New Leica SL Lenses & Roadmap!

[phovsho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Carissa

 

My quesstimate prices are based off the relative prices of the M primes, using the SL-50 pricing as the starting point.

 

The SL-50 is $5,300. The M 50 lux is $3,800, so on the face of it SL lenses are going to significantly more expensive than their M equivalents. Crons are cheaper than luxes (exception the M 50 APO), and M 35s, 75s and 90s are more expensive than the equivalent M 50s. My pricing is derived from looking at these relativities - which may or may not hold in practice.

 

Best

 

M

[caissa]

What about size and weight of the new lenses. Any guess?

 

You have certainly seen the pics on the Leica site. With this a rough guess is easy: (weight is not guessable)

Summicrons     (67mm filter)        72mm wide,    110mm long,    (smaller volume, so 400-800g )

16-35       (82mm filter)                 88mm wide,    130mm long,    (700-1100g )

Wonder how close this is to reality ... 

Edited March 8, 2017 by caissa

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest VVJ]

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.

Unfortunately I believe the estimates from phovsho are probably more realistic... The latest 2 TL lenses already costed $2,395 respectively $2,995... I hope I am wrong though...

[phovsho]

As another reference point, the S series lenses appear to typically be in the $7-9,000 range - often for lenses which are slower than Summacrons. I don't know much at all about the s line, so this is just eyeballing B and H prices. However, late 4s to low/mid 5 k for an SL cron seems about right - somewhere between M and S series, closer to the M pricing. Doesn't make it any more palatable - start saving now

[Joshua Lowe]

My guess:

$4,000 for the 35

$5,000 for the 75

$5,300 for the 90

 

They better be utterly brilliant for me to choose them over their M equivalents.

[thighslapper]

My guess:

 

$4,000 for the 35

$5,000 for the 75

$5,300 for the 90

 

They better be utterly brilliant for me to choose them over their M equivalents.

 therein lies the problem for Leica - in making a mirrorless camera that makes using M lenses a doddle ..... and zoom lenses that are as good as primes .......

 

they will have to really be something special ....

[ferdinand]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My guess:

 

$4,000 for the 35

$5,000 for the 75

$5,300 for the 90

 

They better be utterly brilliant for me to choose them over their M equivalents.

 

I'm just looking for the status of the moon in Wetzlar .... that's a main factor for prizing

[phovsho]

Joshua

We are within a few hundred dollars of each other. Converging on a ball park. Still hoping to be pleasantly surprised. Fingers crossed they are stunning. I'm confident they will be. Leica are onto something with the SL, and I say that as a M user they most of my life.

M

[Joshua Lowe]

 therein lies the problem for Leica - in making a mirrorless camera that makes using M lenses a doddle ..... and zoom lenses that are as good as primes .......

 

they will have to really be something special ....

 

I think I would buy the 35 Cron-SL if the AF is quick and if it has better resolution across the frame than the M.  It's going to be relatively light, etc.

 

Buying the 75/90 SL vs the M lenses is a tougher sell for me.  I wish the 90 SL was going to be a macro.

[phovsho]

Joshua

 

Out of interest, did you buy the Sl-50?

 

I'm really struggling with how to think about the next SL releases. I have the M 35/1.4 FLE. I also have the M 90/2 Apo and 75/lux. So I have existing M lenses in all cases.

 

My style of shooting is dominated by 21/1.4, 35/1.4 and nocti - fast lenses and at the wider end of things. Moreover, I have both SL and M bodies. The SL comes into its own for the larger lens (balanced in the hand) and where rangefinder focusing and composition are a challenge - 21/1.4, nocti and 75/1.4, 90/2.

 

The SL-90 is a lens I could see myself enjoying a lot on the SL, but this focal length probably accounts for 1% of my shooting. Similar story with the 75.

 

35mm probably accounts for 30% of my photography - so the SL-35 should be attractive. But it's a focal length which is right in the M's sweet spot.

 

The comfort I take from all of this is these are all very nice "problems" to have.

