New Leica SL Lenses & Roadmap!

[Bohns]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No there literally aren't. There is only a single wide angle zoom which will be fully functional with AF on the SL and that is the 16-35 Vario Elmar. It has had its release delayed twice from early autumn this year to year end and then to spring next year.

 

My Canon EF 16-35 L f4 works flawlessly on my SL, with the Novoflex adapter. Indeed no IS, but - frankly - I never activated IS on this lense, even on my Canon bodies. And it is even easier with the very soft shutter of the SL.

[Advertisement]

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

[geetee1972]

No there literally aren't. There is only a single wide angle zoom which will be fully functional with AF on the SL and that is the 16-35 Vario Elmar. It has had its release delayed twice from early autumn this year to year end and then to spring next year. 

 

Well your statement is obviously completely true. But how much of an issue that really is for you depends I guess on how much of a limitation no having AF presents. Your hyperfocal at 18mm and f/8 is 2m, what exactly does the AF do that manual focusing can't? Being honest I don't work at these wide anlges or shoot landscape so perhaps I am missing something about the usefulness of AF in this workflow?

 

 

The point is that Leica should start delivering what they promised their customer base.

 

Well yes, I suppose so but then if they don't what are you going to do? I mean Leica will understand the business risks associated with their customers feeling let down, but at the same time, they can only do what they can do and there's a much bigger risk associated with rushing to market with a lens that isn't fully resolved and has subsequent issues.

 

Leica is a tiny company, its R&D and manufacturing resources are hugely compromised compared to say Canon, Nikon or Sony. This is always true of niche companies operating in otherwise scale economy industries; the other guys will always be able to beat you in a straight product race because they have way more R&D  muscle and can move far quicker from prototype to large volume manufacturing and distribution. So you have to find another way of competing that subverts those things. Leica's biggest single competitive advantage in the mirrorless camera market has to be its existing line of M lenses. If you've bought into the SL because of the promise of Canoikon like lens performance (AF, OIS, weather sealing etc), then be prepared to wait indefinitely.

[thighslapper]

Anyone that enters the world of Leica has to become accustomed to the slow pace of development, firmware updates, repairs/servicing, delays and lack of information on product release. 

 

Quality tends to override all other considerations at Wetzlar ..... and if it takes time and ends up having an eye watering price tag, then that's how it will be.  

 

They get there in the end and the results are usually worth waiting for.  Plenty of other stuff to buy if you are in a hurry .... you can use almost anything on the SL. 

[Leicaiste]

Maybe the delays come from the fact that the two Vario’s with state of the art AF were designed with Panasonic, and the 35/50/75/90 are not ?

[Leicaiste]

I hope the CL has been designed with Panasonic help and includes IBIS.

[Jeff S]

I thought Leica released a statement in April 2017 regarding AF motor issues with the S lenses.

 

“In some cases, a defect may appear in the autofocus drive unit of Leica S-Lenses...”

Exactly. Never any specifics about which lenses, under what conditions, and what specifically was done to fix it. This was compounded by the fact that there was no avenue until recently for preemptive repair, and that's only at customer cost. And free repairs were given a 5 year time limit, to the dismay of owners with older lenses subject to recent failure. For US customers, 6+ month delays were not uncommon.

 

Jeff

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica's biggest single competitive advantage in the mirrorless camera market has to be its existing line of M lenses.

 

No, it's actually their kick @ss native SL lenses of which there will be a lot more a couple of years from now. See the difference in rendering between Canon 5DS R+Otus 55 and SL+Summilux-SL here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9J3jzS/

 

If you've bought into the SL because of the promise of Canoikon like lens performance (AF, OIS, weather sealing etc), then be prepared to wait indefinitely.

One should avoid absolutes like 'never' and 'indefinitely' in an argument. It makes a point come across more emotionally and therefore less credibly. 

[geetee1972]

 

No, it's actually their kick @ss native SL lenses

 

Canon and Nikon and to some degree Sony all have fast high quality AF lenses that rival the optical performance of the Leica SL lenses. Maybe, just maybe the IQ that the SL lenses produces is fractionally better but we're talking the smallest of margins; it's not the clear performance gap that you build competitive advantage on, that's just a 'me too' product and you gallery comparisson proves that. There's barely any difference between those images. 

