New Leica SL Lenses & Roadmap!

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The only people other than EP, that I have heard being negative about the 24-90, turn out not to own the lens. Sure there were AF problems in the early days but those are long gone. However I know what Erwin means about the 90-280. It is too big and as a result I rarely use mine. When I do need it, I find I don't have it with me, as it is too heavy to lug around all day for a few shots. I am going to part exchange it for the 16-35 when it finally arrives. I will go back to using my 80-200 Vario Elmar R, which is far more compact and half the weight. 

 

Wilson

[LocalHero1953]

Erwin Puts has an objective style which I suspect masks quite a bit of subjectivity that creeps into his reviews. Fundamentally, I don't think he likes the modern world, including digital. The 90-280SL is so far from his concept of Leica's heartland that I'm not surprised he doesn't like it.

 

I would never carry it around all day either, but for those specific occasions when you want an AF lens with its range and reach I find its performance stunning. I have my own prejudices (I try not to dress them up as objectivity, but we're all human in our failings), but I suggest that a better commentary on the lens would be "not for everyone" rather than "disappointing".

 

Edit. I should add that I enjoy EP's writings but, as with every reviewer, it is worth recognising their particular hang ups.

Edited August 7, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[steppenw0lf]

EP has his merits. I regard his classic books as such.

But lately what he writes is not very deep or well thought out - in my opinion.

So I like to read his reference books (despite some minor errors) and try to avoid his "philosophical" writings.   

Sorry but he is now an old man - not the one I would choose for future strategies. (his heydays are simply over)

 

If you rarely use a lens (big or not), it is simply not such an important lens for you. No need to speculate about its weeknesses - simply return it.

For me the 24-90 is a cripple (it destroys for me the modern impression the SL could make). IQ and AF is excellent, but I have many other ways to get satisfactory IQ. On the other hand the 90-280 is for me the best lens I ever used in this range (and the range is very useful for me). So I can only smile if somebody mentions the weight of the lens. (what a ridiculous viewpoint). This lens really makes sure I will keep the SL for a while (it is the highlight of the SL).

 

So people have different uses for lenses - which makes the lenses by themselves neither better nor worse.

 

For me the SL could be massively improved if they constructed an alternative for the 24-90: A smaller 28-70 or 24-50 or a few primes (which are to be expected any time soon).

Edited August 7, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[darylgo]

This is not exclusive to EP but a whole host of top rate evaluators.....and we are also aging :-)

The Leica Compendium is without equal.  

Edited August 7, 2017 by darylgo

[tritentrue]

Just as I am shaking my head at the notion of "disappointing" as it relates to "size versus performance," I realize that my T 18-56mm is mounted on my SL and that I'm on the road with my T zooms rather than my 24-90.

 

Beginning some years ago, the writings of Mr. Puts were what helped me navigate into the world of the better R-mount lenses and a new world of photographic enjoyment.  That some of his observations may make me uncomfortable about my choices at times does not make them, for my purposes, any less valid.

[Waterden]

The Leica Compendium is indeed a singular resource but, inexplicably, fails to mention details such as dimensions, weight, mfd, filter size or Leica code number for individual lenses. For this, Brian Bowers, despite his brevity and occasional specification mistakes, is preferable. Furthermore, in my opinion, EP's style is ponderous and opaque although I suppose it is rather difficult to differentiate between Leica lenses because almost all are exceptional. So Bowers may be a more valuable resource from that perspective.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Waterden

[Waterden]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just as I am shaking my head at the notion of "disappointing" as it relates to "size versus performance," I realize that my T 18-56mm is mounted on my SL and that I'm on the road with my T zooms rather than my 24-90.[/color.

Would you care to elaborate on your usage of T lenses on the SL? Of course, the image size reduces to APS-C at circa 10.6mp. Do you find this gives satisfactory resolution for printing at, say, A3?

[wlaidlaw]

Would you care to elaborate on your usage of T lenses on the SL? Of course, the image size reduces to APS-C at circa 10.6mp. Do you find this gives satisfactory resolution for printing at, say, A3?

 

I have satisfactorily printed M8 10MP pictures to 24 x 36 using an Epson 7880 and Epson RIP software so the crop image from the SL to A3 should be no problem at all. On the other hand would I lug around my SL to get 10MP crop images? No probably not. If I want a lighter digital outfit, I use a 16MP Olympus EP-5 or Leica C112. 

