Belle123 Posted July 4, 2017 Share #101 Posted July 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is an interesting topic. I think most that have bought into the SL are not new to Leica, and likely have many M lenses, and some who hung onto their R lenses. Doubt many came completely new to Leica. Who would buy an M lens just to use on the SL without an M? The lack of SL lenses is really hurting Leica and sales of this camera. I doubt the price drop will attract much. Maybe some reluctant M owners. Not me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 Hi Belle123, Take a look here SL Price Reduction. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LD_50 Posted July 4, 2017 Share #102 Posted July 4, 2017 If you're shooting the SL the M lenses are still attractive due to the small size and excellent quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_clarke Posted July 4, 2017 Share #103 Posted July 4, 2017 It's the now, old, story: Should buy my electronic equipment tomorrow - ...and have sold my shares yesterday!!!! Graeme Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted July 4, 2017 Share #104 Posted July 4, 2017 If you're shooting the SL the M lenses are still attractive due to the small size and excellent quality. +1. I bought a few new M lenses recently to shoot on the SL and weight was one of the considerations. Unfortunately M and TL lenses are the only leightweight Leica options for the SL right now... One of the other considerations was the lack of wide angle lenses... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted July 4, 2017 Share #105 Posted July 4, 2017 They should speed up the release of SL AF lenses - at this moment, 18 months after release, its looking... silly. +1. And it is actually more like 20 months with only 3 lenses available... simply not acceptable whatever way you look at it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 4, 2017 Share #106 Posted July 4, 2017 +1. And it is actually more like 20 months with only 3 lenses available... simply not acceptable whatever way you look at it... .... well ...... that may be strictly correct ...... but you have had focal lengths covered from 24-280mm with AF and OIS at an optical quality comparable to equivalent prime lenses. I would pose the opposite question ...... what are users going to do with a variety of prime lenses that are only marginally better than the current zooms ? I have the 50/1.4 SL but don't use it much ...... and I suspect the same will be the case with the forthcoming 75 and 90. Size isn't the issue ...... it's convenience, speed of use and flexibility that is more important in normal use. Once I have the 16-35 zoom I doubt I will use anything apart from the 3 zooms .... if I have a hankering for a prime I have plenty of M & R lenses........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted July 4, 2017 Share #107 Posted July 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) .... well ...... that may be strictly correct ...... but you have had focal lengths covered from 24-280mm with AF and OIS at an optical quality comparable to equivalent prime lenses. I would pose the opposite question ...... what are users going to do with a variety of prime lenses that are only marginally better than the current zooms ? I have the 50/1.4 SL but don't use it much ...... and I suspect the same will be the case with the forthcoming 75 and 90. Size isn't the issue ...... it's convenience, speed of use and flexibility that is more important in normal use. Once I have the 16-35 zoom I doubt I will use anything apart from the 3 zooms .... if I have a hankering for a prime I have plenty of M & R lenses........ I don't necessarily disagree but I am sure giving up another system for a system with only 3 lenses is still going to be a bridge too far for a lot of people... Plus as above-mentioned no lightweight options, no wide-angle options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 4, 2017 Share #108 Posted July 4, 2017 I don't necessarily disagree but I am sure giving up another system for a system with only 3 lenses is still going to be a bridge too far for a lot of people... Plus as above-mentioned no lightweight options, no wide-angle options... It would be interesting to know how SL ownership breaks down ......... New versus existing Leica users...... and also what Leica anticipated as their target group ...... I can't see many hardened high end Nikon/Canon users (at a comparable price point) defecting to Leica S or SL ...... and the cost is probably too much of a jump for Fuji/Sony folk. From the forum the vast majority appear to be photographers with a past history of Leica use or who already have some Leica gear lurking somewhere .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted July 4, 2017 Share #109 Posted July 4, 2017 I fit both categories. I was a Nikon D4s user and Leica M user. Now sold the Nikon gear and shooting the M and SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted July 4, 2017 Share #110 Posted July 4, 2017 It would be interesting to know how SL ownership breaks down ......... New versus existing Leica users...... and also what Leica anticipated as their target group ...... I can't see many hardened high end Nikon/Canon users (at a comparable price point) defecting to Leica S or SL ...... and the cost is probably too much of a jump for Fuji/Sony folk. From the forum the vast majority appear to be photographers with a past history of Leica use or who already have some Leica gear lurking somewhere .... Something like.. from 5dm3 + a7s to D750 + leica Q to SL + Leica Q Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satijntje Posted July 4, 2017 Share #111 Posted July 4, 2017 +1. I bought a few new M lenses recently to shoot on the SL and weight was one of the considerations. Unfortunately M and TL lenses are the only leightweight Leica options for the SL right now... One of the other considerations was the lack of wide angle lenses... If you are looking for a lightweight camera, the SL is not the right choise. This was my main reason why i sold the SL again. It was really a pain lugging it around the whole day while being out with my family. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted July 4, 2017 Share #112 Posted July 4, 2017 If you are looking for a lightweight camera, the SL is not the right choise. This was my main reason why i sold the SL again. It was really a pain lugging it around the whole day while being out with my family. I am totally OK with the body. I don't find it heavy at all. It is a little bit heavier than the M but not that much... I am actually OK with the 24-90mm as well because of its versatility. What I am not OK with is the total absence of lightweight native lenses. From a commercial point of view an extremely dumb move IMHO... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted July 4, 2017 Share #113 Posted July 4, 2017 From the forum the vast majority appear to be photographers with a past history of Leica use or who already have some Leica gear lurking somewhere .... I would agree... It is true for the S, TL and SL I feel. The Q is IMO probably the only Leica camera that attracted a lot of shooters with no previous Leica exposure yet... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhn360 Posted July 4, 2017 Share #114 Posted July 4, 2017 It would be interesting to know how SL ownership breaks down ......... New versus existing Leica users...... and also what Leica anticipated as their target group ...... I can't see many hardened high end Nikon/Canon users (at a comparable price point) defecting to Leica S or SL ...... and the cost is probably too much of a jump for Fuji/Sony folk. From the forum the vast majority appear to be photographers with a past history of Leica use or who already have some Leica gear lurking somewhere .... I shoot fashion and have a number of systems. My primary camera is the Nikon D810 (of which I use 3 concurrently). I also use the Hasselblad X1D. I use my Leicas (SL and M10 for personal work and when I'm in the mood). I love how the SL feels and wish there were more native prime lens already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted July 4, 2017 Share #115 Posted July 4, 2017 What if there's a new S body coming and Leica have decided to be more aggressive on pricing because of the X1D? So they've reduced the price of the SL to fit in with the new S body pricing..... I can dream can't I? Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 4, 2017 Share #116 Posted July 4, 2017 I am totally OK with the body. I don't find it heavy at all. It is a little bit heavier than the M but not that much... I am actually OK with the 24-90mm as well because of its versatility. What I am not OK with is the total absence of lightweight native lenses. From a commercial point of view an extremely dumb move IMHO... For all the complaints about the lack of available primes, that's the point, isn't it. As ThighSlapper says, all focal lengths covered from 24-280 in two high quality lenses. Every pro I've seen out taking pictures has an SLR and some huge lens hanging round his neck (only anecdotal - I don't have much to do with professional photographers). If you want the shot, you want the focal length, don't you? So why would more lenses make a difference? What do they offer that is not already covered in the two zooms? Wides, and fast light primes, I guess. It's all very well complaining, in principle, that two zooms and one prime don't make a system, but with the range of focal lengths covered already, you're missing a very long zoom, fast primes in the short tele range, macro and wider than 24. Surely most professional photographers shoot most of their images in the 24-280 range covered by the zooms? I don't know the answer - just asking the question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted July 4, 2017 Share #117 Posted July 4, 2017 If you are looking for a lightweight camera, the SL is not the right choise. This was my main reason why i sold the SL again. It was really a pain lugging it around the whole day while being out with my family. Nonsense. The body is not heavy or big. If you buy the biggest lens, don't say the camera is too big. What is heavier (the lens or the body) ? Actually all three current SL lenses are bigger and heavier than the body. So what is the reason for the big combo ? (This is tragic after almost 18 months). The combo of SL plus new Summicron SL 90 is lighter and more compact than a R8/R9 with R 90mm lens. Simply do the additions. As soon as the Summicron primes are there (all the same size as the 75mm) nobody will still be so stupid and say the body is too big. After all we want a decent battery (not like Sony). That is why I do not understand that Leica is delaying them - unless there are M or S managers that do not want an attractive SL. Of course I want the zooms. (all three are/will be very useful) In many cases they are ideal. But I do not ONLY want the zooms. For interesting occasions I need faster primes and smaller lenses as well (even without OIS). And the SL is very short before finally getting them (according to the roadmap). Who is so stupid and uses only zooms or only primes with other cameras ? Nobody. The mixture is what makes the camera attractive and a daily tool. Of course not everyone needs every single prime, but preferences are different, so in the end Leica should offer "all of them": Summicrons from 24, 28, 35, 50 (macro), 75, 90, 100 (macro) and 135. So that everyone can get his favorite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 4, 2017 Share #118 Posted July 4, 2017 ...That is why I do not understand that Leica is delaying them - unless there are M or S managers that do not want an attractive SL. I doubt Leica is delaying them - producing lenses seems to take time, and Leica do seem to be particularly good at it. I can't think of a single S, SL or M lens (I can't really speak about R or TL lenses) that has not taken time to get right. This is what they do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted July 4, 2017 Share #119 Posted July 4, 2017 I am totally OK with the body. I don't find it heavy at all. It is a little bit heavier than the M but not that much... I am actually OK with the 24-90mm as well because of its versatility. What I am not OK with is the total absence of lightweight native lenses. From a commercial point of view an extremely dumb move IMHO... Lightweight native SL prime lenses are unlikely to meet Leica Camera AG's high performance and fast AF design criteria because the necessary fast AF telecentric lenses will always be larger than e.g. the manual focus M lens range. In other words, "You can't have your cake and eat it." There have to be compromises to allow the very necessary telecentricity and fast AF … and the compromise is size and thus weight. Now await the flack from the Sony users! dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted July 4, 2017 Share #120 Posted July 4, 2017 Lightweight native SL prime lenses are unlikely because to meet Leica Camera AG's high performance and fast AF design criteria. The necessary fast AF telecentric lenses will always be larger than e.g. the manual focus M lens range. In other words, "You can't have your cake and eat it." There have to be compromises to allow the very necessary telecentricity and fast AF … and the compromise is size and thus weight. Now await the flack from the Sony users! dunk Sorry, but you are repeating the old stuff. Please get updated and have a look at the SL 75 that is displayed in Steffen.Skopp Instagram account since December. This is small (and lighter than the SL body). https://www.instagram.com/p/BNgkGPhhfkE/?taken-by=steffen.skopp It does not matter if you regard this as not small - it is the type of small lenses we can expect for the SL (the first three are identical in size, slightly different in weight. And for me the size is almost perfect.) As said a R9 plus R lens is often bigger than the SL with the Summicron lens. This is perfect for me - maybe not for M users. It is likely that SL plus one of these lenses is not much different in weight (only slightly more) than the SL 24-90 on its own. That makes a big difference for me. If Sony users need even less weight - what does it matter to me. They get it at a prize. I am no dwarf, so why would I need the smallest possible camera and lens ? I have it actually already - my iphone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.