I puchased it.

 

It actually came out in 2000 well before the M9. The lens was designed for film. I think we will find that the newest version--that was just released--will work much better with the SL. There is a cautionary tale here. Older lenses designed for film may have some decreased performance on the SL (and any digital camera really) because of the cover glass that is needed to protect the sensor. These problems will be particularly acute at wide apertures and with lenses with a short exit pupil. Here is a link describing these issues:

 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/sensor-stack-thickness-part-iii-the-summary/

 

For the MATE, these issues are likely to be very mild even though it was designed for film. It has a long exit pupil and a slow max aperture. 

 

In general, we can look at this issue as the glass half full or half empty. I prefer to see it as half full. All the current versions of Leica M lenses work well with the SL, but if you want to see it as half full you can note that some of the older lenses designed for film will have decreases in performance.

[patrick parker]

It actually came out in 2000 well before the M9. The lens was designed for film. I think we will find that the newest version--that was just released--will work much better with the SL. There is a cautionary tale here. Older lenses designed for film may have some decreased performance on the SL (and any digital camera really) because of the cover glass that is needed to protect the sensor. These problems will be particularly acute at wide apertures and with lenses with a short exit pupil. Here is a link describing these issues:

 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/sensor-stack-thickness-part-iii-the-summary/

 

For the MATE, these issues are likely to be very mild even though it was designed for film. It has a long exit pupil and a slow max aperture. 

 

In general, we can look at this issue as the glass half full or half empty. I prefer to see it as half full. All the current versions of Leica M lenses work well with the SL, but if you want to see it as half full you can note that some of the older lenses designed for film will have decreases in performance.

 

I don't know when it was designed. But the year it was made has to be much later. At least as old as the time they started 6 bit-coding so earliest 2006 when M8 came out. 

Edited April 24, 2016 by patrick parker

[IkarusJohn]

It actually came out in 2000 well before the M9. The lens was designed for film. I think we will find that the newest version--that was just released--will work much better with the SL. There is a cautionary tale here. Older lenses designed for film may have some decreased performance on the SL (and any digital camera really) because of the cover glass that is needed to protect the sensor. These problems will be particularly acute at wide apertures and with lenses with a short exit pupil. Here is a link describing these issues:

 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/sensor-stack-thickness-part-iii-the-summary/

 

For the MATE, these issues are likely to be very mild even though it was designed for film. It has a long exit pupil and a slow max aperture. 

 

In general, we can look at this issue as the glass half full or half empty. I prefer to see it as half full. All the current versions of Leica M lenses work well with the SL, but if you want to see it as half full you can note that some of the older lenses designed for film will have decreases in performance.

 

 

Nice explanation, Steve. 

[Steve Spencer]

I don't know when it was designed. But the year it was made has to be much later. At least as old as the time they started 6 bit-coding so earliest 2006 when M8 came out. 

The lens was first produced in 2000 (see the Leica Wiki) and was described in Puts' "Leica M lenses: Their soul and secrets," in 2002. So, it is pretty clear it was designed for film long before the M8.

[thighslapper]

Patrick ...... some of us have actually tested things ........

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/252842-m-lens-performance-on-the-sl/page-6?do=findComment&comment=2929734

 

The only really poor performers were the old version 35/2 and 28/2 ...... which are designs from 15-20 years ago. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[wlaidlaw]

Compared with the 24-90, the MATE on the SL at 28mm looks a bit second rate, with noticeable softness in the corners. 35 and 50mm are OK but still not as good as the 24-90 at those focal lengths. This should come as no surprise, given that the 24-90 was specifically designed to work on the SL. On a recent trip to Myanmar, I found the 24mm focal length very useful for getting in whole temples and stupas. I thought I would use my M lenses on the SL quite a lot but the only M lens I have used to any extent is my 50/0.95 Nocti, the 24-90 is that good. Now with FW 2.0 and the attendant massive improvement in AF, I think buying the 24-90 is a "no brainer". Yes it is heavy but I am a weedy, arthritic 70 year old and I manage 

 

Wilson