 

Wilson

[dkCambridgeshire]

The 90-280 is too short for serious safari use, Wilson. Leica needs to release a 1.4x Apoextender SL, and a 2.0x one as well.

 

 

...or, preferably, a 400mm f4 (or thereabout) with APO-extenders. Extenders to the existing 90-280 would be welcome, as well.

 

 

I have a use for an AF super-long SL lens i.e. longer than 400mm. Given Leica's preference in the past for designing 560mm lenses, maybe an AF 560mm f5.6 prime lens could be converted into an AF 800mm and 400mm via a dedicated extender and reducer? Latter would provide a wider aperture 400mm.  The current SL lens  stable and known proposed additions do not cater for FF sports photographers and wildlife photographers basic needs where potential sales exist - and are currently mainly satisfied by e.g. FF Nikon and Canon lenses … and to a lesser extent, the growing Sony offerings … and Pentax offer a FF 560/5.6mm. 

 

I do not fully understand why new lens designs can take so long to come to fruition e.g. years rather than months. And even when prototypes are seen, actual production can be years away. There are likely logistics problems bringing all the 'elements' (in the broadest sense) together but the basic designing may not take long. It's not as if designers are sitting down with logarithmic tables and slide rules … they have all the necessary lens CAD technology at their fingertips. However, lenses for smaller formats seem to be relatively quickly designed and manufactured e.g. the M4/3 PanaLeica 100-400mm and Olympus 300/4 which satisfy a growing wildlife / sports photography demand.  

 

dunk

Edited August 17, 2017 by dkCambridgeshire

[steppenw0lf]

Latest updates on the SL lens website:   http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-SL/SL-Lenses/Prime-Lenses

 

Nice comparison of the new primes to the SL 50. Much smaller, all of the same size (maybe the SL 90 looks 1 mm longer).

With a special Dual Syncro Drive AF  - sounds like the 90-280 lens AF, hopefully also very fast.

Maybe this is the reason it took so long to design them.

SL 75 and SL 90 seem to be "coming soon".

 

And the 16-35 in size comparison - unfortunately put back to April 2018.

 

More info:     leicaSL.com

[wlaidlaw]

Not happy about delay in 16-35 

[thighslapper]

Ditto ... a real bummer . 

[Guest VVJ]

Any update on whether it will have OIS or not?

[steppenw0lf]

16-35 has no OIS.

[wlaidlaw]

16-35 has no OIS.

 

I personally think that is an omission, as it is on the 50 Summilux SL. I would probably have bought that if it had had OIS. I have actually just bought another 50 Summilux, the 1999 special edition Type III in LTM mount, mainly to use on film (Barnacks, M4 and M7). 

 

Wilson

[dkCambridgeshire]

Maybe it's a case of OIS in particular lenses compromising potential performance - especially if Leica Camera AG hopes that a particular lens can offer a benchmark performance without it? 

 

dunk

[geetee1972]

Do you really need stabilisation in an ultra wide angle lens? You could hand hold it at 1/30s and not worry and then for longer landscape exposures you'd be using a tripod anyway.

[thighslapper]

I agree ...... mostly superfluous. With the WATE I can use down to 1/8 sec handheld with consistently good results.... and recent experiments with the electronic shutter suggests this helps a lot as well. 

 

Nice to see the 75+90 appear to have the same 2 motor AF system as the 90-280 ..... which promises very fast performance. 

[LocalHero1953]

If the delay in arrival of these lenses is down to a redesign to give fast AF, then that is better than launching them on schedule with disappointing AF. (Better to have them on time and with fast AF, of course, but we're in the real world here).

 

I'm not sure how much OIS would add to the longer primes either. For human subjects at closer distances I would normally want a fastish shutter speed anyway to control their movement, not mine. It's a trade-off with bulk/price/complexity, and I would be happy with the choice Leica has made. For the zooms, I find myself relying on OIS more for low light bigger scenes and distant telephoto.

Edited August 19, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[wlaidlaw]

Contrast detection must be quite difficult at 16mm, especially when stopped down. Does the algorithm find both ends of contrast deterioration and then set focus to the mid point, like most folk do with MF? 

 

Wilson