New Leica SL Lenses & Roadmap!

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own all available (=3) SL lenses and I am also disappointed about Leicas timing.

The 50 is a great lens but it is as big (bigger) than the equivalent MF lens (70/2.5). IMO the SL system can gain a lot with Summicrons in a good size/speed relation and Leica would be smart to bring some lenses to the market soon.

I also own all three native lenses and similarly would appreciate a more rapid growth of the native system. A teleconverter for the 90-280, a macro, and the announced lenses would make for an even more excellent kit.

 

The SL 50/1.4 is not equivalent to the S 70/2.5 in my opinion. Not in max aperture, not in construction, and not in IQ so it makes sense it would be larger.

[Waterden]

To LD_50

 

I think your points are very well made. However, Summicron primes, even with AF, should be considerably smaller than either the 50 Summilux L or the 24-90 and will be attractive. I am surprised that Leica has opted for a 75 and a 90 because these are very close focal lengths. I would go for one or the other but not both and would instead have welcomed a 35 Summicron L. As for the wide zoom, it’s not for me because that range is for landscape use, where AF is of limited use, and which is well served by existing R lenses, notably the excellent 21-35 and the 28/2.8 v2.

[LD_50]

To LD_50

 

I think your points are very well made. However, Summicron primes, even with AF, should be considerably smaller than either the 50 Summilux L or the 24-90 and will be attractive. I am surprised that Leica has opted for a 75 and a 90 because these are very close focal lengths. I would go for one or the other but not both and would instead have welcomed a 35 Summicron L. As for the wide zoom, it’s not for me because that range is for landscape use, where AF is of limited use, and which is well served by existing R lenses, notably the excellent 21-35 and the 28/2.8 v2.

The Summicrons are quite a bit smaller. Steffen Skopp’s Instagram page shows a few of them in real world shots. https://www.instagram.com/p/BSoDnEoAXvo/

 

I am also on the fence in regard to the 16-35. The not so wide end and overlap with the 24-90 is my concern. I would have preferred a 10-24 f/4 or 14-24 f/4. I enjoyed the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 when I owned it.

[wlaidlaw]

I not only have the SL but also had the two zooms. I have now sold the 90-280 because its bulk and weight made it far from enjoyable for me to use, no matter how good it was. I will stick with the SL to use the stunning 24-90 but I don't now see me buying any more SL/AF lenses. I have plenty of other Leica and Zeiss MF lenses I can use on it. Luckily I failed to sell my 80-200R so I can use that both on the SL and CL. I invested in an R to T adapter, rather than using stacked R to M and M to T adapters, as the R to T provides auto-zoom on focus, which the stacked adapters don't. So far the image quality of the CL has surpassed expectations particularly for high ISO low noise. I rather feel Leica may have shot themselves in their SL foot with the excellent, lighter and cheaper CL, for which I have the 18-56 as part of the kit and 11-23 on order (must chase that up tomorrow, as I want it for a trip in two weeks time). 

 

Wilson

Edited January 1, 2018 by wlaidlaw

[LD_50]

I still see the SL and CL as very much complimentary. The SL is a better match with M and R lenses and the CL offers a lightweight AF option and acts as a nice teleconverter.

[jrp]

 

Well we seem to be a little behind the original roadmap.

[Steve McGarrett]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I not only have the SL but also had the two zooms. I have now sold the 90-280 because its bulk and weight made it far from enjoyable for me to use, no matter how good it was. I will stick with the SL to use the stunning 24-90 but I don't now see me buying any more SL/AF lenses. I have plenty of other Leica and Zeiss MF lenses I can use on it. Luckily I failed to sell my 80-200R so I can use that both on the SL and CL. I invested in an R to T adapter, rather than using stacked R to M and M to T adapters, as the R to T provides auto-zoom on focus, which the stacked adapters don't. So far the image quality of the CL has surpassed expectations particularly for high ISO low noise. I rather feel Leica may have shot themselves in their SL foot with the excellent, lighter and cheaper CL, for which I have the 18-56 as part of the kit and 11-23 on order (must chase that up tomorrow, as I want it for a trip in two weeks time). 

 

Wilson

 

Really? Do you mean that with a R lens (ROM?) turning the focus ring will bring in the magnifier in SL's EVF without tapping any button?

Edited January 1, 2018 by Steve McGarrett

[Timkr]

I sold off my Sony gear for the SL and all 3 native lenses. I am nervous because of the quality, my SL is at Wetzlar now for a sensor issue, as well as the lack of transparency. It’s not clear to me where Leica is going and what the level of commitment is. I’ve invested a lot of money only to have them miss announced releases while coming out with seemingly overlapping gear. In light of the progress Sony has made and the speed in which they’ve made it, makes me wonder about my decision. I think Leica needs to be a lot more transparent and reliable with their roadmap to keep customers loyal.

