New Leica SL Lenses & Roadmap!

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good point, but why leave it to Canon?

 

Not sure about the APO 50 (I don’t have one), but the Noctilux is really a better SL lens than M lens. The SL is fundamentally more versatile, whether using AF or manual focus lenses.

 

I don’t doubt there is a need for the lenses on the road map, I’m just questioning the order.

[LocalHero1953]

I hope they stick to their plan of issuing the 75 before the 90. If AF on the 75 is as fast as on the  zooms it might encourage me to get an early order in for the 90. If the AF is pedestrian then it wouldn't happen. Leica's AF has been mixed, from the blindingly fast SL zooms to the still disappointing (to me) low light AF of the 60TL and 23TL, and the less than stellar reports of the 50SL (which I haven't tried).

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest VVJ]

Leica's AF has been mixed, from the blindingly fast SL zooms to the still disappointing (to me) low light AF of the 60TL and 23TL, and the less than stellar reports of the 50SL (which I haven't tried).

 

This has me very puzzled as well... it is almost as if these lenses (or at least the AF portions) were made by different companies, the AF of the SL zooms and the Q is as good as it gets as far as I am concerned, the other (mainly TL) lenses can still be improved significantly (hunting, low light).  

 

I guess the SL-75mm and the rumored TL-lenses (if any) will be the test.  In that respect I can also understand that Leica would want to get it right.  

Edited September 23, 2017 by JorisV

[wlaidlaw]

This has me very puzzled as well... it is almost as if these lenses (or at least the AF portions) were made by different companies, the AF of the SL zooms and the Q is as good as it gets as far as I am concerned, the other (mainly TL) lenses can still be improved significantly (hunting, low light).  

 

I guess the SL-75mm and the rumored TL-lenses (if any) will be the test.  In that respect I can also understand that Leica would want to get it right.  

 

The 24-90 was a bit prone to hunting when first released (I got mine in the first week on sale). Its AF has improved immeasurably with firmware updates, which makes me wonder if it is an algorithm issue on the later lenses rather than a mechanical problem. I cannot imagine you would develop two very differing AF mechanisms, especially when you have got the first one so right. The 50 SL at least looks to have about the same weight of glass to move as the 24-90 so there is no theoretical reason for it to be slower. I do find the 90-280 struggles on anything approaching a hazy day, when the contrast detection engine must see everything as low contrast and you keep getting the irritating red frame. A polarising filter helps a little but I am going to sell my 90-280 and go back to an MF 80-200R lens instead, more for the weight and size than performance. 

 

Wilson

Edited September 23, 2017 by wlaidlaw

[ropo54]

The 24-90 was a bit prone to hunting when first released (I got mine in the first week on sale). Its AF has improved immeasurably with firmware updates, which makes me wonder if it is an algorithm issue on the later lenses rather than a mechanical problem. I cannot imagine you would develop two very differing AF mechanisms, especially when you have got the first one so right. The 50 SL at least looks to have about the same weight of glass to move as the 24-90 so there is no theoretical reason for it to be slower. I do find the 90-280 struggles on anything approaching a hazy day, when the contrast detection engine must see everything as low contrast and you keep getting the irritating red frame. A polarising filter helps a little but I am going to sell my 90-280 and go back to an MF 80-200R lens instead, more for the weight and size than performance. 

 

Wilson

 

FWIW, I tried out a 90-280 on the TL2 yesterday, and the Leica store assistant suggested not using the narrower 1-Spot Focus but rather keeping it on Center Focus, so as to pick up more contrasting edges.  It helped a great deal in securing a locked focus. (I'm thinking of selling my R 80-200 and getting the 90-280, for AF and extending length on the TL2).

 

Rob

Edited September 23, 2017 by ropo54

[LocalHero1953]

I sold the 80-200R to get the 90-280SL. They were both sufficiently large and heavy that the difference didn't really figure overall. I don't usually use it for distant outdoor shooting, so I haven't used it in haze - I haven't noticed focus hunting problems.

