Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

 

We have more in common than I thought: my 11-22mm was one of only two lenses that I kept when I sold off the FourThirds SLR kit (the other was the cheap but brilliant 35 Macro, and I kept the E-1 body too). I've used both extensively with the E-M1 since 2013. If I were continuing with mFT, I could work with just those two lenses for a very very long time: they're such good performers and so versatile.

 

The ZD 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 ED was announced on December 11, 2003 and went on sale in February, 2004 ... relatively early in the E-System development. At the time of its announcement, there were four other E-System lenses announced or available:

  • ZUIKO DIGITAL 14-54mm (28-108mm) F2.8~3.5
  • ZUIKO DIGITAL ED50-200mm (100-400mm) F2.8~3.5
  • ZUIKO DIGITAL ED50mm (100mm) F2 Macro
  • ZUIKO DIGITAL ED300mm (600mm) F2.8

My E-1 was manufactured in October 2003, quite early in the E-System history, and is still going strong. :-)

Edited by ramarren
Link to post
Share on other sites

x
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 5 weeks later...

I love my SL.  But, I only use M lenses since the SL lenses are so large.  I wonder if the lenses are designed for a medium format mirrorless camera that we will see in the future?  Anyone know how large the image circle is on the SL lenses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A little off subject, but does the absence of OIS in the lenses imply that the next iteration of SL will have sensor image stabilization?

 No ..... it just means Leica think sub 90mm lenses don't need OIS ..... or the implementation compromises size/optical quality. 

 

Sorry, but I think if Leica have chosen an in-lens OIS pathway then I can't see them changing to in-body halfway .....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the interviews with Leica product executives (most of whom are named Stephan), I got the sense that they were concerned about recovering some of the Leica brand's reputation for smaller, lighter lenses as they release the f/2.0 primes for the SL.  Hence I think IS is unlikely.  If they ever release an SL macro lens, I would love to see that stabilized.  

 

scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

What prices do folks expect the new lenses to come in at?

 

Using B&H as guide the 24-90 is $4,950; the 90-280 $6,395; and 50 lux 5,295.

 

In the m series the 35 and 50 crons are about 60% of the price of the lux equivalents (ignoring the 50 APO - but can we ignore it?) 35mm lens are typically in the order of 30% more expensive than the 50mm equivalents (35 lux is 5k v 3800 for the 50 lux, 35 cron is 3000 vs 2200 for 50 cron)

 

So what might a sl-35 cron cost? using the Sl-50 as a starting point (5,300) and adjusting for the fact they are crons (5300 x .6 = 3180) and that it is a 35 mm (30% premium over the 50) the price might be around 4,150. The m 75 and 90 crons are approx 25% and 33% more expensive than the 35 cron, suggesting SL-75 $5,200 and the Sl-90 $5,500.

 

So my guess

 

Sl-50 5,295

Sl-35 4,200

Sl-75 5,200

Sl-90 5,500

 

Sound reasonable? I'm obviously just guessing and using some dodgy assumptions. But this has me thinking the sl crons won't be much (if at all) cheaper than the SL-50. And all this ignores there is the potential for an equivalent 50 APO premium - given all the talk from Leica that these lenses will set new benchmarks...

 

Not willing to guess the price of the 16-35.

 

Hope this piece of speculation doesn't offend anyone's sensibilities, as it is a bit frivolous and intended as a bit of fun .

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What prices do folks expect the new lenses to come in at?

 

Using B&H as guide the 24-90 is $4,950; the 90-280 $6,395; and 50 lux 5,295.

 

In the m series the 35 and 50 crons are about 60% of the price of the lux equivalents (ignoring the 50 APO - but can we ignore it?) 35mm lens are typically in the order of 30% more expensive than the 50mm equivalents (35 lux is 5k v 3800 for the 50 lux, 35 cron is 3000 vs 2200 for 50 cron)

 

So what might a sl-35 cron cost? using the Sl-50 as a starting point (5,300) and adjusting for the fact they are crons (5300 x .6 = 3180) and that it is a 35 mm (30% premium over the 50) the price might be around 4,150. The m 75 and 90 crons are approx 25% and 33% more expensive than the 35 cron, suggesting SL-75 $5,200 and the Sl-90 $5,500.

 

So my guess

 

Sl-50 5,295

Sl-35 4,200

Sl-75 5,200

Sl-90 5,500

 

Sound reasonable? I'm obviously just guessing and using some dodgy assumptions. But this has me thinking the sl crons won't be much (if at all) cheaper than the SL-50. And all this ignores there is the potential for an equivalent 50 APO premium - given all the talk from Leica that these lenses will set new benchmarks...

 

Not willing to guess the price of the 16-35.

 

Hope this piece of speculation doesn't offend anyone's sensibilities, as it is a bit frivolous and intended as a bit of fun .

Taking the two zooms as starting points the prices should be much lower.

The primes will have only few lenses (optical elements) and accordingy the mechanical build will also be much simpler than the zooms.

For the primes prices around 3000 to 3500 should be more than enough. Compare also to the T prices.

If they are higher, I will definitely not buy primes and live with zooms only - not so bad after all.

And why should  75 or 90 (with their simple constructions) cost 5000 ? (Zeiss offers Oti with extraordinary constructions at that price).

If an ordinary 90 is already 5000 then a macro 100 would cost 8k or 10k - more than the S macro (Btw I wonder what the X1D macro will cost).

 

A different story is the 16-35 . Probably even more effort than the two existing zooms, so I expect a price above them. Maybe 8k ? But 6k (like the 90-280) should be enough.

 

With the prices from above (on the level of S lenses) Leica is in danger of losing the last practitioners. But maybe collectors are a better clientele after all. Alas I do not know many companies (tech companies) that were surviving several years with collector items exclusively (Hassy just made the turn). And I have the impression that the SL is not regarded as a collectable item (at least by the current collectors).

Edited by caissa
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...