50mm Summilux has some real competitors

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M lenses' USP is their size.  They are also of v high quality, but the fast ones do suffer from various optical aberrations (typically fringing at high contrast boundaries).  They will, however, continue to work in 50 years' time, as they require no electronics to make them go.

 

The SL lenses can afford to have a more relaxed design, but what are we gaining in return for the additional weight?  AF.  OIS (in some cases).  Reduced aberrations.  Thing is, with modern sensors, fast lenses are not as compelling as they were when ISO 400 film was as good as it got.   So the high quality zooms were a good way to start the system.  I can understand why Leica might want to build a signature/statement 50mm f1.4 but unless it produces Noctilux-like rendering, without the aberrations, I won't be getting one.

 

If I think, "what would I be bothered to carry with me, if I already had the zooms?", the answer would be a wide angle zoom of comparable quality, a long macro (200mm or 100mm or 85mm PC), or a short perspective control lens (24mm or 17mm) for architecture.  I'm not sure that I would want to carry several even f2 lenses if I already had a comparable M series lens of lower weight.  Currently, I find myself accompanying the zooms with the lines of the 21mm M Summilux (for its ability to blow the background beautifully), the 50mm APO Summicron (for its ability to take night shots without adding masses of fringing), the Noctilux (for taking 1970s style soft porn focus shots), the 18mm SEM or the 15mm Voigtlander (for really wide angles, obv), the 28mm or 35mm Summilux (for environmental / night shots, where the Summicron is too short).  So additional lenses have got to do something for me that these don't.

 

Yes, the Sony system started off compact, but their (and Zeiss's) top of the line lenses are no smaller than SLR lenses, and often bigger.  That is the main reason that I have rather parted with the Sony line, despite the technological superiority to Leica in almost every way other than the EVF.  That said, Zeiss has found a sweet spot with the Batis line, combining high performance and OIS in a bulky, but light body.  An A7rII + Batis 85mm, 25mm with a lens or two like the 28mm f2 or 35mm f2.8 with the 55mm f1.8 is hard to beat, for the weight, if you need AF.

 

 

Contrary to some of the naysaying on this forum when the SL was announced, the SL is aimed at professional photographers - and Leica have reiterated this with their pre-Photokina announcement:

 

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/leica_at_photokina_2016/

 

Potential professional customers for the SL do not necessarily have a bunch of M or R glass to fall back on; they will be needing SL AF lenses which are as good as, or better than, Sony offerings … and with as good as, or better than, Zeiss performance. The fact that mirrorless cameras can all use M and R lenses is not the reason d'être for the SL … that's just one of its attributes. 

 

dunk

Edited August 8, 2016 by dkCambridgeshire

[wlaidlaw]

Maybe (whisper this) Leica need to consider polycarbonate for their S and SL lens bodies. if it is strong enough to work as the frame on a Glock pistol firing .40S&W and .45ACP, it is probably strong enough for Leica lens bodies. It would save a lot of weight. 

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

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

[dkCambridgeshire]

Maybe (whisper this) Leica need to consider polycarbonate for their S and SL lens bodies. if it is strong enough to work as the frame on a Glock pistol firing .40S&W and .45ACP, it is probably strong enough for Leica lens bodies. It would save a lot of weight. 

 

Wilson

 

 

 

But the blinkered Luddite forum naysayers would have a field day if Leica started using polycarbonate for their professional cameras and lenses - they'd likely all jump off the Gherkin en-masse! 

 

dunk 

Edited August 8, 2016 by dkCambridgeshire

[scott kirkpatrick]

Here's a look at how another manufacturer looks at lens size tradeoffs with AF:

 

S1020156 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

From left to right, Fuji XF 23/1.4, Summilux 28/1.4, Fuji 35/2.0  XF-WR, Fuji XF 58/1.2 .