[LD_50]

A single sensor issue is not a great indicator of quality issues. You'll find that many here have had no issues with the SL system (M and S systems are a different story). I would be upset as well, as I was with an issue with one of my Nikons, so I am not making any excuses for Leica here. 

 

I don't see Leica becoming much more transparent. I have mixed feelings about roadmaps. It's nice to have an idea of what is coming, but the timelines tend to upset people if they are revised. I would very much value some sort of addition to the Leica Blog where a product manager would talk to customers regularly and give and take feedback, even without being able to provide specific timelines or sensitive information. Steffen Skopp sort of has this on Instagram, but without any regular give and take.

 

My experience has been that most of the amateur photographers I know have only a small selection of lenses, but love to talk up the mass availability a given manufacturer provides. Many of the Nikon shooters I know shoot mostly Sigma lenses but still talk up the Nikon super-telephoto primes, having no intention to purchase or even rent them. I guess it's the allusion that many amateurs would have some reason to shoot a large number of lenses in these huge lens ecosystems that is comforting and builds loyalty. I imagine Leica would be in the same situation here. If they announced a lens lineup comparable to Fuji or Sony, but kept price at current levels and availability limited, they may sell some more bodies but the ROI may not be sufficient to account for the huge cost of getting things going. I just don't see them becoming more like these companies and their financial state indicates they are doing okay.

 

Most of the more serious amateurs I know have a select few lenses and buy into a system based upon just those lenses. This has been my model. I shot Canon for a while but really liked the Nikon zoom "holy trinity" (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) as well as preferring Nikon ergonomics so I went that route. Leica announced the SL which allows me to shoot a similar zoom range and my M lenses, with even better UI and ergonomics so I have switched. I only care about a roadmap that offers what I need, and service availability for what I have.

[mmradman]

I sold off my Sony gear for the SL and all 3 native lenses. I am nervous because of the quality, my SL is at Wetzlar now for a sensor issue, as well as the lack of transparency. It’s not clear to me where Leica is going and what the level of commitment is. I’ve invested a lot of money only to have them miss announced releases while coming out with seemingly overlapping gear. In light of the progress Sony has made and the speed in which they’ve made it, makes me wonder about my decision. I think Leica needs to be a lot more transparent and reliable with their roadmap to keep customers loyal.

Leica is about the Leica. We, the customers, send money ;-)

 

You don't say is your camera gear is your working tools to make money or just a hobby, either way it is never good idea to put all eggs in one basket. I couldn't care less if Leica never release another full frame L lens (although i am warming up to an idea of an AF APO Summicron L 75mm) providing camera is supported in the future as i think it is really something special today. I started collecting R lenses (2009) while using non native cameras, and no Sony mirrorless on the horizon, for me M and SL gear came later.

[Guest VVJ]

I rather feel Leica may have shot themselves in their SL foot with the excellent, lighter and cheaper CL, for which I have the 18-56 as part of the kit and 11-23 on order (must chase that up tomorrow, as I want it for a trip in two weeks time). 

 

For me personally not (yet).  The Leica SL together with the 24-90 is an extremely versatile, easy to use and fast combination. 

 

The TL 18-56 is not as good optically, slower, does not have OIS and covers slightly less (focal length wise).

 

If Leica were to release a faster TL 16-56 with OIS then I would pay close attention...

[sillbeers15]

I truly appreciate the AF full frame capability Leica has made available through the SL System. I can also experience the full potential of the SL camera with both Native zooms. I do not acquire the SL50LUX as I’m not much a 50mm user rather preferring the 35mm instead. Despite that, I have found the 24-90VE truly versatile and performs no less than prime only lacking in shallow DOF associated with prime lenses. Yes, I am disappointed with Leica’s slow and missed deadline on releasing the SL70/90mm. However I suspect the delay in releasing new SL lenses has to do with how well the current SL bodied and lenses are selling. I clearly sense many in this forum are non SL native lens users by the fact of the amount of pleasures & pains raised on SL’s AF & SL lenses. Rather after 2 years of SL release, I still complains on weight and size complain of SL lenses. Just go Micro 43s if you desire compactness, go medium format if you desire higher resolution sensor. It just will not happen with compact AF lenses and higher resolution sensor (for now) in the SL system. Rather Leica should provide a solution to wireless trigger for TTL-HSS flash support on SL system if it claims to be a Pro system camera.

[LD_50]

I think Leica has done well to offer a relatively small camera body for full frame lenses with substantial enough grip to handle large lenses. The SL platform is good for high quality and AF with the three native lenses as well as small and compact with M lenses, or midsize with some R lenses.

I don’t see M43 as a reasonable trade off. You can see with the newest Olympus Pro lenses that size comes with IQ even on smaller formats. You also see the body size normalizing to what is reasonable for most adult hands with the Olympus EMii and Panasonic G9.

I think Leica got it right from the beginning, even if it doesn’t lend itself to great marketing. Sony got a lot of great press with the small size of the A7, only for it to grow and grow to where the A9 is now. Fuji gets great press for firmware updates, even though many of the updates make the original offerings simply look immature.