Edited September 23, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just be thankful the AF mechanisms aren't derived from the original S system design.

 

Jeff

[LD_50]

The 24-90 was a bit prone to hunting when first released (I got mine in the first week on sale). Its AF has improved immeasurably with firmware updates, which makes me wonder if it is an algorithm issue on the later lenses rather than a mechanical problem. I cannot imagine you would develop two very differing AF mechanisms, especially when you have got the first one so right. The 50 SL at least looks to have about the same weight of glass to move as the 24-90 so there is no theoretical reason for it to be slower. I do find the 90-280 struggles on anything approaching a hazy day, when the contrast detection engine must see everything as low contrast and you keep getting the irritating red frame. A polarising filter helps a little but I am going to sell my 90-280 and go back to an MF 80-200R lens instead, more for the weight and size than performance.

 

Wilson

According to the diagrams on Leica’s site, the 24-90 moves one lens element for focusing while the 50 looks to move three, including a large aspherical element. I don’t know how accurate the diagrams are but it would correspond with the user experience.

[wlaidlaw]

According to the diagrams on Leica’s site, the 24-90 moves one lens element for focusing while the 50 looks to move three, including a large aspherical element. I don’t know how accurate the diagrams are but it would correspond with the user experience.

 

It says one but then shows a group of three lens elements together as the focusing group for the 24-90. I wonder if they mean one group is moved not one element. It is a bit ambiguous. 

[sillbeers15]

The 24-90 was a bit prone to hunting when first released (I got mine in the first week on sale). Its AF has improved immeasurably with firmware updates, which makes me wonder if it is an algorithm issue on the later lenses rather than a mechanical problem. I cannot imagine you would develop two very differing AF mechanisms, especially when you have got the first one so right. The 50 SL at least looks to have about the same weight of glass to move as the 24-90 so there is no theoretical reason for it to be slower. I do find the 90-280 struggles on anything approaching a hazy day, when the contrast detection engine must see everything as low contrast and you keep getting the irritating red frame. A polarising filter helps a little but I am going to sell my 90-280 and go back to an MF 80-200R lens instead, more for the weight and size than performance. 

 

Wilson

The weakness of the contrast detect autofocus system is still 'low light' & 'back light' situation. 'Hunting'/ slow focus and focus tracking immediately shows a differentiated performamce as compared to well illuminated situation. While there is limitation in contrast detect focusing system as said, the firmware update 3.0 improved the focus tracking capability tremdously. From a 'good for nothing' to 'good' in performance. There are still room for performance in the SL's AF capability in coming firmware or hardware introduction. But then again no AF system available is yet to be perfect, half the time is perhaps the user's judgement on the optimized setting.

[Sandokan]

There is a rant on social media about the lack of delivery of native lenses for the SL. 

 

And he does make good points; especially when you compare it to the release of the S2 and the four native lenses released within 3 months and a further 4 lenses soon after that. The S is a system; the SL is a fantastic camera body for my Canon and Nikon lenses; and oh yes, my R and M lenses fit on it too. 

 

How comes we are now 2 years into the SL and:-

• Updates/change requests to the capabilities in the firmware are not being actioned nor acknowledged? 
• Just 3 native lenses? 
• Delays on the next scheduled releases of native lenses? 
• No announcement for the next series of native lenses? 
• No encouragement for other manufacturers to release native lenses? 

 

I freely admit, the current native lenses do not appeal to me. I want the 16-35 but if it is delayed to spring; then I will miss another autumn/spring landscape season. I will be off to my Canon dealer to look at the 16-35 iii lens, and while I am there I will look at the telephoto zooms too. 

 

I am disappointed in the lack of support by Leica in the SL. 

[Jeff S]

And he does make good points; especially when you compare it to the release of the S2 and the four native lenses released within 3 months and a further 4 lenses soon after that. The S is a system; the SL is a fantastic camera body for my Canon and Nikon lenses; and oh yes, my R and M lenses fit on it too.