 

#2 should be familiar.  The Fuji lenses cover APS-C format, #1 and #4 have both manual scale focus and (not the fastest or quietest) autofocus.  #3 is faster and quieter than the two older lenses, it is weather-sealed, and much smaller.  Its manual focus is simply an override, so I don't use it.  All excellent lenses, and not that big.  Part of the secret of the 35/2.0 (effective focal length 50 mm) is that it requires software correction for about 5% barrel distortion (my estimate), and its coverage is actually a little restricted -- it is a bit soft in the outermost 1-2% percent of the frame.  I have done comparisons between software correction on and off and I see no loss of sharpness due to the interpolation that is required.  The Fuji 23 (35mm-eff) and 58 (85mm-eff) don't require software correction.  So modest restrictions in maximum aperture and software correction are part of managing autofocus lens size.  Leica has used both in the 24-90.

 

scott

[pgk]

But the blinkered Luddite forum naysayers would have a field day if Leica started using polycarbonate for their professional cameras and lenses - they'd likely all jump off the Gherkin en-masse!

 

If ever Leica use a plastic lens element .......

[jrp]

Contrary to some of the naysaying on this forum when the SL was announced, the SL is aimed at professional photographers - and Leica have reiterated this with their pre-Photokina announcement:

 

Well they are saying that they are positioning their product as for professionals.  But the main thing that professionals need is reliability and access to backup services.  Sony seem to outsource their servicing.  Leica can provide good service, on a grace and favour basis, but having to send everything back to Germany to get it fixed / calibrated means that professionals risk being without the gear needed for their bread and butter for lengthy periods of time.  Canon and Nikon understand this and it is expensive to provide.

 

As I said above, the SL would do better with a range of specialist lenses, rather than trying to offer halo lenses that are not really needed when the zooms are so good.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well they are saying that they are positioning their product as for professionals.  But the main thing that professionals need is reliability and access to backup services.  Sony seem to outsource their servicing.  Leica can provide good service, on a grace and favour basis, but having to send everything back to Germany to get it fixed / calibrated means that professionals risk being without the gear needed for their bread and butter for lengthy periods of time.  Canon and Nikon understand this and it is expensive to provide.

 

As I said above, the SL would do better with a range of specialist lenses, rather than trying to offer halo lenses that are not really needed when the zooms are so good.

 

 

Nobody yet knows for sure exactly what Leica Camera AG means by " Photokina … … focused on the needs of professional users  …" but taking that literally could mean improved service facilities. They have the new Wetzlar complex and cameras can be shipped there within a short period of time. Maybe we need to wait and see what Leica has to offer instead of assuming that service turnarounds will remain as at present. 

 

dunk

[rriley]

You get what you pay for and in the case of Leica, you pay with money, weight and size.

[pgk]

Well they are saying that they are positioning their product as for professionals.  But the main thing that professionals need is reliability and access to backup services.  Sony seem to outsource their servicing.  Leica can provide good service, on a grace and favour basis, but having to send everything back to Germany to get it fixed / calibrated means that professionals risk being without the gear needed for their bread and butter for lengthy periods of time.  Canon and Nikon understand this and it is expensive to provide.

 

Well Leica understand this too and in my experience I have generally had better and faster service (infrequently needed) from Leica, the exception being a lens well out of production which took longer. Point though is that Leica require evidence of professional photograph status (I quoted my vat number) so they don't appear to cater for many who can apparently achieve such status with other manufacturers as far as I can see. If you are a full-time professional, Leica will do their very best for you in my experience - where they do this isn't really relevant is it?

 

And on this subject if you look at 'pro dealer's' lists of used gear it will become very evident that the bulk of wide/standard/milder telephoto lenses that cater for their pro market are zooms. Lenses like the 50mm Summilux will no doubt be used by some professionals but not that many because such lenses are atypically in pro's kit (that said I'm very atypical myself but I have friends who aren't). And again most pros I know or have met shoot with lenses which work best with their camera bodies. Few will go to the lengths of adapting stuff because its generally not as good or too slow/cumbersome to work with.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Leica's priorities for "professional" grade SL lenses are tuned to their themes and myths.  When Olympus created a "Pro" line of lenses for the E-M1 and E-M5 cameras a year or two ago, it was a mid range zoom, an (excellent) long zoom and then a very sharp 14-28 (eff) wide zoom, arriving at 6-9 month intervals.  Only Leica would spend a half year or more of product development time to ensure that the memory of the 50 Summilux was kept fresh.  I would expect hints of a wide zoom for the SL at Photokina this fall, and maybe a product shipping in mid 2017.  I'll buy that one.  

