phovsho Posted March 10, 2017 Share #121 Posted March 10, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hey Gordon So the S lenses have faster AF than the SL-50 on the SL? You may have just saved me a lot of money! I think I'm just going to breath out, relax and enjoy my SL with native zoom and M lenses. Wait for the next wave of native lenses Murray. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 Hi phovsho, Take a look here New Leica SL Lenses & Roadmap!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
FlashGordonPhotography Posted March 10, 2017 Share #122 Posted March 10, 2017 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. A completely reasonable argument. I don't use the SL as a daily carry for the same reasons. OTOH my MATE is collecting dust as when I need flexibility I take the SL (or an Olympus). The M may be better for you. Or do you crave AF? There's some insane deals going on the T at the moment. Same as the TL just with less buffer and less expensive. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted March 10, 2017 Share #123 Posted March 10, 2017 Hey Gordon So the S lenses have faster AF than the SL-50 on the SL? You may have just saved me a lot of money! I think I'm just going to breath out, relax and enjoy my SL with native zoom and M lenses. Wait for the next wave of native lenses Murray. Not much but yes. And they're really quite brilliant on the SL, optically. If you're anywhere near a Leica store they should have an adaptor for you to try. Do you have S lenses? Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phovsho Posted March 10, 2017 Share #124 Posted March 10, 2017 Hey Gordon So the S lenses have faster AF than the SL-50 on the SL? You may have just saved me a lot of money! I think I'm just going to breath out, relax and enjoy my SL with native zoom and M lenses. Wait for the next wave of native lenses Murray. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 10, 2017 Share #125 Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) The SL 90-280 is for me the highlight of the SL. If the 75mm and the 90mm are similar in optical performance and AF speed, then they will be fantastic lenses. If not I will stick with the zoom. The SL 16-35 will also be a great lens (I hope still affordable). But I agree that adding a 35mm as a next step is not very useful regarding the wide selection of famous M lenses. A Summicron 24 or 28 would have been a much cleverer choice. 28mm is great in M lenses, but 24 and 28 are rather neglected in the R range. I think that the SL 50 is now - with the feedback of many users - clearly marked as a partial success. Optically amazing, but a burden regarding its AF capabilities (maybe also size). I hope Leica learns from that and avoids any more "reference" lenses at all cost. Leica could fix this with adding a "normal" lens e.g. a 2.0/50mm macro, or 2.8/60mm macro with a faster AF. I also hope Leica will fill in more of the "standard icons" in the roadmap. This would help to widen confidence in the SL system. And would not cost anything. Edited March 10, 2017 by caissa 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted March 10, 2017 Share #126 Posted March 10, 2017 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 Gordon, The S system has some of the best lenses but saying that the S system has prospered would probably be stretching it a bit... I believe you need the best lenses but you also need cheap lenses, you need lightweight lenses and you need specialty lenses over time. We all know that cheap lenses are unlikely to come from Leica so for the SL to prosper it is IMO essential that we over time also get lenses from suppliers like Zeiss and others. I might need to give that adapter a try. I also own the 35mm and the 70mm. It remains a shame that the damned thing does not allow stacking though... Joris. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phovsho Posted March 10, 2017 Share #127 Posted March 10, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sorry for the double up post above. Gordon I have SL and M system - but only monochrom body at this time. No S lenses. I use the SL as a walk around when shooting M 21/1.4, nocti and 75/1.4 and 90/2. Plus I like the zoom 24-90 if going out with nothing in particular in mind. I also like the outdoors - fly fishing etc - and a weatherproof zoom is nice in that situation, despite the size. I'm now finding I use the sl with my m 35/1.4. Maybe because the SL is colour and I'm going through a colour patch. That said, using my wife's M10 today was nice. The viewfinder is a big step up. I had thought the SL-50 was a no brainer - if it showed M 50 APO optical performance - so I'm surprised by the Luke warm sentiment towards the AF. Now I'm thinking I might be better off just enjoying what I have. Maybe get the M50 APO. Best thing Leica could do from my perspective is to do