 

And the faulty AF mechanisms in those S lenses created a nightmare. The S was expected to have long tele lenses, T/S lenses and more in short order (even according to David Farkas on this forum). That was 6 years ago.

 

I'm all in favor of faster rollouts, but at least the SL lenses have so far avoided calamity. Better to be right than fast. Of course best to do both.

 

Jeff

Edited September 24, 2017 by Jeff S

[Waterden]

I find R and M lenses more than good enough for the SL but then I've never really been a fan of AF lenses for this sort of camera, which is neither a general carry-around, point and shoot or sports tool. Nobody (or mostly nobody) complains about lack of AF for the M10.

[LD_50]

Why would anyone complain about lack of AF for an M camera? If it offered AF with the same M-size lenses it would be a huge hit.

 

In other words look at the demand for an interchangeable lens Q (which is an SL in my opinion). I also read about demand for the SL to be M size, and it is pretty close to an M with grip and large EVF already.

 

The SL is absolutely a general carry around camera. I don’t know what else it would be.

[Waterden]

Possibly carry-around for you. For me it is a professional quality, weather resistant camera for portraits and landscapes in inclement weather. My carry-around camera is a Ricoh GR II, which beats the Q for me in all respects apart from speed. My sports and birding camera is presently an Olympus EM1 although the Sony A9 seems to be a more competent alternative. In my opinion AF is for photographers, or subjects, in a hurry. YMMV. Mind you, Capa, Chim and HCB, to name but three, managed fine without it.

[ropo54]

Possibly carry-around for you. For me it is a professional quality, weather resistant camera for portraits and landscapes in inclement weather. My carry-around camera is a Ricoh GR II, which beats the Q for me in all respects apart from speed. My sports and birding camera is presently an Olympus EM1 although the Sony A9 seems to be a more competent alternative. In my opinion AF is for photographers, or subjects, in a hurry. YMMV. Mind you, Capa, Chim and HCB, to name but three, managed fine without it.

 

Or, people with eye sight that is a tad compromised.

Edited September 24, 2017 by ropo54

[Waterden]

Indeed, in which case why bother with the SL and it's brilliant, ideal for MF, EVF? If you have to rely on AF, because you can't see well enough to focus manually with the SL's EVF, then maybe the SL is not for you because there are plenty of MLCs with inferior EVFs but good sensors and excellent af lenses. Of course, the SL is far more than the camera with the class-leading EVF but it's certainly one of it's defining points, as is the ability to use Leica M and R lenses on a platform which has been designed to work optimally with them.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Waterden

[LD_50]

The poor eyesight comment is usually in reference to OVF cameras or rangefinder cameras. My eyesight is fine and I shoot with both an M and SL so I’m only speculating.

 

AF helps to acquire a close starting point that can be quickly fine tuned with magnification or peaking with EVF cameras.

 

The EVF in the SL is excellent for those with worsening eyesight. It may be the best camera available due to the quality of the EVF.

[Ingo]

https://leicarumors.com/2017/09/24/release-timeframe-on-the-new-leica-sl-lenses.aspx/

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[IkarusJohn]

It would be nice to see something a bit braver from Leica for the SL.

 

Sure, when this latest crop is available, there will be three zooms covering 16-280, and four primes 35-50-75-90, but it's all very ... mid-range.  Don't get me wrong, Leica needs to cover this lot, but it would be great to have something just that little bit different - if the wide zoom had been 14-24, rather than 16-35, a nice compact telephoto like a 180/2.8, an 85 macro ...

 

I have no doubt that these new lenses will be fabulous, but Leica is famous for the quality of its lenses, and also, to be honest, making brave lenses like the Noctilux or the 280/4 R.  It would be great if they produced something to lust after.  Maybe the new Summicrons will do the job - while the 50 Summilux-SL seems to produce amazing images, they have been overshadowed somewhat by comments about the AF speed.

 

Zeiss seemed to capture people's imagination with the Otus line of lenses.  For a company that has an enviable reputation for the quality of its lenses and its innovation, Leica needs to do a bit more, I think, than just produce Summicrons in standard focal lengths ...