 

In order for something to be a true competitive advantage it needs to be something that no one else has, I mean, genuinely different not just something that some people think exists and others can't see. The M lenses are brilliant AND small AND mechanical and there is nothing like them. I'm not suggesting everyone should use them or that there's not point for the SL lenses because clearly there is, they just don't represent competitive advantage.

 

Of course you can also use M lenses on other mirrorless cameras but the SL has the advantage of being more or less native in their compatibiity.

[Chaemono]

Oh, and by the way, it took only a fraction of a second to get those SL pictures because of pinpoint accurate AF. And I didn't have to worry about the weather because of state of the art weather sealing. 

[geetee1972]

 

Oh, and by the way, it took only a fraction of a second to get those SL pictures because of pinpoint accurate AF

 

Then you didn't waste much of your life then.

[Chaemono]

Of course, not. I live nearby where Leica is based. Anything that makes people buy their products over something "Made in Japan" is good for the local economy. It maintains one more job here. It feeds one more family. But I did notice that you've been waisting a lot of your time on this forum with statements like the one below. 

 

geetee1972

Erfahrener Benutzer

• 
• Members
• 495 posts

• LocationHorsham, West Sussex

Posted 14 June 2017 - 17:16

LD_50, on 14 Jun 2017 - 16:13, said:

Price of a good rarely is going to be "justified" by some level of performance.

Certainly we would like some sort of linear relationship between performance and price (for those who can afford higher priced goods) but it just doesn't work that way.

 

...The 50SL is over priced, plain and simple and the only reason people are prepared to pay the premium being charged is because they want the Leica brand name on an AF fast 50. Fair enough really, it doesn't bother me whether they chose to buy it or not.

 

...It's just not that good, indeed it's a lot like the Zeiss Otus, excellent on graphs and charts and crap everywhere else.

 

[sillbeers15]

Canon and Nikon and to some degree Sony all have fast high quality AF lenses that rival the optical performance of the Leica SL lenses. Maybe, just maybe the IQ that the SL lenses produces is fractionally better but we're talking the smallest of margins; it's not the clear performance gap that you build competitive advantage on, that's just a 'me too' product and you gallery comparisson proves that. There's barely any difference between those images.

 

In order for something to be a true competitive advantage it needs to be something that no one else has, I mean, genuinely different not just something that some people think exists and others can't see. The M lenses are brilliant AND small AND mechanical and there is nothing like them. I'm not suggesting everyone should use them or that there's not point for the SL lenses because clearly there is, they just don't represent competitive advantage.

 

Of course you can also use M lenses on other mirrorless cameras but the SL has the advantage of being more or less native in their compatibiity.

No offense to you but that is all the case true in product differentiation. It is the 80/20 rule, one would pay for 80% more to achieve 20% differentiation as most products are priced. If it were 20% more in price for 80% difference than there would be a long que for it and at such short lived.

[caissa]

I don't know if folks have seen the lens plan announced by Hasselblad yesterday for the X1D. This impressive lens plan of nine lenses by the end of 2018, if adhered to, rather puts Leica's glacially slow progress with SL lenses in the shade. So far, two years after the release of the SL, we only have two additional lenses (the 90-280 and the 50mm prime). Further lenses have been announced but are not available as yet and projected release has been put back. I am unimpressed I will not have the wide zoom for my winter trip to the Caribbean early next year. I am not going to buy third party lenses with "iffy" adapters, which sometimes work and sometimes don't and the WATE is too narrow range. 

 

Wilson

 

The disappointment is great, that there are no new lenses - especially as Xmas is approaching.

But with 24-280 and "stitching" a lot can be achieved. Or with the WATE. (Or a Canon 11-24 or 16-35).

In a way Leica helps us to save money - though I expect other reasons to be the real cause of this delay.

 

The 11-24 is one of Canons most expensive lenses - so I expect the SL 16-35 to be also in a range above the current lenses. Not clear if it is worth the price (depends how often it is used - which is rather rarely for me).