a firmaware update so that the focus peak for M lenses doesn't revert to the centre. Probably a greater benefit for me than the new lens - maybe that's the reason why they haven't done it! Lol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phovsho Posted March 11, 2017 Share #128 Posted March 11, 2017 The SL 90-280 is for me the highlight of the SL. If the 75mm and the 90mm are similar in optical performance and AF speed, then they will be fantastic lenses. If not I will stick with the zoom. The SL 16-35 will also be a great lens (I hope still affordable). But I agree that adding a 35mm as a next step is not very useful regarding the wide selection of famous M lenses. A Summicron 24 or 28 would have been a much cleverer choice. 28mm is great in M lenses, but 24 and 28 are rather neglected in the R range. I think that the SL 50 is now - with the feedback of many users - clearly marked as a partial success. Optically amazing, but a burden regarding its AF capabilities (maybe also size). I hope Leica learns from that and avoids any more "reference" lenses at all cost. Leica could fix this with adding a "normal" lens e.g. a 2.0/50mm macro, or 2.8/60mm macro with a faster AF. I also hope Leica will fill in more of the "standard icons" in the roadmap. This would help to widen confidence in the SL system. And would not cost anything. Yes, the SL works best for me where the M's optical viewfinder struggles. As someone who wears glasses, I find anything at or below 28mm to be a struggle on the M. Similarly, I prefer anything 75mm+ easier on the SL. The big fast lenses balance better on the SL - 21.1.4, nocti etc and the focus assistance is great. So i agree a 24 mm or 28 mm would have me interested (and a fast 21mm even mores - but just how big would a 21-Sl lux be?) M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 11, 2017 Share #129 Posted March 11, 2017 While the 24-90 zoom is fantastic, I think many overlook just how well the "larger" fast M lenses handle and work on the SL. The user interface is really very good, and the results outstanding. I'm not really sure I see the need for another colour M camera - the Monochrom and M-A provide enough of a difference, and I don't see a colour M really offering me anything the SL doesn't do better. As mentioned above, I'm not sure that AF adds much for fast primes. Macro, mid/short tele and wides arre really all I would add. I'm waiting for the 28 Summaron-M (couldn't resist), and I may look at the 16-35 wide as an alternative to a wide prime. Ultra-wide zooms are amazing, when they get them right ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted March 11, 2017 Share #130 Posted March 11, 2017 Gordon, The S system has some of the best lenses but saying that the S system has prospered would probably be stretching it a bit... I believe you need the best lenses but you also need cheap lenses, you need lightweight lenses and you need specialty lenses over time. We all know that cheap lenses are unlikely to come from Leica so for the SL to prosper it is IMO essential that we over time also get lenses from suppliers like Zeiss and others. I might need to give that adapter a try. I also own the 35mm and the 70mm. It remains a shame that the damned thing does not allow stacking though... Joris. Did I say the S system has prospered?? It could. They just ned a mirrorless 50MP camera to go with those lenses. An SL or steroids would be just about perfect. There are a bunch of systems out there with cheap lenses. With small lenses. With light lenses. What there isn't is an AF 35mm system where every lens is the best in class. Currently the SL is the closest. The weakest lens is the 24-90 and that's probably as good as anything available. As you said, Leica won't do cheap. So that may as well go for all out optical performance. Make every lens the envy of photographers in every other system. Leica is a small company so "prosper" is a relative term. It's weird to me that right now the best overall selection of brilliant 35mm AF optics is from Sigma. People will spend the money of great glass. Look at the Otus series. If you build it. They will come...... Zeiss don't need to make SL lenses. They have the Novoflex adaptors for that. Same with T/S lenses. Canon. Light lenses. M. Macro you can use the S120APO. When the range of reference lenses is fleshed out THEN you make a triple of f4 zooms and some 2.8 primes. But optically I think anything besides brilliant is damaging to the brand and the system. Gordon 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Gough Posted March 19, 2017 Share #131 Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) I was wishing for the 16-35mm next. I have resisted the 50mm SL Lux mainly due to size and weight. I am hoping for a 50mm Summicron APO for the SL, and I wish that they would speed up lens development. I agree that bringing a 35mm Summicron next is the wrong move, as I mentioned, the zoom should have been next to at least give a viable system start. The SL is for me the mirrorless camera that I have been waiting for... The ergonomics are great, I can use my M & R lenses and throw the odd Canon TS on it too. Leica will hopefully debut a 36mp (Guess) SL in the future, and add more lenses. I have the 24-90mm, and the 90-280mm. Personally I wish that they would do the following: 1. 