Jump to content

Leica SL Summicron lenses too big?


simon_hsn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi folks, 

 

I was in the Leica store to check out the newly released SL Summicron 90 + 75 mm lenses; they are quite nice and handling is superb.

 

I was asking the sales rep about the dimensions of the later to be released 50 and 35 mm lenses and he answered that they would basically share the same dimensions in order to have a "uniform user experience". 

 

For me, this is a little bit of a bummer, as I think that size does matter, also on a pro system. How come, that a 50 mm and 35 mm f2 are 10 x 7 cm large? I would much appreciate, if the lenses would be smaller (shorter), this would make the SL much more usable as a travel and street camera. Ideally, they could share the same 67 mm filter threat, but be much shorter, say 5 cm. 

 

What do others think?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

+1  These lenses are medium format size.   When expressing that opinion elsewhere, some said that AF increases size,I don't know if that is valid.  Other lenses of such quality are also large such as Zeiss Otus, and it is common knowledge that lenses can have great IQ if size is not an issue.   Leica has given us large, high quality optics.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, as always, it's a compromise. They could have made them smaller, but that would have resulted in higher price or lesser optical performance. I guess that makes sense for  a majority of SL shooters. Personally, I'd value smaller size more than extreme optical performance. Who knows, in a distant future they might make some additional smaller lense models.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 35, 75 and 90 share the same outer lens barrel according to Peter Karbe. Haven’t read about the 50, but wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the same. Likely this gives Leica some manufacturing economies, not just for user benefits.

 

Smaller lenses, if possible, would likely cost much more. Many companies can make quality lenses these days, but making them small, especially with motors, circuit boards, weather sealing, etc, is a challenge.

 

I would have preferred smaller zooms, too, even at the expense of range, e.g., 28-70, 70-150, etc. Instead Leica opted to use extended range as product differentiation.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I would have preferred smaller zooms, too, even at the expense of range, e.g., 28-70, 70-150, etc. Instead Leica opted to use extended range as product differentiation.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff,  I would take a short zoom range also, Leica has made superb quality full frame zooms in the past with the 35-70/4 R, 80-200/4 R.

Edited by darylgo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, I would take a short zoom range also, Leica has made superb quality full frame zooms in the past with the 35-70/4 R, 80-200/4 R.

Exactly, and I guess they wanted to give those who still own the R lenses to also buy some different native SL zooms. But I bet they would have sold even more if the focal length ranges were more typical and the size/weight were reduced.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

 

I was in the Leica store to check out the newly released SL Summicron 90 + 75 mm lenses; they are quite nice and handling is superb.

 

I was asking the sales rep about the dimensions of the later to be released 50 and 35 mm lenses and he answered that they would basically share the same dimensions in order to have a "uniform user experience".

 

For me, this is a little bit of a bummer, as I think that size does matter, also on a pro system. How come, that a 50 mm and 35 mm f2 are 10 x 7 cm large? I would much appreciate, if the lenses would be smaller (shorter), this would make the SL much more usable as a travel and street camera. Ideally, they could share the same 67 mm filter threat, but be much shorter, say 5 cm.

 

What do others think?

If you were to take a R90mm + R to L adapter to have it mounted on the SL, it would be the same length as the SL90 lens. The SL is mirrorless. The R lens was designed to be mounted onto an SLR/DSLR. You have to consider the law of physics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks, 

 

I was in the Leica store to check out the newly released SL Summicron 90 + 75 mm lenses; they are quite nice and handling is superb.

 

I was asking the sales rep about the dimensions of the later to be released 50 and 35 mm lenses and he answered that they would basically share the same dimensions in order to have a "uniform user experience". 

 

For me, this is a little bit of a bummer, as I think that size does matter, also on a pro system. How come, that a 50 mm and 35 mm f2 are 10 x 7 cm large? I would much appreciate, if the lenses would be smaller (shorter), this would make the SL much more usable as a travel and street camera. Ideally, they could share the same 67 mm filter threat, but be much shorter, say 5 cm. 

 

What do others think?

 

See my bolding in your post. There's the answer.

 

Plus.... there's exactly ONE other flagship high quality 35mm AF prime for mirrorless and it's nearly exactly the same size and weight as the upcoming Leica. Or we could look at the Canon 35mm L2?? Or the Sigma Art?? Or the not as good Nikon??

 

Actually.... Is there a single flagship 35mm lens with AF for ANY 35mm system camera that's smaller or lighter in a significant way?

 

And yes, some are a stop faster but that's not what a small or large lens makes..... (Yoda speak).

 

I really do wish people would get over complaining about how large the SL and it's lenses are. Just go buy an Olympus....

 

Gordon

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I really do wish people would get over complaining about how large the SL and it's lenses are. Just go buy an Olympus....

 

+1. The size of the SL lenses becomes a non-issue once you regularly work with them and appreciate what they can do. It's not going to be your most compact 35mm system, but then the SL wasn't designed for that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's not going to be your most compact 35mm system, but then the SL wasn't designed for that.

 

I think a lot of people would reasonably ask the question 'then what was it designed for'? But don't misunderstand me because I have an answer I am happy with (based on my user experience).

 

The general problem I think is that mirrorless as a concept still hasn't settled down in terms of what it's main value proposition is to the market, or indeed, come to realise that there isn't just one value proposition but probably at least two. One is that the systems can be made much smaller, the other is that the EVF, if executed really well (as Leica have done) can add greatly to the user experience, not for everyone but for a lot of people.