 

Regarding fulfillment of announcements currently Fuji looks very promising (since several years). So if this is the main concern, then maybe Fuji is the way to go. But for me the SL is much closer to my wishes than any of the current Fuji cameras. So no option for me.

And as said Hasselblad has made a nice announcement (not for the first time). Unfortunately it is not very specific - and also offers nothing (or maybe the macro ?) for this Xmas.

But I think with 24-280 and WATE and help from others I can achieve more than with the X1D plus its 4 (or future 9) lenses.

 

So I'm not totally happy, but also not really in an emergency situation. Wasn't it often like that as a Leica customer ?

[LocalHero1953]

Indeed. In fact, when you come to think of it, Leica's inability to help us spend thousands of pounds is truly shocking...........

[Vieri]

Just a note, for those praising Hasselblad's roadmap. The 22mm that was announced previously became now a 21mm, which tells me that the lens doesn't exist at all, yet, and it's still in the design stage; the 80mm will have "the largest aperture of any Hassy 80mm", but we have no numbers for such aperture, which tells me that it doesn't exist at all, yet, and it's in the design stage as well. I seriously doubt they will be able to keep their 2018 delivery dates for lenses that are, again, still in the design stage... 2018 is in a couple of months now, and designing / testing / manufacturing a lens takes more than a couple of days.

 

Leica has been slow releasing the Summicron-SL and the 16-35mm, that is very true, but at least we know that these lenses exist, physically, and are now being fine-tuned: in my book, that is better than having a roadmap that is clearly in the realm of fantasy.

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

Edited November 6, 2017 by Vieri

[geetee1972]

No offense to you but that is all the case true in product differentiation. It is the 80/20 rule, one would pay for 80% more to achieve 20% differentiation as most products are priced. If it were 20% more in price for 80% difference than there would be a long que for it and at such short lived.

No offence taken.

 

I agree with your point entirely but I think it's a different point to the one I was making.

 

In the context of lenses, until recently only three companies made small, low element count manual focus lenses (Zeiss, Voigtlander and Leica) and even though there are now several other new competitors doing this, most of these lenses are still for the M mount. There are some creeping in now for the Sony E-Mount and Voigtlander even makes a wonderful 40mm lens for Canon and Nikon mount that is small and manual focus. But predominantly, Leica can claim to have a competitive advantage when the buying criteria for the customer is a 'small, low element, manual focus lens'.

 

This doesn't mean these lenses are better (though I think they are), just that the criteria they offer isn't provided by anyone else. This is what gives them a competitive advantage, at least until there are more of these lenses being made for other camera mounts and systems.

[jaapv]

No there literally aren't. There is only a single wide angle zoom which will be fully functional with AF on the SL and that is the 16-35 Vario Elmar. It has had its release delayed twice from early autumn this year to year end and then to spring next year. 

But Wilson, if you have the 24-90, where does the WATE fall short in range? AF is not very important on such wide angles either.

[Andrew Gough]

Canon and Nikon and to some degree Sony all have fast high quality AF lenses that rival the optical performance of the Leica SL lenses. Maybe, just maybe the IQ that the SL lenses produces is fractionally better but we're talking the smallest of margins; it's not the clear performance gap that you build competitive advantage on, that's just a 'me too' product and you gallery comparisson proves that. There's barely any difference between those images. 

 

In order for something to be a true competitive advantage it needs to be something that no one else has, I mean, genuinely different not just something that some people think exists and others can't see. The M lenses are brilliant AND small AND mechanical and there is nothing like them. I'm not suggesting everyone should use them or that there's not point for the SL lenses because clearly there is, they just don't represent competitive advantage.

 

Of course you can also use M lenses on other mirrorless cameras but the SL has the advantage of being more or less native in their compatibiity.

 

 

No they don't, and yes, I do have the other brands. The point that you are missing is that Sony, Canon and Nikon lenses are usually designed to the megapixel (MP) limit of the flagship sensor at the time, which is currently 45-50MP.  I have bought Canon 17/16-35mm zoom though 4 generations now, same with the 24-70mm. The Japanese brands are having to move up lens pricing, because, producing higher resolution lenses is a lot harder, with a greater number of returns and lower volume. The minute that they come out with a new higher MP sensor, it becomes obvious that their lenses are resolution limited and conveniently a new round of lens buying begins.

