New Leica SL Lenses & Roadmap!

[MT0227]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm using the M 90APO and 35FLE with the SL; quite happy with the results thus far.

 

These are completely new designs. According to Leica, these new Summicrons will outperform already incredible lenses like the 75 APO and 90 APO for the M. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by MT0227

[Leicaiste]

I am also wondering what is the ratio between the sales of the SL body and the sales of the native SL 24-90.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Leicaiste

[Advertisement]

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

[ramarren]

I am also wondering what is the ratio between the sales of the SL body and the sales of the native SL 24-90.

 

 

I can only speculate, but I bet that it's very close to 1:1. Based on the user participation I've read, there are only a few folks even on these 'enthusiast' forums who have bought just the SL body and not the body with the 24-90 mm lens. 

 

I was almost one of them but decided to go for the SL24-90 after I'd placed the order so that I would have one fully dedicated lens with which to exercise all of the SL features. I have not regretted that decision. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Six months ago, the pictures and discussion were dominated by use of R and M lenses.  With a burst of attention to the 90-280 as it got into circulation.  Now it seems most of the pictures posted are with the 24-90, with a burst of attention to the 50 SL.

 

scott

[ramarren]

Six months ago, the pictures and discussion were dominated by use of R and M lenses.  With a burst of attention to the 90-280 as it got into circulation.  Now it seems most of the pictures posted are with the 24-90, with a burst of attention to the 50 SL.

I notice that too: as people become accustomed to the zooms, they become more and more appealing to use. Shows that we are creatures of habit. The SL lenses themselves so far have been excellent performers so there's really no downside to enjoying them.

[steppenw0lf]

As the 24-90 was the only native lens, it was almost mandatory. (and still is)

But as soon as there are alternatives (several primes and a 16-35 and maybe a smaller 28-70 or similar), I think the 24-90 will not be so popular anymore.

Short: This lens has amazing high IQ, but apart from that has amazing little grace.

 

And of course most images are made with 28 to 90 mm. And it is the only native lens offering this. And the R equivalent (the 28-90) is extremely expensive (more expensive than the 24-90 !). (probably because many are looking for an alternative)

But many/some are using other zooms instead (Contax e.g.), but usually they do not show their images here.

 

A 16-35 zoom plus 75 or 90 mm prime is far more useful than this oversized lens. But probably will also be much more expensive.

Compared to the sizes of the R lenses I have, the SL 24-90 still looks like a very bad idea. (It looks as if it belongs to the S camera). 

 

And look at the pictures with the SL 24-90 - in style often very far from the M images, very close to the S images. Much more static, looking for high precision. Not waiting to get the perfect moment. Very boring compared to many M shots, but high IQ.   

Edited January 7, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... 

Short: This lens has amazing high IQ, but apart from that has amazing little grace.

...

 

 

Now that's a good laugh. People buy lenses because they want to make photographs and are looking for lenses that make the best images they can get. What other "grace" does a lens need to have to not "look like a vary bad idea"? 

[meerec]

Now that's a good laugh. People buy lenses because they want to make photographs and are looking for lenses that make the best images they can get. What other "grace" does a lens need to have to not "look like a vary bad idea"?

Hang on guys. Let's slow down before it escalates.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

I agre with stepinwolf and I agree with ramen too.

But I wouldn't buy this monster lens (even If I have spent on the 90-280 monster) lol

All good.

Edited January 7, 2017 by meerec

[Leicaiste]

I agre with stepinwolf and I agree with ramen too.

 

[emoji6]

[ramarren]

I meant no disparagement of Stefan's words .. They just struck me as funny, self-contradictory. He's entitled to his opinion. 

 

The more I work with the SL24-90, the more I like it despite it's bulk. And I'm generally NOT taken to using zoom lenses. It's simply an excellent lens, and when I look at my bag with SL + R24, (R35), R50, R90 lenses in it, the weight and bulk is only marginally different while the convenience is much much different. Of course, the SL+SL24-90 is that weight all the time, not partitioned by having one of those lenses on the camera at a time, but anyone used to working with SLR cameras should be used to that, and can get used to that, pretty quickly.

 

... I prefer fixed focal length lenses overall, I like zooms usually at the short and long end of the spectrum because that's where the savings in carrying multiple lenses that I don't use very often make a difference (and never mind that a zoom for a range usually costs much less than individual lenses in that range). An ideal SL-dedicated lens system for me would be SL16-35, SL50, SL75 or 90, and SL90-280. Four lenses, top notch performance, all the features of the camera supported. 