 

M

[caissa]

News about the SL sensor are scarce. And most of them already several months old.

As I find no appropriate place, I put it here (news and roadmap about SL)

 

The sensor has been measured in detail and it was found that it uses dual conversion gain. So what ?

Simpler said it means that the sensor has two base ISOs. (remember the discussion a year ago ?)

The usual conversion starts at ISO 50, the high conversion gain starts at ISO 200 (which is lower than for many other sensors).

 

More about this in dpreview:    https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4124741

and at PhotonsToPhotos:    http://www.PhotonsToPhotos.net/

 

Not too important, but nice to know that ISO50 as well as ISO200 are "base" (no pull or push)

 

In DPR there follows a discussion how to make good use of the findings, e.g. for longtime exposures.

An interesting conclusion (no details here how it was derived) was that a 1 min exposure at ISO 800 should produce a better result (less thermal noise) than a 8 min exposure at ISO 100. So using lower ISOs would tend to emphasize thermal noise (contrary to what most might think). 

Edited March 10, 2017 by caissa

[LocalHero1953]

I think I would buy the 35 Cron-SL if the AF is quick and if it has better resolution across the frame than the M.  It's going to be relatively light, etc.

 

Buying the 75/90 SL vs the M lenses is a tougher sell for me.  I wish the 90 SL was going to be a macro.

I have the Apo Summicron-M 90 and I can see the advantage of the SL version for portraiture: a movable focus point and AF vs central focus patch and MF would be enough for me to swap, if the AF is quick enough. I can focus the 90 accurately on the M, but not having to focus and recompose would be really attractive.

[Leicaiste]

I am also waiting for report about the AF of the SL 75/90 Summicron's on the SL before ordering one of them.

 

If AF is like with the SL 50 Summilux, no way.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I recently got the 90-280 and take it on city walks, sometimes with a monopod.  If I went further I would use a backpack.  I carry it by the lens, often with two hands.  Shoot handheld for the most part, so far.  The 24-90 hasn't tempted me very strongly, as there are excellent R and M lenses throughout its range of focal lengths and I prefer to see with a prime's fixed field of view.  The 16-35 does interest me, although I am hoping that it comes in smaller than the 24-90 and focuses fast.  In the 21-35 part of its range, that is important.  In the WATE range (16-21), shooting with prefocus is probably pretty accurate.

 

scott

[Joshua Lowe]

Joshua

 

Out of interest, did you buy the Sl-50?

 

I'm really struggling with how to think about the next SL releases. I have the M 35/1.4 FLE. I also have the M 90/2 Apo and 75/lux. So I have existing M lenses in all cases.

 

My style of shooting is dominated by 21/1.4, 35/1.4 and nocti - fast lenses and at the wider end of things. Moreover, I have both SL and M bodies. The SL comes into its own for the larger lens (balanced in the hand) and where rangefinder focusing and composition are a challenge - 21/1.4, nocti and 75/1.4, 90/2.

 

The SL-90 is a lens I could see myself enjoying a lot on the SL, but this focal length probably accounts for 1% of my shooting. Similar story with the 75.

 

35mm probably accounts for 30% of my photography - so the SL-35 should be attractive. But it's a focal length which is right in the M's sweet spot.

 

The comfort I take from all of this is these are all very nice "problems" to have.

 

M

 

No, I didn't buy the SL 50.  The size, weight, and slow AF ruled it out for me.  Plus, I already have the APO 50.  And I'm not really shooting much at 50mm any more.  The 24-90 performs pretty well at 50mm so I'm not likely to keep the APO, either... though I'm having a hard time letting it go.

[IkarusJohn]

Joshua

Out of interest, did you buy the Sl-50?

I'm really struggling with how to think about the next SL releases. I have the M 35/1.4 FLE. I also have the M 90/2 Apo and 75/lux. So I have existing M lenses in all cases.