 

scott

[pgk]

Its a complex world. In reality far more 'pro' cameras are bought by non-professionals than by professionals, so aiming a camera just at the 'pro' market isn't actually such a good idea. But aiming one which is acceptable for pros to use at the market is a way of marketing such a camera and placing it against competitor's cameras which are marketed in the same way - its been like this for a very long time (although I think its shifting as the very large 'pro' dSLRs are of less appeal to many than they once were for a variety of reasons).

 

Leica has also always sold 'distinctive' lenses, such as the Summilux and Noctilux, so these are, I imagine, going to be a specific part of any marketing strategy regardless of the marketing's initial aims, and they do now have competitors as discussed already, so to ignore this would probably be equally remiss. I agree though that a wide-angle zoom is a requirement for sure, and its likely to be a harder nut to crack optically, so it will be interesting to see when/what Leica come up with.

[wlaidlaw]

Since I registered with Leica's professional scheme a few years ago, their service has been rapid and impeccable. In fact service has improved out of all recognition since the early noughties, when it was abysmal. I twice had items returned to me, which had not been touched. 

 

Wilson

[Sandokan]

Here's a look at how another manufacturer looks at lens size tradeoffs with AF:

 

S1020156 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

From left to right, Fuji XF 23/1.4, Summilux 28/1.4, Fuji 35/2.0  XF-WR, Fuji XF 58/1.2 .

 

#2 should be familiar.  The Fuji lenses cover APS-C format, #1 and #4 have both manual scale focus and (not the fastest or quietest) autofocus.  #3 is faster and quieter than the two older lenses, it is weather-sealed, and much smaller.  Its manual focus is simply an override, so I don't use it.  All excellent lenses, and not that big.  Part of the secret of the 35/2.0 (effective focal length 50 mm) is that it requires software correction for about 5% barrel distortion (my estimate), and its coverage is actually a little restricted -- it is a bit soft in the outermost 1-2% percent of the frame.  I have done comparisons between software correction on and off and I see no loss of sharpness due to the interpolation that is required.  The Fuji 23 (35mm-eff) and 58 (85mm-eff) don't require software correction.  So modest restrictions in maximum aperture and software correction are part of managing autofocus lens size.  Leica has used both in the 24-90.

 

scott

Apples and pears. The Xpro is not a full frame sensor and lenses are much smaller. If you compare your Fuji lenses to micro 4/3 lenses and I would then say why are Fuji lenses so large?

 

I would welcome and buy normal and telephoto AF lenses of f2 or f2.8 for the SL, but I will not buy a 50mm lens that weighs close to a kilogram. For wide angle lenses, I am happy to stick to my compact manual focus lenses.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Sandokan

[Sandokan]

Less armchair hypotheses, I went to Lens Rentals tear down to see what an actual AF motor does and looks like.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/a-look-at-electromagnetic-focusing/

[scott kirkpatrick]

Apples and pears. The Xpro is not a full frame sensor and lenses are much smaller. 

You missed the point.  Within one system, look at how much smaller the lenses have gotten with just a year's advances in AF design.

 

scott

[Guest VVJ]

I would welcome and buy normal and telephoto AF lenses of f2 or f2.8 for the SL, but I will not buy a 50mm lens that weighs close to a kilogram. 

 

 

+1.  You need the 1.4 lenses but also the 2.0 and 2.8 lenses to have a successful system.  You need the adapters.  You need cheaper alternatives from 3rd parties.

Edited August 10, 2016 by JorisV

[pgk]

Less armchair hypotheses, I went to Lens Rentals tear down to see what an actual AF motor does and looks like.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/a-look-at-electromagnetic-focusing/

 

You know, you can really go off AF lenses .

[steppenw0lf]

Hi Jono.

 

The questions is what is regarded as small on a SL camera.

I make the comparison with the X1D lenses. Smaller than that is good enough for me. (Please forget that small should mean M-like. This is really utopic, not worth to discuss anymore.) Should be easy as they have also a shutter to place inside. And they have the bigger bayonet.

