Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

Five new Leica SL lenses to be announced

Guest VVJ

By Guest VVJ
in Leica SL System

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply
steppenw0lf

steppenw0lf

Posted
Posted

I think the four lenses   16-35, 50, 90(or 75) and 90-280 would make a great AF "team". And if there was an AF macro adapter/ring then the Apo 90/75 could certainly be abused for macro work. (Like the Apo50 which was also never designed for it, but is fine.)

 

But probably too expensive to buy them in one go. So better do it in steps and maybe there comes a true macro lens in the next tranche/installment

 

The 16-35 is an Elmar, that sounds like aperture 4. Aperture 2.8 would have been more desirable like the Nikon 2.8/17-35 . But maybe Leica made it compact - contrary to expectations. So one or the other could be desirable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thighslapper

thighslapper

Posted
Posted

Sure, but we don't yet have the SL 50 Summilux, which was (kind of) announced some time ago, and we're soon approaching end of 2016.  One hopes that the other lenses have been in development simultaneously.  My comment was a bit tongue in cheek.

 

More importantly, given the experience with S lens issues, I'm sure we'd much prefer waiting until all lenses have proven ready and reliable and before release.  

 

For me, since I'm looking for a system to complement (not overlap) the M, I would have preferred primes wider and longer than the 28-90 range.  Oh well.

 

Jeff

 

You have to remember the issues with the previous 'best 50mm lens ever produced' ..... the apo 50/2 had a lot of production issues and eventually was halted for 6 months while they sorted out the problems. 

 

As a flagship product it has to be 100% right from the first day of shipping ...... I suspect it will appear November'ish with the others, being less optically challenging being drip fed throughout next year. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
thighslapper

thighslapper

Posted
Posted

I think the four lenses   16-35, 50, 90(or 75) and 90-280 would make a great AF "team". And if there was an AF macro adapter/ring then the Apo 90/75 could certainly be abused for macro work. (Like the Apo50 which was also never designed for it, but is fine.)

 

But probably too expensive to buy them in one go. So better do it in steps and maybe there comes a true macro lens in the next tranche/installment

 

The 16-35 is an Elmar, that sounds like aperture 4. Aperture 2.8 would have been more desirable like the Nikon 2.8/17-35 . But maybe Leica made it compact - contrary to expectations. So one or the other could be desirable.

 Super- Elmar 16-35....... it will be 3.5-4.5 if Leica follows it's usual pattern ......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vieri

Vieri

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I really hope the so-called 16-35 is not really a 16-35 but rather a 12-24mm, that would make much more sense in the zoom line-up. There is no overlap between the 24-90 and the 90-280, they both are f/2.8-4, and since Leica loves consistency I'd expect a 12-24mm - not sure f/2.8-4 though.

 

Or, perhaps the rumours are just right...  :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff S

Jeff S

Posted
Posted

Oh that is good news then if they plan SL full-frame lenses.

 

All native SL lenses are 'full frame' (35mm), as the SL sensor...the 24-90, the 90-280, the forthcoming 50, and anything else that may or may not be rumored.

 

Of course, non-native lenses can be adapted....Leica T, R, S, M lenses....and others, including Canon and Nikon.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites
John Z. Goriup

John Z. Goriup

Posted
Posted

I have both the 24-90 and the 90-280 SL AF zoom lenses, and they perform brilliantly, therefore the rumored introduction of the new lenses is good to hear, but they're hardly something I positively, absolutely cannot live without, whereas I keep hoping fervently for an ultra-high quality APO x1.4, x1.7  or x2.0 Telextender to maximize the usefulness of the 90-280.

 

JZG

Link to post
Share on other sites
ramarren

ramarren

Posted
Posted

I really hope the so-called 16-35 is not really a 16-35 but rather a 12-24mm, that would make much more sense in the zoom line-up. There is no overlap between the 24-90 and the 90-280, they both are f/2.8-4, and since Leica loves consistency I'd expect a 12-24mm - not sure f/2.8-4 though.

 

Or, perhaps the rumours are just right...  :huh:

 

 

Well, if I didn't own the SL24-90 and were buying a full set of native SL lenses, the 16-35, 50, 75, and 90-280 would be my choice. So there's overlap with the 24-90 ... as there is in most other systems as well. The 24-90 is a great all-around lens and a great choice for a lot of things, but for me a wide zoom, tele zoom, and  a couple of primes in between are a better kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thighslapper

thighslapper

Posted
Posted

I really hope the so-called 16-35 is not really a 16-35 but rather a 12-24mm, that would make much more sense in the zoom line-up. There is no overlap between the 24-90 and the 90-280, they both are f/2.8-4, and since Leica loves consistency I'd expect a 12-24mm - not sure f/2.8-4 though.

 

Or, perhaps the rumours are just right...  :huh:

 

I think you will find it will be 16-35 ...... I suspect Leica have extended it to 35 to more of a general wide angle zoom and extend its usefulness.

 

The T equivalent at 11-23mm on a smaller sensor equates to 16-35mm at full frame which tends to bear this out. This lens on the T produces superb images. 

 

Leica have never gone below 15mm ..... and the M 15mm was a Zeiss design and the R 15mm only ran to a few thousand units.