 

But Leica had to start somewhere. They felt the 24-90 was the best starting point, it covers the primary focal length range of the largest number of users in one lens. The fact that it is large and bulky is nothing unusual for lenses of this type, speed range, and build quality. 

 

The fact that the SL isn't a "next generation M" and shouldn't be thought of as such should be obvious to anyone, and that includes comparisons of its size and weight. It's closest ancestor in Leica's product lines is the Leica R system, and in this regard the SL body is right in line on size and weight, and the lenses so far are not all that different when you compare like for like in zooms. Complaining about the SL because you really wanted that "next generation M" isn't particularly reasonable, IMO. 

 

No one camera type, design, or model does all things best. 

[steppenw0lf]

Now that's a good laugh. People buy lenses because they want to make photographs and are looking for lenses that make the best images they can get. What other "grace" does a lens need to have to not "look like a vary bad idea"? 

 

There are dynamic photos and very slow static photos. The lenses best suited for these occasions are certainly not the same.

"Making photographs" is an overly simplistic description for a procedure that is handled very differently by different people in different situations.

The 24-90 is a "slow" fat zoom, while the M lenses are primes and completely different in handling. ("slow" is not referring to AF speed).

Now, which is the BEST lens ? As usual, it depends .....

 

If you like the 24-90 this is ok. And I think you like it, because this lens helps your style of photography.

But for many users this lens is rather an obstacle, and a wider selection of native lenses in that focus range is very welcome to support also other types of photographers.

(No single camera for everything, and so also not a single lens for everything. The range 28-90 is about 90% of all images, and there is currently only one heavy monster lens for it. )

Look at other brands - for Canon the 24-105 is a similar lens for similar occasions. But AFAIK it is not so dominating (it is popular, but not almost 100% of users own this lens), as many users have other priorities. Many used it for a while and sold it again to get something more useful for them.

Edited January 7, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[ramarren]

Stefan,

 

Given that "the BEST lens" is an elusively impossible thing to actually define for all people and all picture taking situations, and that the SL24-90 is a very high performance lens that, whether you like it or not, produces excellent image quality for a very wide range of picture taking situations and people, how is it that you can say that it "looks like a very bad idea" and "has amazing high IQ, but apart from that has amazing little grace" without laughing at your self-contradiction?   

 

It's a DAMN FINE LENS that you just don't happen to like because it's large and heavy. I don't like the fact that it's large and heavy either, I wish it were the size of a Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 ... but I know that's a fantasy and wouldn't evaluate the lens to be 'a very bad idea' or have 'amazingly little grace' on that basis. 

 

As I have said many many times on this forum, I wish the SL24-90 were a bit smaller and lighter. I almost didn't buy it because of its size and the fact that it was a zoom; I wish they'd have come out with the Summilux-SL 50mm first actually. But the more I use the SL24-90, the more I appreciate its quality and performance in spite of its bulk ... I'd never tell anyone that it was a "very bad idea" or had "amazingly little grace." I tell people that it's an excellent lens but that it's bulky. 

 

(BTW, I don't participate in the modern madness of calling anything slower than f/1.4 a "slow lens" either. To me, f/2.8 is a fast lens, f/4 is borderline ... and in the context of zooms for 35mm format, f/2.8-f/4 zooms are fast lenses. But that's my opinion..  )

 

Now, if the SL24-90 were a poor performer as well as being a large and heavy lens, then I'd say it has 'little grace' was likely 'a very bad idea' ... but that isn't the case.

Edited January 7, 2017 by ramarren

[scott kirkpatrick]

Put yourself in the position of Leica bringing out a new line of cameras needing new lenses and intent on attracting as many new customers as possible.  The question is product positioning and overcoming the significant time it takes to design and release new "clean sheet" lenses for a camera with no previous history.  Also, the existing customers are split between those who always shoot wide open and care about the drawing characteristics of older M and R lenses, and those who always shoot to get all relevant details in sharp focus, and also care about the drawing characteristics of the newer M and R lenses.  Part of the answer is making adapters available to support all M, R and eventually S lenses.  Another part is developing a small set of zoom lenses as good as the latest M lenses, with cost and weight only secondary considerations.  "Grace," like "Wesentlichkeit" is nice to have, but secondary.  Thanks to the adapters, things have worked out pretty well for many of us.  The 4K video crowd is probably also making a healthy contribution to Leica's bottom line (and continued existence).  