I already had the impression with the 24-90 that the electronics (not the optics) was what made it so big/fat. And I thought it is the missing experience (sorry) of Leica with AF motors etc. And I was speculating for a second version (with slimmer waist) when the electronics have made some progress. I regard the situation like Nikons when their first generation of ultrasound motors (AF-S) came out. Their second generation was already much smaller (slimmer in diameter), but not faster.

So to me this explains also why all lenses are of equal diameter (they need the same room for the same AF motor).

 

I think that AF speed (motor electronics) should be of lesser importance than general lens size. The way we use the camera today (up to 11 frames per second, but only one or two focusing actions per second at the maximum) should indicate that the AF does not need to be at the same level for all lenses (not all lenses have to be of the same AF speed as the 90-280).

 

For a 28mm lens AF speed is not crucial - but 2.0 or 2.4 instead of 1.4 would make a big difference in weight and price. (I do not want to spend a fortune on a simple 28mm lens). The 90/100mm is probably more demanding (here users want maximum AF speed), so ok. this can have the bigger size. But again, even it Nikon has announced a 1.4/105 I would prefer a classic 2/90 or 2/100. This will be expensive anyway, as Leica will not retreat behind the Apo they offered for R and that is still extremely expensive.

But for a "normal" 2/50mm (hopefully with macro capability) fastest AF is just luxury and not necessary and probably not doable because of the longer "distances" the focus group has to travel - and AF is not really helpful in macro most of the time.

 

So let's forget the talk about M-sized lenses (and forget/ignore the silly remarks Dunk likes to add) and come back to the fact: With small primes (or call them short or light or R-size, but this is again wrong, maybe sub-X1D-size) as an addition to the high quality zooms the SL would become an even sexier Leica platform. And I expect/hope that sooner or later there will be a next generation of AF motors that is capable of delivering the needed performance in a more restricted space.

 

If I had wanted to spend a fortune on 1.4 lenses, I could have done that already with the Otus lenses (and many did). But I like Leica mainly for its Summicrons. Where I have lux and cron I usually prefer to use the cron. (maybe old-fashioned, or simply practical)

But agreed with an all lux collection Leica will probably get a more favourable press reaction and therefore more business.

And it is not a real problem, I will simply use my R and M stuff for some more years.

I will need some time anyway to put aside money for new lenses - so Leica take your time.

Edited August 11, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[LocalHero1953]

Less armchair hypotheses, I went to Lens Rentals tear down to see what an actual AF motor does and looks like.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/a-look-at-electromagnetic-focusing/

Interesting.

I'd really like to know what type of AF motors there are in S lenses, with their record of failures - and in SL lenses, which so far are OK.

Thanks for the extra information to keep armchair hypothesists going.

Edited August 11, 2016 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

 

And on this subject if you look at 'pro dealer's' lists of used gear it will become very evident that the bulk of wide/standard/milder telephoto lenses that cater for their pro market are zooms. Lenses like the 50mm Summilux will no doubt be used by some professionals but not that many because such lenses are atypically in pro's kit (that said I'm very atypical myself but I have friends who aren't). And again most pros I know or have met shoot with lenses which work best with their camera bodies. Few will go to the lengths of adapting stuff because its generally not as good or too slow/cumbersome to work with.

 

Certainly zooms are the most popular "standard" lenses for most working photographers, however to say that a 50mm isn't typically in a pros kit is not correct. Every working photographer I know (which is several dozen) has either a fast 50 or 35 in the bag, at all times. I use 5 different camera systems and I have at least one 50mm for each of them. Wedding and portrait photographers rely on the blur only a fast standard can give and there's 100 of them for every single sports photographer. Even most sports photographers have a prime or two stuffed in the bag next to their 600mms. For some they're not the most used lens but it's essential to have them regardless.

 

The reason 50's don't come up for sale at dealers is that they are held on to. Zooms get replaced by new models that focus faster or have new weather sealing. Pros beat them up and then upgrade. A good 50 is chosen on how it renders and once you get one you like you hold on to it forever. Seeing how many 50's are at a used dealer is not a reliable indicator of how many are in use.

 

Gordon