 

I suspect Leica conclude that below that they cannot achieve the optical quality they feel they are renowned for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

All native SL lenses are 'full frame' (35mm), as the SL sensor...the 24-90, the 90-280, the forthcoming 50, and anything else that may or may not be rumored.

 

Of course, non-native lenses can be adapted....Leica T, R, S, M lenses....and others, including Canon and Nikon.

 

Jeff

Currently all my lenses are M and R. Don't plan to change that. (21/50/90/135 - M and R 60/100 Macro).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivar B

Ivar B

Posted
Posted

I have both the 24-90 and the 90-280 SL AF zoom lenses, and they perform brilliantly, therefore the rumored introduction of the new lenses is good to hear, but they're hardly something I positively, absolutely cannot live without, whereas I keep hoping fervently for an ultra-high quality APO x1.4, x1.7  or x2.0 Telextender to maximize the usefulness of the 90-280.

 

JZG

 

I agree and would welcome an extender. 280mm is often too shorts for birds for example. A 1.4x would be ideal and with the good ISO performance the loss of one stop is manageable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vieri

Vieri

Posted
Posted

Well, if I didn't own the SL24-90 and were buying a full set of native SL lenses, the 16-35, 50, 75, and 90-280 would be my choice. So there's overlap with the 24-90 ... as there is in most other systems as well. The 24-90 is a great all-around lens and a great choice for a lot of things, but for me a wide zoom, tele zoom, and  a couple of primes in between are a better kit.

 

 

I think you will find it will be 16-35 ...... I suspect Leica have extended it to 35 to more of a general wide angle zoom and extend its usefulness.

 

The T equivalent at 11-23mm on a smaller sensor equates to 16-35mm at full frame which tends to bear this out. This lens on the T produces superb images. 

 

Leica have never gone below 15mm ..... and the M 15mm was a Zeiss design and the R 15mm only ran to a few thousand units.

 

I suspect Leica conclude that below that they cannot achieve the optical quality they feel they are renowned for.

 

 

You both might be right, we'll see :) More into the why and the what for a lens rather than another, while I respect Godfrey's wishes for his perfect kit to me it would be more important to go further into WA rather than having a more general wide angle. Every other manufacturer has a 16-35, a 24-70 and a 70-200. Leica decided to go for a different (IMHO more useful) 24-90, and for a different (IMHO more useful) 90-280 instead, so I have hopes that they will continue to go the route of the different (and IMHO more useful) serious wide-angle option, such as the 12-24mm.

 

That said, what is paramount for me is that - whether 16-35mm or 12-24mm - the new lens had a filter thread and no fixed lens hood. If they produce something that doesn't allow the use of square filters, I am not interested.

 

Photokina is behind the corner, we'll see what it will bring - if anything ;)

 

Best,

 

Vieri

Link to post
Share on other sites
gerhard.hagen

gerhard.hagen

Posted
Posted

Well, if I didn't own the SL24-90 and were buying a full set of native SL lenses, the 16-35, 50, 75, and 90-280 would be my choice. So there's overlap with the 24-90 ... as there is in most other systems as well. The 24-90 is a great all-around lens and a great choice for a lot of things, but for me a wide zoom, tele zoom, and a couple of primes in between are a better kit.

Or you could use both existing zooms (24-90 and 90-280) for the action part of photography and the canon TSE 17 and, if need be, the SEM 21 in between, for the landscape type of photography, where AF is not really necessary. On both wide-angle lenses you could use filters even with a moderate degree of shift in case of the TSE 17.

 

Personally, i would still love to have a native leica sl shift lens somewhere between 16 and 21 mm focal length, but obviously that is not meant to be. One could also dream of a shift adapter for S lenses.

 

Sincerely, Gerhard

Link to post
Share on other sites
wlaidlaw

wlaidlaw

Posted
Posted

The 16-35mm is rather unambitious. I would have much preferred a 12-24mm or even if it were optically possible, a 12 or 14-30mm. The 16-35mm does not appeal to me at all. I already have an 18SEM that I use on the SL and my standard zoom starts at 24mm. 16mm at the wide end is just not really wide enough to tempt me. Nikon offers a 14-30 and Sigma is offering a 12-24 full frame in various mounts. 

 

Disappointing if true, so I hope the rumours are inaccurate. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites
ramarren

ramarren

Posted
Posted

The 16-35mm is rather unambitious. I would have much preferred a 12-24mm or even if it were optically possible, a 12 or 14-30mm. The 16-35mm does not appeal to me at all. I already have an 18SEM that I use on the SL and my standard zoom starts at 24mm. 16mm at the wide end is just not really wide enough to tempt me. Nikon offers a 14-30 and Sigma is offering a 12-24 full frame in various mounts. 

 

Disappointing if true, so I hope the rumours are inaccurate. 

 

Wilson

 

 

Different tastes, I guess. For me, on 35mm full frame, 18-21mm is as wide as I usually prefer. For my ultra-wide square obsession, 15-16mm does just right. This is why I have the Super-Elmar-R 15mm, Elmarit-R 19mm, and the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm at present.  :) 

 

All are very usable on the SL, the WATE is also very usable on M-D, M-P, and M4-2. If I only had the WATE, it would be enough as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...