My style of shooting is dominated by 21/1.4, 35/1.4 and nocti - fast lenses and at the wider end of things. Moreover, I have both SL and M bodies. The SL comes into its own for the larger lens (balanced in the hand) and where rangefinder focusing and composition are a challenge - 21/1.4, nocti and 75/1.4, 90/2.

The SL-90 is a lens I could see myself enjoying a lot on the SL, but this focal length probably accounts for 1% of my shooting. Similar story with the 75.

35mm probably accounts for 30% of my photography - so the SL-35 should be attractive. But it's a focal length which is right in the M's sweet spot.

The comfort I take from all of this is these are all very nice "problems" to have.

M

I'm in a very similar position.

 

I have the two zooms, so everything from 24-280 covered, which is enough for me. So, why would I need to duplicate anything in that focal length? Size, primarily. Even the 24-90 is large, and swinging that around in a social environment can be intimidating. Also, I like primes it has to be said.

 

When I need smaller primes, I have 21-28-50-75 Summiluxes and the Noctilux, which shines on the SL. While the new SL Summicrons might appeal, I don't see they add anything by AF which, frankly, I struggle with (see my post on the SL 50 Summilux thread). The problem with fast or long AF lenses is the depth of field is so thin, good manual adjustment becomes essential. It's all very well offering AF, but the manual focus of all lenses should still be fast, direct and superlative.

 

The SL is my only colour digital camera, so I can see the benefit of adding a couple of good SL primes (provided the AF/MF implementation works a lot better than on the two zooms) - a super-wide (16mm?), a fast macro (somewhere between 80mm and 100mm?) and a compact AF Elmarit f/2.8 180mm or Summicron f/2? (just selling my R mount Elmarit and 2x Extender).

 

I see no real attraction in the 35-75-90 Summicrons in the timeline as I have that well covered in M primes. I will be holding out for primes which add functionality to what I have. For those who don't have M primes, or who have got out of the M system, these lenses will be good options, I'm sure. f/2 is plenty fast enough, and removing that stop makes it easier for Leica to provide a superlative set of lenses. Something in the 21-28 range would also have been logical; perhaps they come next?

Edited March 10, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[Guest VVJ]

Something in the 21-28 range would also have been logical; perhaps they come next?

 

An update of the roadmap would not be an unreasonable request IMHO...

[IkarusJohn]

Having a roadmap at all is a novelty for Leica - I suspect it is to reassure new Leica buyers that further lenses will be coming and when (theoretically). With 4 lenses still to come, I wouldn't expect an upgrade any time soon.

 

Perhaps once the Summicrons have been released, we will see additions.

[phovsho]

I do worry for the viability of the SL platform if the lenses don't sell well.

 

I had pretty much decided to buy the SL-50 over the last few days. At brunch today my wife took her m10 with 35/2. I had SL with 24-90. My camera looked and felt so ridiculously large compared to the m10. I can rationalise this difference with a zoom (and the SL is fine size/weight wise with M lenses) but having a system of similar size and just a 50 mm prime? I'm not sure.

 

So I find myself dwelling on the 50 APO again...

 

So want the SL system to be a success but the lenses choices and characteristics are a psychological barrier for me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The problem for me is (and I admit, for probably no one else) that I already have these focal lengths with AF on my SL. I have the S lenses. Yes bigger. Yes half a stop slower. But stunning optically and they all focus faster on the SL than the native 50 'lux. All I need is the S 100mm f2, which I will get soon. So for now I have optically brilliant 35, 50 (SL), 70 and 120mm (macro) lenses. It's actually going to be really hard for Leica to sell me these new lenses. Maybe they'll be smaller/lighter but the only time I'll care is if I'm travelling and are they that much better than the zoom at f8? Or than the M primes for when I need light weight?

 

But I want them to be spectacular. I want the SL system to grow and prosper. And the only real way to justify the high entrance price is to consistently make the best 35mm AF lenses for any system. The current ones are and if Leica has a system with a dozen of the best AF lenses made then it becomes harder to argue that the system isn't desirable.

 

Gordon