New Leica SL Lenses & Roadmap!

[Guest VVJ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the new lenses:

http://blog.leica-camera.com/2018/01/15/new-summicron-sl-lenses/

http://blog.leica-camera.com/2018/01/15/arndt/

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Looks like they are designed as standard containers for downloading lenses assemblies

Just insert the right number of assemblies to meet the orders and voila, ready to deliver! Just in time assembly.

 

I wonder how many of the elements, casings and mechanisms are identical for the 75mm and 90mm.

Karbe has stated that the SL Summicrons (before the 50) share the same outer barrel and other internal components.

 

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2016/09/setting-a-new-standard-with-leica-sl-lenses-a-discussion-with-peter-karbe-at-photokina-2016/

 

Jeff

[wlaidlaw]

If OIS was considered necessary on the 24-90, why does not the 90 Summicron SL have it and maybe the 75 as well? 

 

Wilson

[dfarkas]

If OIS was considered necessary on the 24-90, why does not the 90 Summicron SL have it and maybe the 75 as well? 

 

Wilson

 

Maximum aperture of f/2 on the prime vs. f/4 at 90mm on the zoom. Two stops means the difference between a blurry picture at 1/30 and a sharp one at 1/125. And, to keep the size and weight down to a minimum.

[geetee1972]

If OIS was considered necessary on the 24-90, why does not the 90 Summicron SL have it and maybe the 75 as well? 

 

Wilson

Because the 90 will primarily be a portrait lens and one would assume that you had enough light to light your subject.

[Steve McGarrett]

Also, one could say "because SL2 will have IBIS..." 

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Because the 90 will primarily be a portrait lens and one would assume that you had enough light to light your subject.

 

I have rarely used my Elmarit-M 90 as a portrait lens and I suspect I would not use an f2 Summicron SL as one either. I use an f1.5 Summarex 85 or a Contax f1.4 85, as I think you really need that sort of aperture to get separation on a portrait. Not having OIS would be a big negative factor for me in buying the lens. 

 

Wilson

[Guest VVJ]

I quite honestly don't expect any of the primes to have OIS...

[darylgo]

Given the weight and size of the new lenses and the SL body, OIS would be advantages in many situations.  OIS benefits are quite evident when fatigue sets in.  A wide aperture is not always advantages, limited depth of field is often undesirable, OIS extends our options greatly.   For Leica to limit stabilization to lenses and then exclude it from the last 3 optics is a mistake.  I'll continue using my M lenses on the SL, the small size outweighs the advantages these native lenses bring to the SL. 

I really don't understand how a company that built it's reputation on small, ultra-performance lenses would then switch to gargantuan lenses.   

[LD_50]

They still produce small ultra performance M lenses. The S and SL and TL systems are complementary with different design goals.

 

You don’t get AF, weather sealing, and best available performance in lenses that are M sized.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Given the weight and size of the new lenses and the SL body, OIS would be advantages in many situations.  OIS benefits are quite evident when fatigue sets in.  A wide aperture is not always advantages, limited depth of field is often undesirable, OIS extends our options greatly.   For Leica to limit stabilization to lenses and then exclude it from the last 3 optics is a mistake.  I'll continue using my M lenses on the SL, the small size outweighs the advantages these native lenses bring to the SL. 

I really don't understand how a company that built it's reputation on small, ultra-performance lenses would then switch to gargantuan lenses.   

 

 

Reasons for SL lens sizes have been discussed in previous threads. One reason is that your small M lenses are not AF lenses … another is that SL lenses are telecentric designs.

 

dunk

[IkarusJohn]

... I really don't understand how a company that built it's reputation on small, ultra-performance lenses would then switch to gargantuan lenses.   

 

So they didn't build any reputation on the R system or (more recently) the S system, then?

 

Nowhere and at no time as the SL system been designed, marketed or promoted as compact (though it is reasonably so compared to the other full frame AF alternatives).  Even going back to the days of more simple, film based SLRs, the lenses were still of a similar size - they are what they are.

 

Not sure I agree that either the SL or the lenses need OIS because of their weight or size.  The SL and 50 Summilux sit well in the hand, and their weight helps reduce small movements, as does the option of f/1.4 and the performance of the SL at useful higher ISOs.  Image stabilisation (whether in camera or lens) is of limited use for me, except in longer focal lengths.  There's no image stabilisation in the M system, and neither M cameras nor the lenses are light, considering their diminutive size.

Edited January 16, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[darylgo]

They still produce small ultra performance M lenses. The S and SL and TL systems are complementary with different design goals.

 

You don’t get AF, weather sealing, and best available performance in lenses that are M sized.

I get the best performance from my M 18mm, 24mm, 50mm, 90mm.....these will match or outdo the SL lenses optically, especially the 18 and 24mm :-)

 

Reasons for SL lens sizes have been discussed in previous threads. One reason is that your small M lenses are not AF lenses … another is that SL lenses are telecentric designs.

 

dunk

Thank you.

