TL lenses on SL

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Are you enjoying using your 11-23 ? I have heard nothing but good reviews about the T zooms.

Recently, I tried to pick up a "slightly used" one, but it turned out to have a ding, so I sent it back. 

thanks,

Rafael

I like it a lot so far.  I posted a still image not long ago.  I bought this one and an 18-56 "new" in the unopened box (apparently manufactured in 2014)  from the same E-Bay vendor.  I have an offer in for a used but "mint" 55-135 from a reliable store.  All three together will cost me less than  24-90 SL zoom.  They are smaller and lighter, have good AF, but do not offer optical image stabilization.  

[Guest VVJ]

All three together will cost me less than  24-90 SL zoom.  They are smaller and lighter, have good AF, but do not offer optical image stabilization.  

 

Only used, full retail price for the 3 TL zooms will set you back more than the 24-90mm, and personally I do feel strongly that the 24-90mm is worth it.  

 

Also it should be mentioned that usage on the SL results in 10MP files (so not 16MP as on the current TL).

[scott kirkpatrick]

Only used, full retail price for the 3 TL zooms will set you back more than the 24-90mm, and personally I do feel strongly that the 24-90mm is worth it.  

 

Also it should be mentioned that usage on the SL results in 10MP files (so not 16MP as on the current TL).

I don't dispute that the 24-90 is an exceptional lens.  But it is really hard to pay full retail for a T lens today.  1/3 off is more typical for a new one (NewOriginalStock), so I stand by my statement about their affordability.  And those 10 MP (9 MP if you shoot 4K video) are big high dynamic range 6 micron pixels, not available in many other cameras.

[ropo54]

I don't dispute that the 24-90 is an exceptional lens.  But it is really hard to pay full retail for a T lens today.  1/3 off is more typical for a new one (NewOriginalStock), so I stand by my statement about their affordability.  And those 10 MP (9 MP if you shoot 4K video) are big high dynamic range 6 micron pixels, not available in many other cameras.

 

I have never had anyone give a knowing answer, but is a 10mp image from the SL superior to a 16mp image from the T? 

Rob

[Daedalus2000]

I have never had anyone give a knowing answer, but is a 10mp image from the SL superior to a 16mp image from the T? 

Rob

 

No it is not because even from the resolution you lose a lot in my opinion.

[LD_50]

I have never had anyone give a knowing answer, but is a 10mp image from the SL superior to a 16mp image from the T? 

Rob

Superior in which ways?

 

You would need to define output size and the criteria for comparison to receive a sensible answer.

[ropo54]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Superior in which ways?

 

You would need to define output size and the criteria for comparison to receive a sensible answer.

 

IQ/ resolution for printing purposes. In other words, if I had 2 snaps side by side, am I going to gravitate to one or the other?  Am I going to be limited  more with one, than the other, as to how large the photo can be printed? (Everything looks nice on a computer screen; that is not what I am speaking about).

[LD_50]

Resolution is better on the TL as long as noise is under control. I have never seen a comparison of noise performance between the two and don't have a TL so I can't say if this would ever be a factor. The higher resolution TL gives you larger print sizes at equal ppi.

 

Everything else you listed is subjective.

 

The real question to be answered for these comparisons is at equal output size, where a downsampled TL image may have an advantage over the lower resolution but presumably better performing sensor in the SL.

Edited July 10, 2017 by LD_50

[darylgo]

To the OP: I had a similar situation to yours using S lenses with Leica adapter on the SL body.   The lenses would not work until I upgraded the S-E body to the new firmware and upgraded each lens using the S-E body.   The T lenses are more native to the SL body, no adapter required.  I would suggest you contact Leica in Wetzlar

directly with your situation, they might have an answer and be able to provide assistance.  Ask them for a shipping label to update your lenses, you will lose time but not the ridiculous fee to rent a body.  

 

For the purpose you propose, video, I would agree with your use of T lenses on the SL.  They are outstanding performers, minimal weight, balance well and are a huge advantage over the 24-90mm, a lens that is too large for the body and falls into the worse category of small body, large lens imbalance.      

[scott kirkpatrick]

I've already contacted "info" at Wetzlar, the most basic customer support.  They could provide no information that is not on the leica-camera.com websites.  In particular, neither they nor the website had any information about when there had been firmware upgrades affecting the T zoom lenses.  So for the moment I am looking for more helpful Leica stores in other locations.

 

Shipping can also be a headache, if you don't live in the US or in Europe.  Part of the reason for the high cost my local official Leica contact charged me to "help me" with an M9 upgrade was that he insisted on using insured shipping.  The end result of two requests to this channel of support in Israel is that I conclude that they can do things that I could do myself, but at a greater cost.  Anyway, I will try to sort these things out during business travel opportunities.

Edited July 10, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[ramarren]

Regards lens firmware, it's very simple: If a T lens is fitted to the SL and the firmware is incompatible, it won't work. At that point, you need a T/TL upgraded to the latest firmware to update the lens. Exactly when a particular lens firmware update was released isn't particularly useful information because Leica assumes that you keep your T camera up to date, just as you should keep your SL camera up to date. 

 

While it would be more convenient if the SL could also update T lenses, that's not how the update process has been configured at present. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

So far my lenses work, but their firmware is vintage 2014.  Irakly Shanidze reports the same, but he has had his hang an SL. There have been steady improvements in AF accuracy and speed achieved through firmware improvements in the SL lenses, so it is plausible that similar improvements have been accomplished with the TL lenses, and possibly even a few bugs have been quietly fixed.  There have been quite a few iterations of T firmware, but no documented information on effects for the lenses.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Here's an example of a simple sports video shot with SL and the 11-23 TL zoom.

 

Girls 400 preliminary by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

I think I shot the start with the lens at 18 mm and the finish at 23 mm (couldn't get closer).  C4K resolution, which Flickr hasn't destroyed too much.  Since I have the SL set up to start and stop a clip with the shutter button for smoothness, I have to use touch AF to get things set up before the shot starts.  These were shot at ISO 400 and f/8 to f/16 (S mode, fixed ISO). Exposure offset -1 stop.  Even though it was evening, the stadium has very good lighting.  The clips are straight from the camera, trimmed and with a transition from FCPX.

Edited July 11, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[Irakly Shanidze]

I tested the floating iso issue with 18-56 T zoom, and yes, in some circumstances the exposure change is not stepless. Looks like a reason to contact Leica tech department.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Scott, your link is broken

[rafael_macia]

I like the lens quality of the 11-23. Thanks.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Scott, your link is broken

Click on the opening frame and you get to Flickr, where the C4K shot should stream.  It had 27 views this morning, so it works for some. It works for me, but I realize that is not a valid test.

[pop]

Click on the opening frame and you get to Flickr, where the C4K shot should stream.  It had 27 views this morning, so it works for some. It works for me, but I realize that is not a valid test.

I could not get my PC to display a video stream. All I get is the opening image with the "play" button. Clicking on this show very briefly the playback controls. I presume that my computer is lacking a codec for this format. Hence, a few of your 27 views could have been mine, even if it did not work for me.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Well, it's a MOV file, which plays in Quicktime on my Mac.  Do PC's refuse to play that?  I'm asking my mentor, Google sensei, how to make an MP4 output file.  In the meantime, here's a version with some grading.  I brought midtone exposures up slightly.  Still Mac-only, I guess.

 

Girls 400 preliminary_v2 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

enjoy.  I was rooting for the Canadian girl in lane 7, but she came in fourth.

 

scott

Edited July 12, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Irakly Shanidze]

Now it shows up fine. You can stabilize the footage in post. Davinci Resolve does a great job removing camera shake.