 

It makes perfect sense to me, although I wonder why the wide zoom is taking so long.

 

scott

[steppenw0lf]

It is very simple: This lens makes sense, but it makes no sense to have only this lens for everything - after all this is a camera for exchangable lenses. For a camera with a built-in lens the users would probably be quite happy about it.

And it does not matter if I "like" a lens or not - it matters if a lens is useful for a task or not. (And if a lens is not useful for me, then there is no reason to particularly "like" it.)

Look at it with a bit more rationalism.  

 

And Ramarren - after many entries it should be clear, that there is no BEST lens - at least not in my eyes. So you completely misunderstood what I wrote. That is the whole point: There should be a choice as there is no single lens that can do everything best.

And we both know that it is no problem as there are many M and R lenses that work satisfactorily well on the SL

And so still my summary: The 24-90 offers high IQ for a zoom in a bulky package, but very little for users that have additional/other demands.

Edited January 8, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[thighslapper]

 

 

It makes perfect sense to me, although I wonder why the wide zoom is taking so long.

 

scott

 

I think it is far more difficult to correct the optical problems of extreme wide angle lenses ..... both optically and in firmware than the longer focal lengths, so I suspect Leica have left the most difficult and time consuming till last. 

 

Yet again Leica have not gone below 16mm .... with what will probably be the usual 'unable to achieve the required image quality' explanation that Leica trots out. 

 

The Tri-Elmar covers the missing range already ...... at similar apertures...... and at these focal lengths at an average of f4, even focussing, let alone AF is hardly needed most of the time ......

 

I can't imagine it's going to be a big seller .... certainly it's not on my 'want' list - and I habitually can find excuses for buying most of what Leica produces. 

[ramarren]

It is very simple: This lens makes sense, but it makes no sense to have only this lens for everything - after all this is a camera for exchangable lenses. For a camera with a built-in lens the users would probably be quite happy about it.

And it does not matter if I "like" a lens or not - it matters if a lens is useful for a task or not. (And if a lens is not useful for me, then there is no reason to particularly "like" it.)

Look at it with a bit more rationalism.  

 

And Ramarren - after many entries it should be clear, that there is no BEST lens - at least not in my eyes. So you completely misunderstood what I wrote. That is the whole point: There should be a choice as there is no single lens that can do everything best.

And we both know that it is no problem as there are many M and R lenses that work satisfactorily well on the SL

And so still my summary: The 24-90 offers high IQ for a zoom in a bulky package, but very little for users that have additional/other demands.

 

 

Perhaps you should be a little more careful when you write to articulate clearly what you mean. Your last sentence in the quoted section above is finally almost clear. And perhaps you should read what I wrote again to understand what I meant, which had NOTHING to do with a "best lens", what I liked, what I disliked, or anything at all like that. I simply found your self-contradictory words amusing ... I see now what you meant more clearly: "The SL24-90 may be a fine performer, but I don't like its weight and size so I won't buy one. I'm annoyed there weren't—aren't—more choices available." 

 

Of course the SL is a camera body that can take an assortment of lenses. The fact that the SL24-90 was simply the only available native lens for a while is irrelevant—most people have been using a variety of lenses on the SL from the first day it shipped and even before, through the beta period—as you have yourself. Leica designed the SL to be adaptable in that way and supports a large number of their M and R lenses with optimizing lens profiles for that purpose. And, as has been shown through the hundreds of photos and thousands of posts about the SL, the SL24-90 is certainly very useful for a lot of people and photographic situations. Many people using other systems intentionally choose lenses like this for their work too. So again, "whether you like it or not", the lens is a fine performer that I would never consider disparaging the way you did. Your statements about the lens were illogical and unclear. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by ramarren

[scott kirkpatrick]

I think it is far more difficult to correct the optical problems of extreme wide angle lenses ..... both optically and in firmware than the longer focal lengths, so I suspect Leica have left the most difficult and time consuming till last. 

 

Yet again Leica have not gone below 16mm .... with what will probably be the usual 'unable to achieve the required image quality' explanation that Leica trots out. 

