New Leica SL Lens Roadmap

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The short memory was in response to the criticism for the griping, not the specific rationale. There are dozens of other examples; everyone has his/her own pet peeves. None are more precious than the other... except to the person expressing them.

 

Jeff

 

 

Of course - who has ever said otherwise?  We all only ever express our own opinions, whether we remember to say "in my opinion" or not ...

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Very disappointing roadmap. While the other new mirrorless are even coming out with exciting new types of lenses, Leica can't even manage anything faster than f/2. That's the aperture of Canon's new 24-70 zoom. 

 

What are they even doing in Wetzlar? 

 

A maximum aperture isn't an indicator, or shouldn't be, of how good a lens is. Leicas "best" lenses optically are all f2 or slower. And with most of them you won't see much real world difference in DoF either due to the way they are designed.

 

Other manufacturers (some but not all) make their slower lenses "lesser". That's not the Leica way.

 

Gordon

[sdw]

A maximum aperture isn't an indicator, or shouldn't be, of how good a lens is. Leicas "best" lenses optically are all f2 or slower. And with most of them you won't see much real world difference in DoF either due to the way they are designed.

 

Other manufacturers (some but not all) make their slower lenses "lesser". That's not the Leica way.

 

Gordon

 

 

I'm not arguing that it's an indicator of quality, but if you're toting a lens as huge as Leica's 50mm SL I'd at least love to have it be fast. I find Canon's 50mm 1.2 a dog to carry around but the images are worth it. Size tends to correlate to speed, and if they can't make lenses that either A. perform well and are slower but more compact or B. perform well and are large but fast then I don't really find this a very appealing lineup. 

[LD_50]

I'm not arguing that it's an indicator of quality, but if you're toting a lens as huge as Leica's 50mm SL I'd at least love to have it be fast. I find Canon's 50mm 1.2 a dog to carry around but the images are worth it. Size tends to correlate to speed, and if they can't make lenses that either A. perform well and are slower but more compact or B. perform well and are large but fast then I don't really find this a very appealing lineup.

The Leica 50 SL is f/1.4. Is that not fast?

 

I was going to ask which exciting and fast lenses you’re seeing announced outside the L mount but you’ve answered with a lens that’s just about the same max aperture as the Leica 50 SL and around the same size and weight. **Edit** maybe you’re referring to the old Canon 50 f/1.2 and not the new RF one. In that case it’s not nearly as good as the Leica and it’s definitely not a new exciting announcement for FF mirrorless.

 

Try the 50 Summilux SL. You’ll enjoy it. It’s fast and extremely high quality. It balances well on the SL. I use it more than any other lens I own.

Edited September 26, 2018 by LD_50

[prismstorm]

The Leica 50 SL is f/1.4. Is that not fast?

 

I was going to ask which exciting and fast lenses you’re seeing announced outside the L mount but you’ve answered with a lens that’s just about the same max aperture as the Leica 50 SL and around the same size and weight. **Edit** maybe you’re referring to the old Canon 50 f/1.2 and not the new RF one. In that case it’s not nearly as good as the Leica and it’s definitely not a new exciting announcement for FF mirrorless.

 

Try the 50 Summilux SL. You’ll enjoy it. It’s fast and extremely high quality. It balances well on the SL. I use it more than any other lens I own.

I am on the verge of getting the 50 Summilux SL by the end of this week, but worry that the APO Summicron SL 50/2 scheduled for 2019 on the new roadmap will offer very similar / better performance for a drastically more compact size, E67 and faster AF. What incentive is there then to keep carrying around the 50 Summilux SL aside from the one stop faster aperture if the new APO SL 50/2 has the same 'tuned contrast curve to make f2 look like f1.4' look but better ergonomics and mechanics? Will you dump the 50 Lux SL and consider switching to the APO 50/2 SL then?