 

So they didn't build any reputation on the R system or (more recently) the S system, then?

 

Nowhere and at no time as the SL system been designed, marketed or promoted as compact (though it is reasonably so compared to the other full frame AF alternatives).  Even going back to the days of more simple, film based SLRs, the lenses were still of a similar size - they are what they are.

 

Not sure I agree that either the SL or the lenses need OIS because of their weight or size.  The SL and 50 Summilux sit well in the hand, and their weight helps reduce small movements, as does the option of f/1.4 and the performance of the SL at useful higher ISOs.  Image stabilisation (whether in camera or lens) is of limited use for me, except in longer focal lengths.  There's no image stabilisation in the M system, and neither M cameras nor the lenses are light, considering their diminutive size.

I didn't say the reputation was exclusively built on the M lenses, but yes, it is the major portion and without them Leica would not be what it is today.

 

My rant is my opinion concerning size, I expect others to have different opinions.  F1.4 is wonderful but not for all situations, when shooting in early morning light @f5.6 my shutter speeds are often 1/4 second, too slow, OIS of 3 stops is pseudo 1/30 second, barely acceptable but OIS makes the picture possible.   Sure, I could raise the ISO but to the detriment of dynamic range and acuity. 

[IkarusJohn]

If size is an issue, then the SL was never the system for you.  It was never going to be small.

[darylgo]

If size is an issue, then the SL was never the system for you.  It was never going to be small.

I love the SL body, Leica nailed this when they updated the firmware to 3.0.  The lenses are medium format size, albeit

phenomenal optics.  If only they used their expertise learned from the M series to make the SL offerings smaller.   

[LD_50]

Leica is using their expertise to produce the SL lenses. They don’t need to learn from producing M lenses. They’re still producing them and announcing new ones. The design goals are different and so are the resulting lenses.

 

Again, you don’t get AF, weather sealing, and SL lens optics in M sized lenses. They don’t exist, from any manufacturer, for a reason.

 

Could they engineer smaller lenses with the same (or better) properties than the SL lenses? Maybe, but the cost and production constraints would be too much to make them sellable. The SL lenses are already priced well above every other system available without spending even more on miniaturization.

[Jeff S]

I suspect that they could make smaller zooms by limiting the focal length range of each, but clearly they’ve gone in the opposite direction, using extended ranges to market and distinguish from DSLR counterparts. I’d prefer some easier ‘travel’ zooms, maybe 35-70, 70-120, etc. But likely not a priority.

 

Jeff

[geetee1972]

I have rarely used my Elmarit-M 90 as a portrait lens and I suspect I would not use an f2 Summicron SL as one either. I use an f1.5 Summarex 85 or a Contax f1.4 85, as I think you really need that sort of aperture to get separation on a portrait. Not having OIS would be a big negative factor for me in buying the lens. 

 

Wilson

 

I've never spoken to a portrait photographer who felt they needed OIS.

 

You can get good separation on a 50mm lens at f/8 if you know how to set the shot up correctly. See the example below which was shot at just this. But I'm guessing you don't actually mean 'separation' but rather the amount of background blur. Well each to their own I guess but I personally find too much background blur a but saccharine and most of the great portrait work from history tends to agree. Indeed, unless you’re shooting in a studio (in which case you don’t need to worry about separation or background blur at all), keeping a decent amount of focus in the background is rather important, otherwise you have no context and the results look a bit, well, like you’re a typical Leica shooter. Each to their own of course but there’s a reason that portrait lenses aimed at portrait photographers don’t have OIS.

 

 

Heather - The Things You Find on Brighton Beach at Sunrise on a Sunday by Greg Turner, on Flickr

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

So they didn't build any reputation on the R system or (more recently) the S system, then?

 

Nowhere and at no time as the SL system been designed, marketed or promoted as compact (though it is reasonably so compared to the other full frame AF alternatives).  Even going back to the days of more simple, film based SLRs, the lenses were still of a similar size - they are what they are.

 

Not sure I agree that either the SL or the lenses need OIS because of their weight or size.  The SL and 50 Summilux sit well in the hand, and their weight helps reduce small movements, as does the option of f/1.4 and the performance of the SL at useful higher ISOs.  Image stabilisation (whether in camera or lens) is of limited use for me, except in longer focal lengths.  There's no image stabilisation in the M system, and neither M cameras nor the lenses are light, considering their diminutive size.

Yes, indeed: use the CL for a couple of months as I have done, then switch back to the M and you'll start to worry about those gargantuan, massively heavy M lenses. 

But a week or so later, and I don't notice!

[panoreserve]

"I get the best performance from my M 18mm, 24mm, 50mm, 90mm.....these will match or outdo the SL lenses optically, especially the 18 and 24mm :-)

 

Thank you. (...)"

 

 

With all due respect, this is definitely not the case. Please talk to Mr. Karbe - the SL-Lenses represent a totally new level of optical performance (e.g they are designed to resolve more than 60 lp/mm).