50mm SL Lux - versus M lenses?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I noted.

 

The issue is David’s comment regarding better weather sealing on the 24-90 due to constant barrel length.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

I’ve taken the weather sealing at face value and used the SL and all three lenses in pretty awful weather, given them a wipe down afterwards without problem. I haven’t worried about changing focal lengths with the 24-90.

 

I guess I won’t know if there’s a problem til it fogs up internally or just grinds to a halt! So far so good.

[Jeff S]

I would trust it as well. Just curious why David F alluded to consistent barrel length (resulting from, he noted, internal focus design) when citing the weather sealing of the zooms.

 

Jeff

[dfarkas]

I would trust it as well. Just curious why David F alluded to consistent barrel length (resulting from, he noted, internal focus design) when citing the weather sealing of the zooms.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff,

 

I'm not saying it's impossible to adequately weather seal a moving barrel, just that's it easier if the barrel doesn't change length. In retrospect, perhaps I accidentally conflated two different statements in my original article. Point 1 - All the SL lenses have internal focusing. Point 2 - The 50 SL doesn't change length, therefore it's easier to weather-seal.

 

If the 24-90 had internal zooming like the 90-280, it would be as long as it is fully extended, just with more girth. In other words, huge. Leica opted to work a little harder on the weather sealing and make the lens as compact as possible. As it is, many view the 24-90 as "too big".

 

And in my many outings with the SL and 24-90, I've never once had any issues with moisture or rain or spray.

[Jeff S]

Jeff,

 

I'm not saying it's impossible to adequately weather seal a moving barrel, just that's it easier if the barrel doesn't change length. In retrospect, perhaps I accidentally conflated two different statements in my original article. Point 1 - All the SL lenses have internal focusing. Point 2 - The 50 SL doesn't change length, therefore it's easier to weather-seal.

 

If the 24-90 had internal zooming like the 90-280, it would be as long as it is fully extended, just with more girth. In other words, huge. Leica opted to work a little harder on the weather sealing and make the lens as compact as possible. As it is, many view the 24-90 as "too big".

 

And in my many outings with the SL and 24-90, I've never once had any issues with moisture or rain or spray.

Thanks, David, that distinction is now consistent with my expectations, and I agree with the rest.

 

Any chance in your view of future smaller SL zooms, even at the expense of focal length range and/or speed. Would be nice as travel option.

 

I also wish the S system had zooms with OIS, and up to SL zoom IQ, but that’s another discussion.

 

Jeff

[dfarkas]

Thanks, David, that distinction is now consistent with my expectations, and I agree with the rest.

 

Any chance in your view of future smaller SL zooms, even at the expense of focal length range and/or speed. Would be nice as travel option.

 

I also wish the S system had zooms with OIS, and up to SL zoom IQ, but that’s another discussion.

 

Jeff

 

I doubt we'll see smaller SL zooms. I don't think the market would respond well to a f/4-5.6 zoom for the SL. Everyone has been trained to want "pro" f/2.8 zooms. In C and N land, slower apertures mean less quality and denote "entry-level" or "consumer-level". So, no matter how excellent, or small, a more moderate aperture travel zoom might be, not many would want it.

[gbealnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I doubt we'll see smaller SL zooms. I don't think the market would respond well to a f/4-5.6 zoom for the SL. Everyone has been trained to want "pro" f/2.8 zooms. In C and N land, slower apertures mean less quality and denote "entry-level" or "consumer-level". So, no matter how excellent, or small, a more moderate aperture travel zoom might be, not many would want it.

And as much as I want one myself, unfortunately I feel you are right David. I have the X-Vario, absolutely love it, and look how that was "received".

 

Being a late-comer to the SL party, I am not likely to buy either of the zooms, partly cost and partly sheer size etc.

 

If anything I sort of hoped the new Summicrons would be smaller, but it seems the outer casings are one size fits all.

 

Gary

[Jeff S]

I doubt we'll see smaller SL zooms. I don't think the market would respond well to a f/4-5.6 zoom for the SL. Everyone has been trained to want "pro" f/2.8 zooms. In C and N land, slower apertures mean less quality and denote "entry-level" or "consumer-level". So, no matter how excellent, or small, a more moderate aperture travel zoom might be, not many would want it.

Probably right, but that’s why I also wrote narrower focal length range as an option, e.g., a 35-70, 70-120 (f2.8?) etc. I understand the practical and marketing advantages of the extended range on the current zooms, but those lenses also sacrifice some speed to keep size and weight from becoming totally impractical.

 

Guess I’m in the minority. But then I also wish the M had more Tri-Elmar or Bi-Elmar options, with more modern construction like the WATE as opposed to the MATE.

 

Jeff

[antigallican]

And as much as I want one myself, unfortunately I feel you are right David. I have the X-Vario, absolutely love it, and look how that was "received".

 

Being a late-comer to the SL party, I am not likely to buy either of the zooms, partly cost and partly sheer size etc.

 

If anything I sort of hoped the new Summicrons would be smaller, but it seems the outer casings are one size fits all.

 

Gary

Hi Gary,

I was in the same position but eventually bought the 24-90 for events. It's big-ish but not impossible - and the SL becomes a completely different camera with it. You do find second hand ones.

Edited January 16, 2018 by antigallican

[IkarusJohn]

Probably right, but that’s why I also wrote narrower focal length range as an option, e.g., a 35-70, 70-120 (f2.8?) etc. I understand the practical and marketing advantages of the extended range on the current zooms, but those lenses also sacrifice some speed to keep size and weight from becoming totally impractical.

 

Guess I’m in the minority. But then I also wish the M had more Tri-Elmar or Bi-Elmar options, with more modern construction like the WATE as opposed to the MATE.

 

Jeff

 

I don't think you're in a minority.  I can see a place for a more compact zoom, with limited range.  Rather than in the middle (35-70), I would prefer something at the wider and longer focal lengths.

 

Covering 24-90 mirrors the R zoom (28-90), and took the SL outside what others are offering.  I'd love something in the 14-24 range.  Not sure we'll get it.  I can't say why 16-35 just seems ... ho-hum.  I know this is not even remotely rational.