Edited January 2, 2018 by LD_50

[meerec]

I not only have the SL but also had the two zooms. I have now sold the 90-280 because its bulk and weight made it far from enjoyable for me to use, no matter how good it was. I will stick with the SL to use the stunning 24-90 but I don't now see me buying any more SL/AF lenses. I have plenty of other Leica and Zeiss MF lenses I can use on it. Luckily I failed to sell my 80-200R so I can use that both on the SL and CL. I invested in an R to T adapter, rather than using stacked R to M and M to T adapters, as the R to T provides auto-zoom on focus, which the stacked adapters don't. So far the image quality of the CL has surpassed expectations particularly for high ISO low noise. I rather feel Leica may have shot themselves in their SL foot with the excellent, lighter and cheaper CL, for which I have the 18-56 as part of the kit and 11-23 on order (must chase that up tomorrow, as I want it for a trip in two weeks time). 

 

Wilson

 

I own the SL and the CL and the 11-23 zoom. And I’ve used the CL with all tiny M lenses with which it is fabulous.

The 11-23 zoom is too big for me. Sure I will keep it and use it occasionally but the beauty of the CL, to me, is its small size. With the 11-23 zoom it’s not small anymore. The size of the 11-23 is perfect for the SL.

 

As for the SL, the current set of native lenses is too large and bulky, I much prefer to use the M lenses on SL. I do own the 90-280, which I use on the SL and more so now on the CL.

[LD_50]

I own the SL and the CL and the 11-23 zoom. And I’ve used the CL with all tiny M lenses with which it is fabulous.

The 11-23 zoom is too big for me. Sure I will keep it and use it occasionally but the beauty of the CL, to me, is its small size. With the 11-23 zoom it’s not small anymore. The size of the 11-23 is perfect for the SL.

 

As for the SL, the current set of native lenses is too large and bulky, I much prefer to use the M lenses on SL. I do own the 90-280, which I use on the SL and more so now on the CL.

 

The 11-23 is tiny compared to any full frame 16-35 lens available (and about the same size as other variable aperture APSC lenses in this zoom range). You just won't end up with AF lenses of high quality at that size that cover the full frame sensor. It's a standard not met by any manufacturer. 

Edited January 2, 2018 by LD_50

[meerec]

The 11-23 is tiny compared to any full frame 16-35 lens available (and about the same size as other variable aperture APSC lenses in this zoom range). You just won't end up with AF lenses of high quality at that size that cover the full frame sensor. It's a standard not met by any manufacturer.

I’ll upload suitable images of the gear soon to give a perspective on what I mean.

 

To me the 11-23 on CL is “huge”.

 

Yes of course I recall my 16-35 lens on the Canon bodies I used, it was much larger and heavier in comparison.

But the beauty of the CL is its size. For shooting with a WA lens I do need much AF at all. And this lens with its 67mm filter thread is huge on CL.

 

I’m about to go skiing in Switzerland and rather than take the SL, the CL will be my camera to take to the slopes. And I’m really thinking hatd what lens to pair it with. I might take two M primes (like voigtlander 10mm and summarit-M 35) instead of lugging the 11-23 under my skiing jacket. The two primes being 15mm and 50mm equivalents will be so much easier to carry than the 11-23 zoom.

 

Any thoughts?

 

P.S.

images uploaded below ...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by meerec

[LD_50]

I would take a zoom rather than switch lenses in that shooting situation. The 24-90 would be my choice on the SL, though it wouldn’t fit under a jacket.

 

If going under jacket is a requirement I would probably take a single lens and camera- the 35 for a 50 equivalent would work for WA with stitching and a little more reach when needed to reduce potential cropping.

 

A high resolution SL body would make the T lenses much more attractive.

[meerec]

I would take a zoom rather than switch lenses in that shooting situation. The 24-90 would be my choice on the SL, though it wouldn’t fit under a jacket.

 

If going under jacket is a requirement I would probably take a single lens and camera- the 35 for a 50 equivalent would work for WA with stitching and a little more reach when needed to reduce potential cropping.

 

A high resolution SL body would make the T lenses much more attractive.

 

 

 

I've uploaded SL / CL with attached lenses (35lux and 11-23) in my previous post.

 

In my opinion the awaited summicron-SL 75 and 90 will be the size of the 11-23. And will fit the SL well, better than the big 24-90 zoom.

 

For skiing, I'm thinking of taking the CL body with the voigtlander 10mm, Leica-M 24/3.8 and Leica-M 35/2.4 as a set of lenses I can easily carry in my jacket (equivalent of 16mm, 36mm and 52mm)

[graphlex]

Is the EVF bright enough so that you could see through ski goggles? The old EVF-2 isn’t, which slows you down.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[meerec]

Is the EVF bright enough so that you could see through ski goggles? The old EVF-2 isn’t, which slows you down.

It is bright enough, for me.