 

Leica does not do this, their lenses are designed to be at the maximum resolution possible with current technology, and maintain the Leica look. The SL system is resolution constrained at 24MP and this is what you are seeing. Rest assured, when Leica announces a new SL at 36-48MP, your Leica lenses will still perform equally well on the new sensor.

 

In some ways, Leica is cheaper to own than the other brands, as lens repurchasing is not required. Depreciation on Canon and Sony lenses thru repeated buying cycles is real cost to photographers today - one that is often ignored. Yes, Camera bodies do depreciate, and 20 years of buying digital/film bodies has taught me that there is really little difference between brands when it comes to depreciation. Longer refresh cycles are better, as it allows for greater monetization of the said depreciation.

 

Lastly, there is the joy of using a product that is simply the best in class. Better feel, reliability, and yes a unique look. This is why Leica lenses, Otus's and brands like Hassleblad still exist.

 

Andrew

Edited November 6, 2017 by Andrew Gough

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LD_50]

I have had no resale depreciation issues with all the Nikon lenses I owned. 17-55, 18-200, 14-24, 24-70 (2 of them), 70-200 (2 of them), 200 f2, 50 f1.4, 58 f1.4, 105 Macro.

 

When you buy the better Nikon (or Canon) lenses, the resale value is fine. While I don’t think the comparable lenses were as good as my Leicas, the cost of ownership is certainly higher with Leica. Nikon 24-70 is worse than the SL 24-90, 70-200 wasn’t as good as the SL 90-280, 50 and 58 Nikons are not as good as the Summilux M or Summilux-SL though the 58 is more of a “character” lens than either seems to be.

 

After picking up the 90-280 and 50 for the SL I’m pretty happy with the three lens kit (in combination with MP240, M 35 and 50 Summiluxes). I’m waiting on a Marumi +5 macro filter that should leave me with a pretty solid kit that doesn’t leave me wanting for much when compared to the old Nikon kit.

[geetee1972]

No they don't, and yes, I do have the other brands. The point that you are missing is that Sony, Canon and Nikon lenses are usually designed to the megapixel (MP) limit of the flagship sensor at the time, which is currently 45-50MP.  I have bought Canon 17/16-35mm zoom though 4 generations now, same with the 24-70mm. The Japanese brands are having to move up lens pricing, because, producing higher resolution lenses is a lot harder, with a greater number of returns and lower volume. The minute that they come out with a new higher MP sensor, it becomes obvious that their lenses are resolution limited and conveniently a new round of lens buying begins.

 

Leica does not do this, their lenses are designed to be at the maximum resolution possible with current technology, and maintain the Leica look. The SL system is resolution constrained at 24MP and this is what you are seeing. Rest assured, when Leica announces a new SL at 36-48MP, your Leica lenses will still perform equally well on the new sensor.

 

In some ways, Leica is cheaper to own than the other brands, as lens repurchasing is not required. Depreciation on Canon and Sony lenses thru repeated buying cycles is real cost to photographers today - one that is often ignored. Yes, Camera bodies do depreciate, and 20 years of buying digital/film bodies has taught me that there is really little difference between brands when it comes to depreciation. Longer refresh cycles are better, as it allows for greater monetization of the said depreciation.

 

Lastly, there is the joy of using a product that is simply the best in class. Better feel, reliability, and yes a unique look. This is why Leica lenses, Otus's and brands like Hassleblad still exist.

 

Andrew

 

So what you're saying is that any new lens Leica releases will be future proof. But then so will any new lens that Canon, Nikon or Sony launch (and indeed Sony are marketing their G-Master lenses in exactly this way).

 

It doesn't matter anyway because while I agree with everything you've said, none it meets the textbook definition of 'competitive advantage'; the strategy of launching future proof lenses is something everyone will be doing. Leica's existing SL lenses will do this but that's only because they're brand new.

 

For it to be true 'competitive advantage' it has to be something that either other companies cannot do (because they don't have the technical know how) or don't want to do (because you've got the market cornered and they don't want to compete). Nothing Leica is doing with the SL lenses meet that criteria but the M lenses do.