 

Most of the wailing and gnashing of teeth about mirrorless comes when people expect a system to do done thing (be small) and it turns out it isn't, so they start to question the point of it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

...................................I would much appreciate, if the lenses would be smaller (shorter), this would make the SL much more usable as a travel and street camera. Ideally, they could share the same 67 mm filter threat, but be much shorter, say 5 cm. ..........................

The SL was never designed as a camera for travel and street, although it's versatile enough to be used for those purposes if you accept its size and weight limitations. Leica has other cameras which are much better suited for such uses. I think the core use scenario of the SL is event, portrait and photo sessions - where weight and size are less important. That doesn't stop us using them for anything we want, of course. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people would reasonably ask the question 'then what was it designed for'? But don't misunderstand me because I have an answer I am happy with (based on my user experience).

 

The general problem I think is that mirrorless as a concept still hasn't settled down in terms of what it's main value proposition is to the market, or indeed, come to realise that there isn't just one value proposition but probably at least two. One is that the systems can be made much smaller, the other is that the EVF, if executed really well (as Leica have done) can add greatly to the user experience, not for everyone but for a lot of people.

 

Most of the wailing and gnashing of teeth about mirrorless comes when people expect a system to do done thing (be small) and it turns out it isn't, so they start to question the point of it.

I know I mentioned event, portrait and photo sessions as what I think is the core use scenario for the SL. Your work clearly shows that it doesn't have to be limited to that, though I suspect you are not travelling great distances for it (so don't need it to be light) and you are not trying to be discreet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I mentioned event, portrait and photo sessions as what I think is the core use scenario for the SL. Your work clearly shows that it doesn't have to be limited to that, though I suspect you are not travelling great distances for it (so don't need it to be light) and you are not trying to be discreet. 

 

Yes it's mostly not discrete for the street portraits I shoot but I do also shoot a lot of candid street as well where some degree of anonymity is helpful. I used an manual focus lens though so it's small enough to be discrete though. I'm not convinced though that size is the main or even an actual advantage for mirrorless. The space you save on the depth of the camera body has to go somewhere so it just goes into the lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all of your comments, really interesting.

I am totally fine with the size of the current 75 and 90 and consider them not too big (as I said: "handling is superb"). Have a look at the Fuji 90 mm f2: although it is developed for APS-C it is exactly the same size as the 90 f2 SL. Since one can expect even better optical performance and built quality from the Leica lens, this is actually quite an achievement in terms of compactness.  

 

However, this was not the point I was trying to make and maybe my intro was not precise enough: What I do not understand is why the upcoming 35 f2 and 50 f2 lenses need to be as big as a 90 f2? In no other pro system (I know of), this is the case. So, why not make these lenses a little shorter? This should be absolutely feasible as 35 and 50 mm lenses can be more compact than a 90 mm and have the same performance, simply because of physics. 

Yes, manufacturing processes might be the consideration for this, but then I think Leica did a mistake: A 700g 50 mm f2 lens 10x7 cm for full-frame is just very large, no matter how you look at it. 

Although I would much more prefer a kit with a SL and f2 primes, the larger size make me re-consider a Sony a7rIII/a9 with primes (Batis 85, Sony/Zeiss 55, Batis 25) instead. As a travel photographer, this is my point of view. It might be different for wedding or studio photographers, off course.

Let's just hope that Leica continues to develop this wonderful SL system and expands the lens line-up, so there is just more choice. I would also buy a smaller size 28-70 ;)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Although I would much more prefer a kit with a SL and f2 primes, the larger size make me re-consider a Sony a7rIII/a9 with primes (Batis 85, Sony/Zeiss 55, Batis 25) instead.

 

Having owned and used an A7rII before coming to the SL, I can tell you that you will almost certainly much prefer the files you get from the SL in terms of colour and you may even prefer the handling of the SL with the slightly larger lenses. I never liked the way the Sony felt in my hand; the size differential between the body and some of the lenses felt very odd. The Ziess 55 is a good lens though and that set up does feel very compact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I do not understand is why the upcoming 35 f2 and 50 f2 lenses need to be as big as a 90 f2? In no other pro system (I know of), this is the case. So, why not make these lenses a little shorter? This should be absolutely feasible as 35 and 50 mm lenses can be more compact than a 90 mm and have the same performance, simply because of physics. 

Yes, manufacturing processes might be the consideration for this, but then I think Leica did a mistake: A 700g 50 mm f2 lens 10x7 cm for full-frame is just very large, no matter how you look at it. 

 

 

I don't disagree with your reasoning. I thought about it and decided I like the idea of having all the summicrons be "same dimensioned". I think it's like the cine lenses having identical outer diameter geared barrels to speed up the changeover of lenses.

If the cinefilm industry has lessons for professionals perhaps there's something to learn here. Not sure what though  :D For what it's worth, I think it might be more efficient and faster to change lenses if they are all of the same dimension. 

 

At the moment, I have specific places in my bag for each lens. Different dimensions mean that I need to adjust these everytime I reconfigure it for different jobs. Having the summicron as such, might speed things up. I won't know till I try it  :p and I'm likely to get the 35, 90 and a 21 when the time comes. Suspect the 21 will be much bigger, so it's not likely to work out nicely for me. But a M 21mm lens has such a big depth of field, AF might not even be necessary.

 

I've sort of decided to let Leica do their thing and see what works out for me. Not their flash though. That one needs a little beating over the head but they did do a few things right for flash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...