Edited September 26, 2018 by prismstorm

[Letin]

I am on the verge of getting the 50 Summilux SL by the end of this week, but worry that the APO Summicron SL 50/2 scheduled for 2019 on the new roadmap will offer very similar / better performance for a drastically more compact size, E67 and faster AF. What incentive is there then to keep carrying around the 50 Summilux SL aside from the one stop faster aperture if the new APO SL 50/2 has the same 'tuned contrast curve to make f2 look like f1.4' look but better ergonomics and mechanics? Will you dump the 50 Lux SL and consider switching to the APO 50/2 SL then?

 

 

one of life's toughest choice. I'm in the same boat, 50lux vs 50cron!

[prismstorm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

one of life's toughest choice. I'm in the same boat, 50lux vs 50cron!

If it is any consolation, the 50 Lux SL is available now, but the APO 50 Cron SL has been delayed to next year, and does not exist yet. And in terms of light gathering ability and enabling the use of lower ISO and faster shutter speed, f1.4 is of course still superior to f2. I just wonder whether the superiority of the Lux would be marginal over the smaller, faster, 50 APO Cron SL.

[sillbeers15]

I am on the verge of getting the 50 Summilux SL by the end of this week, but worry that the APO Summicron SL 50/2 scheduled for 2019 on the new roadmap will offer very similar / better performance for a drastically more compact size, E67 and faster AF. What incentive is there then to keep carrying around the 50 Summilux SL aside from the one stop faster aperture if the new APO SL 50/2 has the same 'tuned contrast curve to make f2 look like f1.4' look but better ergonomics and mechanics? Will you dump the 50 Lux SL and consider switching to the APO 50/2 SL then?

The SL50 summicron is yet to be released so there is no way to compare and answer. Based on past experiences with Leica lenses, there are no disappointments. So it will often be down to individual choice and decision. However said, looking at the SL lens roadmap I would think the Summicron range of lenses from 21 to 90 will become the mainstream primes that are fast in AF and compact. Now that the LUMIX S1R will be released ahead of SL2, we can guess the coming AF performance, stabilization and some other features to be common between both. That together with Leica’s unique features in sensor and UI, makes the SL2 an exciting wait.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I'm not arguing that it's an indicator of quality, but if you're toting a lens as huge as Leica's 50mm SL I'd at least love to have it be fast. I find Canon's 50mm 1.2 a dog to carry around but the images are worth it. Size tends to correlate to speed, and if they can't make lenses that either A. perform well and are slower but more compact or B. perform well and are large but fast then I don't really find this a very appealing lineup. 

 

But they are smaller than the SL 50mm 1.4. A lot smaller.

 

The 50mm 1.2L was the reason I left Canon for Leica in the first place. The new RF50 from Canon looks good but it's much much larger than the Leica Summicrons. The 50SL 1.4 is in a different league to the Canon 1.2 (and I had several copies plus a colleague who still has a love hate relationship with one). Poor corners wide open. Focus shift from f2 to f8. Occasional funky boke. Fun with CA. It's a character lens. But optically challenged by modern standards. I expect the 50 SL cron to be similar to the 75 and 90. They're epic. And really not that big, plus they are wonderfully balanced on the SL. Balance is more important than size. Try a 75 or 90 on the SL. You may feel differently after.

 

Modern lens design is allowing new designs and those designs tend to be larger. Otus, 50 Art, 50SL Lux, 58 Noct Nikkor, RF50 1.2. All big lenses. The SL Summicrons are smaller than all of those.

 

Gordon

[prismstorm]

But they are smaller than the SL 50mm 1.4. A lot smaller.

 

The 50mm 1.2L was the reason I left Canon for Leica in the first place. The new RF50 from Canon looks good but it's much much larger than the Leica Summicrons. The 50SL 1.4 is in a different league to the Canon 1.2 (and I had several copies plus a colleague who still has a love hate relationship with one). Poor corners wide open. Focus shift from f2 to f8. Occasional funky boke. Fun with CA. It's a character lens. But optically challenged by modern standards. I expect the 50 SL cron to be similar to the 75 and 90. They're epic. And really not that big, plus they are wonderfully balanced on the SL. Balance is more important than size. Try a 75 or 90 on the SL. You may feel differently after.

 

Modern lens design is allowing new designs and those designs tend to be larger. Otus, 50 Art, 50SL Lux, 58 Noct Nikkor, RF50 1.2. All big lenses. The SL Summicrons are smaller than all of those.

 

Gordon

Hi Gordon, what is your take then on the 50 Lux SL and the upcoming 50 APO Cron SL? The Lux 50 SL compensates for its size, weight and relatively slower AF with its IQ alone, but if the 50 APO Cron SL has just as epic IQ, much faster AF and the E67 size it might just make the Lux 50 SL obsolete?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Hi Gordon, what is your take then on the 50 Lux SL and the upcoming 50 APO Cron SL? The Lux 50 SL compensates for its size, weight and relatively slower AF with its IQ alone, but if the 50 APO Cron SL has just as epic IQ, much faster AF and the E67 size it might just make the Lux 50 SL obsolete?

 

For a LOT of people it just might. Me, I'll probably end up with both...

 

I love the 50SL. It's my favourite 50 and I have a bunch of them. The extra stop of shutter speed and the draw will make me keep it. However for travel and general use I can see myself reaching for the 'cron. I recently travelled OS with a Sony kit (long story) and took the 55 1.8 instead of the 1.4. Didn't miss the faster lens. However, for ME, I can't see a time I don't want to have the option of a fast 50. I am a big fan of the standard lens.

 

I think the 50 SL 1.4 will become a niche lens. Most people will opt for the cron. A few will have a use/desire for the 'lux. I have the SL 90 and almost never use my Sigma Art85 anymore for exactly that reason.

 

Gordon

[prismstorm]

For a LOT of people it just might. Me, I'll probably end up with both...

 

I love the 50SL. It's my favourite 50 and I have a bunch of them. The extra stop of shutter speed and the draw will make me keep it. However for travel and general use I can see myself reaching for the 'cron. I recently travelled OS with a Sony kit (long story) and took the 55 1.8 instead of the 1.4. Didn't miss the faster lens. However, for ME, I can't see a time I don't want to have the option of a fast 50. I am a big fan of the standard lens.

 

I think the 50 SL 1.4 will become a niche lens. Most people will opt for the cron. A few will have a use/desire for the 'lux. I have the SL 90 and almost never use my Sigma Art85 anymore for exactly that reason.

 

Gordon

About that, does the SL 90 live up to its claim of having a 'near f1.4' look whilst maintaining the size and weight advantage of f2 when compared to, say, the Sigma 85/1.4? If yes, the SL 50/1.4 plus the APO 90/2 SL might just be my dream combo for portraits ...

[sillbeers15]

About that, does the SL 90 live up to its claim of having a 'near f1.4' look whilst maintaining the size and weight advantage of f2 when compared to, say, the Sigma 85/1.4? If yes, the SL 50/1.4 plus the APO 90/2 SL might just be my dream combo for portraits ...

You are asking the question the wrong way round. Nothing will change optical & physical principal. A bigger aperture will always provide a more out of focused background against the focused subject. The design and optical material of a lens will only change the rendering and level of sharpness for the subject in focus. However the out of focus effect also largely depends on the relative distance between lens to subject and subject against background. In other words, the out of focus effect between a head shot and full body shot differs with the same background. You are the photographer, so you plan your shots. The lens is only a tool. The rest is up to you how you compose your shot and use lighting appropriately to draw attention to your subject and away from the background.

Edited September 26, 2018 by sillbeers15

[FlashGordonPhotography]

You are asking the question the wrong way round. Nothing will change optical & physical principal. A bigger aperture will always provide a more out of focused background against the focused subject. The design and optical material of a lens will only change the rendering and level of sharpness for the subject in focus. However the out of focus effect also largely depends on the relative distance between lens to subject and subject against background. In other words, the out of focus effect between a head shot and full body shot differs with the same background. You are the photographer, so you plan your shots. The lens is only a tool. The rest is up to you how you compose your shot and use lighting appropriately to draw attention to your subject and away from the background.

 

Hmmmm..... Maybe. Kinda. Sort of. But not really.

 

Depth of Field is only apparent. It's not really a definable thing, even if we have a formula to define it. Lens design can influence the look of the blur, the rapidity of fall off, the feel of the focus transition, colour of blur, contrast of blur. Firmware can tweak the focus position a bit or add some focus shift. So "apparent" DoF can certainly be affected by lens design. As well as the types of glass used, anti-reflective materials etc. For example look what the addition of a diffractive element does to apparent DoF. It's possible as Fuji actually make a 56mm lens in two flavours and they do look like DoF is different.

 

With reference to the 85 Art vs 90 cron, specifically. The Art does "look" like it has less DoF. It actually looks shallow compared to other 1.4's (I have compared directly to the Sony GM and the Art "looks" shallower). OTOH The Art is very neutral and the 90 cron is warmer and a bit creamier in it's blur rendering. I prefer the Leica's blur although it's a bit less pronounced than the Sigma.

 

Gordon

[Delcredere]

Does anyone know if Leica (or anyone else) is going to bring out a 2x extension for the 90 - 280?

I really, really, really miss long L-mount lenses. It's understandable that Leica has other priorities (architecture, landscape) - but hopefully Sigma will have something to offer. Perhaps an upgraded version of their 500mm f4.5 HSM lens. This is not a lens at Leica (or Nikon) standard but it does - nevertheless - exist...

[helged]

Does anyone know if Leica (or anyone else) is going to bring out a 2x extension for the 90 - 280?

 

No indication or hint or anything about extender(s) - as far as I know.

[jonoslack]

About that, does the SL 90 live up to its claim of having a 'near f1.4' look whilst maintaining the size and weight advantage of f2 when compared to, say, the Sigma 85/1.4? If yes, the SL 50/1.4 plus the APO 90/2 SL might just be my dream combo for portraits ...

 

Yes - and so does the 75, and I'm pretty sure that both the 50 and 35 will as well. It's because of the APO element(s) which boost the contrast in the in-focus area, which means that the drop off in contrast going from in focus to out of focus is much steeper (giving the impression of a faster lens). I spoke with Peter Karbe about this last time I was in Germany - I even have a nice little graph he made in my notebook!

 

However - I also suspect that the 50 f2 may be more expensive than the 50 f1.4.

 

best

[robgo2]

Funny how people have their own pet peeves..... and seemingly short memories. Not long ago it was John and others railing against the M240 and its size and ‘bloat’. Now there are some who rail against the size and weight of SL zoom lenses, and the lack of smaller primes. Even with loads of choices, Leica and other brands, there’s always room for griping.

What goes around comes around. Such is life.

Jeff

To my eyes, both the 35 and 50 Summicrons look rather large. If that turns out to be the case, then I will be railing against size and weight. I suppose that at some point I will have to reconcile myself to the fact that Leica does not consider compactness to be a priority for the SL system. For small size, one must turn to the M or CL series.

[6bit]

Man this roadmap is depressing. So I have to wait even longer for a 35mm (isn't that a classic focal point to have in any lens manufacturer's portfolio?) and then it basically waiting a year for some wider lenses.

 

 

It is depressing for the short term. I am all excited about the Fuji 50R announcement. Time will pass and hopefully Leica will get the 35 out the door for us SL users. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Alistairm]

I would imagine that with the newly announced L-Mount Alliance Leica those disappointed with the road map will be much happier campers. I would also imagine that Leica will leave it to Sigma to pack out the lens selection and continue to focus on all of its SL releases being "statement lenses", in the sense that they will be very expensive and best in class. 

 

It is great news for us SL shooters, as we will also have Panasonic driving the development of the bodies, and I hope cross sharing improved AF and flash for the SL2, as well of course as a new and higher resolution sensor. I was seriously looking at Nikon's new Z cameras for long telephoto and macro use but will now wait to see what Sigma brings in due course.