16-35mm 2. 24 or 28mm Summicron 3. 90mm Summicron 4. 50mm APO Summicron 5. 35mm Summicron 6. 135mm Summicron Leica should work with Elinchrom to deliver an integrated flash solution using their Skyport system. If they had speedlites that could integrate with the Elinchrom system, the camera would be a very compelling for flash work too. Edited March 19, 2017 by Andrew Gough Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted March 20, 2017 Share #132 Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) To me, the 16-35mm is both lacklustre in focal range and too late on the market. I would have preferred a 12-24mm, and would have preferred to have it before the primes (which you can in the meantime cover with M, S and other brand lenses). This would have made architectural and landscape photographers happy and wouldn't have been overlapping with the 24-90mm as the 16-35mm, creating an amazing 12-280mm 3-zoom lineup. Canon (11-24mm) and Sigma (12-24mm Art) showed what is possible to do in the ultra-wide lengths FF zoom, Voigtlander (10mm, 12mm v. III and 15mm v III) showed what you can do in the ultra-wide fixed focal FF lenses, and I am sure Leica could do an even better job than all of them. The old "Leica don't do ultra-wides because they wouldn't be up to the optical quality they aim for" is, frankly, old Edited March 20, 2017 by Vieri 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted March 20, 2017 Share #133 Posted March 20, 2017 I wish the 50SL was faster focusing but it is still much faster and precise to use than switching back and forth between framing and magnification for focusing. Optically I am very happy with the results being very sharp but at the same time not clinical due to a nice rolloff of sharpness and bokeh. With the combo of the 2 available zooms and the 50/1.4 I feel to have a kit which is pretty flexible allready. The 50 is when I want shallow DOF at 50mm, or more important if the light is low, or if I just want to use a prime (Sometimes I feel the zooms make me lazy and I might zoom instead of using my feet and end up with a not suitable focal length). The 50 is big but it still handles pretty good on the SL (I use it without grip). Based on this I assume the 35/75/90 will be near perfect in size. Having precise AF in a 50/1.4 makes a lot of sense for me, as much as I like the M system I seldomly shot it at 50mm/f1.4 because I find it hard to focus. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted March 20, 2017 Share #134 Posted March 20, 2017 To me, the 16-35mm is both lacklustre in focal range and too late on the market. I would have preferred a 12-24mm, and would have preferred to have it before the primes (which you can in the meantime cover with M, S and other brand lenses). This would have made architectural and landscape photographers happy and wouldn't have been overlapping with the 24-90mm as the 16-35mm, creating an amazing 12-280mm 3-zoom lineup. Canon (11-24mm) and Sigma (12-24mm Art) showed what is possible to do in the ultra-wide lengths FF zoom, Voigtlander (10mm, 12mm v. III and 15mm v III) showed what you can do in the ultra-wide fixed focal FF lenses, and I am sure Leica could do an even better job than all of them. The old "Leica don't do ultra-wides because they wouldn't be up to the optical quality they aim for" is, frankly, old While I think there's a valid argument for the 16-35 in a combo with the 50 (16-35, 50, 90-280) personally I agree with you. I now have the 12-24 Art and it's very good on the SL. Probably not quite as good as the Canon 11-24 but my real estate clients aren't complaining. If you're going to have a triple of zooms a massive overlap doesn't make sense to me, especially when we already know that a 12-24 is possible. For sure, it's another big lens. But as you say a high quality 12-280 in three lenses isn't to be sneezed at. And with a 16-35 you can do filters. The 12mm and wider lenses don't seem to allow that. Maybe that's a decision that Leica considered. Or Leica could surprise us with a 35-135 f4 IS to match the 16-35. That'd make some people very happy. Me, I'm very pleased with the 3 zooms I now have, S lenses a fast 50 and my TS lenses. For me the only important lens missing is a fast 85 and Sigma may have scored there as well. Gordon 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted March 21, 2017 Share #135 Posted March 21, 2017 Just wondering how much sales Leica is missing by bringing these lenses to the market so slowly... People understandably try to complete their lens line-up as quickly as possible and don't just sit around waiting for native SL lenses to trickle into the market... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 21, 2017 Share #136 Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) For me the focal range is divided differently. I usually prefer primes, but currently they are simply not available in native mount. So I would like to have AF zooms at the long and short end and a few primes (with macro) in the middle. The SL 16-35 would suit me well, though it is not very fast and probably expensive. (more than the other zooms) Until then I do with: WATE 16-18-21, Sigma Art 2/24-35, R 60 macro, (maybe a SL 75 ?), R 100 macro, SL 90-280 (and a 50mm from Canon to be replaced soon). And maybe add a SL 90 or Sigma Art 1.4/85, whatever suits me better. A SL 50-150 with macro capability would also please me. I think it is not so much business that they are missing. They still can sell anything they produce at the prices that they are asking. They are not working part-time as far as I know ?! It is more about the credibility - a professional camera system with only a few lenses and far between ... I like their products - but I do not believe this "slogan" of professionalism. And even I begin to look at Sigma as a real competitor - mainly in quality. Their latest products are high quality and even innovative. First I was shocked when I saw the price of the Novoflex AF adapters. But in the end they help a lot to make the SL more credible - as a flexible allrounder camera. Edited March 21, 2017 by caissa 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted March 21, 2017 Share #137 Posted March 21, 2017 I think it is not so much business that they are missing. They still can sell anything they produce at the prices that they are asking. They are not working part-time as far as I know ?! It is more about the credibility - a professional camera system with only a few lenses and far between ... I like their products - but I do not believe this "slogan" of professionalism. And even I begin to look at Sigma as a real competitor - mainly in quality. Their latest products are high quality and even innovative. First I was shocked when I saw the price of the Novoflex AF adapters. But in the end they help a lot to make the SL more credible - as a flexible allrounder camera. Well, I ordered the S-adapter over the weekend. I wasn't planning on doing so but if the adapter works well with the 35mm and the 70mm I most likely won't buy any of the 4 forthcoming SL lenses... If they were available right now I would probably at least buy 2... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted March 21, 2017 Share #138 Posted March 21, 2017 To me, the 16-35mm is both lacklustre in focal range and too late on the market. I would have preferred a 12-24mm, and would have preferred to have it before the primes (which you can in the meantime cover with M, S and other brand lenses). This would have made architectural and landscape photographers happy and wouldn't have been overlapping with the 24-90mm as the 16-35mm, creating an amazing 12-280mm 3-zoom lineup. Canon (11-24mm) and Sigma (12-24mm Art) showed what is possible to do in the ultra-wide lengths FF zoom, Voigtlander (10mm, 12mm v. III and 15mm v III) showed what you can do in the ultra-wide fixed focal FF lenses, and I am sure Leica could do an even better job than all of them. The old "Leica don't do ultra-wides because they wouldn't be up to the optical quality they aim for" is, frankly, old I don't feel the same. I don't normally have much use for 16mm on full-frame FF, I want that short a lens mostly for my obsession with ultrawide-square-crop (SWC like) work and don't need/want wider. I'm uninteresting in adapting anything but Leica M and R lenses to the SL, personally, as well. Someone else's suggestion of a 16-35, 50, 90-280 kit would be mostly ideal for me ... although I'd also want a 75 or 90 prime lens because the SL90-280 is too large to carry all the time, and a 16-35, 50, 75 would be better a good bit of the time. (A similar kit for my FourThirds format gear turned out to be the 11-22, 25, and 35 on that format.) I don't quite understand the "too late on the market" statement. Who cares if there are other lenses for other mounts available that you can adapt? The majority of various buyers of the SL want their comfortable focal lengths in an SL lens, capable of using all the features of the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted March 21, 2017 Share #139 Posted March 21, 2017 H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 21, 2017 Share #140 Posted March 21, 2017 H An enigmatic post if ever there was one ...... but I do agree with you. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now