Wanted list - new lenses for Leica SL

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is my case for not having 1.4x-2x extenders and for a 500+ telephoto.

A 2x extender would make the 90-280 zoom a very slow lens at f/8. 560mm would be OK to get started for birds but the aperture would be too small.

 

Yes, a 2x extender would be too slow. So I hope for a 1.4x or even better 1.7x extender.

[Advertisement]

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

[helged]

...or a dedicated tele. 400 with f2.8-4 somewhere, or 500 f4.5. For instance.

[luele]

...

 

a fullframe Summilux 35mm

 

and a 19mm or 21mm prime - smaller and lighter then a 14-24 or 16-35

[Guest digiuser_re-reloaded]

2,8/40 or 45 pancake with AF.

[Peter H]

Not bring an SL user I feel a bit like a gate crasher, but for what it's worth:

 

I understood that one of the main ideas behind the SL was to create a versatile new camera equivalent in performance to the M but unlike it not just in its VF arrangement but also in being freed from the constraints of considerations of size, which is of course a major element in the design of M lenses , and a reason why we won't have an AF M.

 

For this reason I can't imagine Leica dedicating a lot of effort to make deliberately small SL lenses. Rather , they will concentrate on the quality and performance benefits that come from being liberated from the size constraint.

[AlanJW]

Not bring an SL user I feel a bit like a gate crasher, but for what it's worth:

 

I understood that one of the main ideas behind the SL was to create a versatile new camera equivalent in performance to the M but unlike it not just in its VF arrangement but also in being freed from the constraints of considerations of size, which is of course a major element in the design of M lenses , and a reason why we won't have an AF M.

 

For this reason I can't imagine Leica dedicating a lot of effort to make deliberately small SL lenses. Rather , they will concentrate on the quality and performance benefits that come from being liberated from the size constraint.

I tend to agree with this, especially re the zooms.    But no camera is truly "freed" from considerations of size, and when it comes to the primes, I would have sacrificed a stop and made the 50mm a Summicron instead of a Summilux.   The SL high ISO performance is good enough to compensate and the lenses could have been smaller, albeit larger tham M lenses.    When I want to be very compact, I put on the 23mm T lens, which is 35mm on the SL.  The lack of megapixels has not prevented getting good results -- as long as you are not planning very large enlargments. 

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe I am mistaken, but currently my impression is that people preferring the M say that no small SL lenses are needed. While people preferring the SL say that they would like to get small lenses, even if sacrificing one stop or two.  

And another group says that it is not possible to construct small lenses for the SL. And another that Leica has no interest in producing small lenses for the SL.    

 

This is simply a wanted list. 

No need for smart-alecks and weisenheimers to announce to the world that they know already today what "Leica is thinking and planning" for tomorrow.    

[Peter H]

.....................

No need for smart-alecks and weisenheimers to announce to the world that they know already today what "Leica is thinking and planning" for tomorrow.    

 

 

Is this really called for in a simple conversation about lenses?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I tend to agree with this, especially re the zooms.    But no camera is truly "freed" from considerations of size, and when it comes to the primes, I would have sacrificed a stop and made the 50mm a Summicron instead of a Summilux.   The SL high ISO performance is good enough to compensate and the lenses could have been smaller, albeit larger tham M lenses.    When I want to be very compact, I put on the 23mm T lens, which is 35mm on the SL.  The lack of megapixels has not prevented getting good results -- as long as you are not planning very large enlargments. 

 

 

But I don't buy a Summilux or Summicron based on what the ISO capabilities of the camera are. I buy them because I want that aperture available to me, or not.

 

Otherwise I could have saved ten grand on my Noctilux and just bought a 50mm f8 somewhere and bumped the ISO. Or I could live with just the zooms.

 

It's likely that in time Leica will make smaller and slower lenses. But since there are exactly ZERO primes currently available now they need to start somewhere and it's likely that Leica feel more people will want a Summilux as the first option.

 

Gordon