 

The Tri-Elmar covers the missing range already ...... at similar apertures...... and at these focal lengths at an average of f4, even focussing, let alone AF is hardly needed most of the time ......

 

I can't imagine it's going to be a big seller .... certainly it's not on my 'want' list - and I habitually can find excuses for buying most of what Leica produces. 

 

Olympus, with its "Pro" line of M43 lenses, did the same, releasing first a 12-40 (24-80 eff), then 40-150 (80-300 eff) and finally, about 18 months later, a 7-14 (14-28 eff), all constant f/2.8 aperture and AF.  So that may indicate where the customers for event, wedding, and journalistic shooting are to be found, and their relative priorities.  Naturally, I've got all three, but am not using them much at the moment.  The 14-28 focal length range is fun to shoot with, and Olympus makes very nice lenses, but feels pretty specialized.   I think I could work all day with 16-35, but not with 14-28 or 16-21.

 

scott

Edited January 8, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[ramarren]

Olympus, with its "Pro" line of M43 lenses, did the same, releasing first a 12-40 (24-80 eff), then 40-150 (80-300 eff) and finally, about 18 months later, a 7-14 (14-28 eff), all constant f/2.8 aperture and AF.  So that may indicate where the customers for event, wedding, and journalistic shooting are to be found, and their relative priorities.  Naturally, I've got all three, but am not using them much at the moment.  The 14-28 focal length range is fun to shoot with, and Olympus makes very nice lenses, but feels pretty specialized.   I think I could work all day with 16-35, but not with 14-28 or 16-21.

 

Olympus did the same thing with the E-System of FourThirds SLRs as well: first lenses out were the 14-54, 50-200, and 50 Macro, followed by the faster Super High Grade series which included the 150, 7-14, and others. It seemed a successful strategy. 

 

Ultra-wide is nearly always a lower volume, lower demand, higher priced market compared to the telephoto range. That's at least one of the reasons why Leica shopped out the R system's 15mm lens designs to Zeiss (the Super-Elmar-R 15mm is essentially a Zeiss Distagon in Leica mount) and Schneider (Super-Elmarit-R 15mm ...) as well. Extravagantly wider lenses—like 14mm, 12mm, and now 10mm for 35mm FF format—sell in miniscule quantities and are usually the last things to appear after a pretty complete lens portfolio is already in production, if they appear at all. 

[steppenw0lf]

I think it is far more difficult to correct the optical problems of extreme wide angle lenses ..... both optically and in firmware than the longer focal lengths, so I suspect Leica have left the most difficult and time consuming till last. 

 

Yet again Leica have not gone below 16mm .... with what will probably be the usual 'unable to achieve the required image quality' explanation that Leica trots out. 

 

The Tri-Elmar covers the missing range already ...... at similar apertures...... and at these focal lengths at an average of f4, even focussing, let alone AF is hardly needed most of the time ......

 

I can't imagine it's going to be a big seller .... certainly it's not on my 'want' list - and I habitually can find excuses for buying most of what Leica produces. 

 

If the SL 16-35 is excellent at 28 and 35mm, then it could be more useful than the WATE, bacause the WATE is UWA only, while the 16-35 would also span the "normal" focal lengths (or almost). (AF is less important). 50mm could be emulated by cropping.

My Nikon AF-S 2.8/17-35 is ok (aperture 2.8 is actually very nice, IQ is limited though) but not as good as a 28 or 35mm prime, so I always use it with an excuse on my lips.   And the IQ reserves for cropping are small. But regarding its focus range it is one of my most useful lenses.

My pessimism tells me that the SL lens will be extremely expensive - and so I will probably have to live with the WATE or Nikon 17-35 . Accordingly I also deleted it from my priority list.     

 

I could happily live with an all AF 16-35, Macro 60, Macro 100 and 90-280 plus extender.. But it will take years to come. And I hate the idea to sell older lenses to afford this.

Edited January 8, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[scott kirkpatrick]

Olympus did the same thing with the E-System of FourThirds SLRs as well: first lenses out were the 14-54, 50-200, and 50 Macro, followed by the faster Super High Grade series which included the 150, 7-14, and others. It seemed a successful strategy. 

 

Somewhere in that progression Olympus produced their 11-22, which was not graded at their maximum level of coolness, but was my favorite of all that set.  I bought another one when the M1 came out.  Again, a lens I could use exclusively.

 

scott

Edited January 8, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick