Is the S1/S1R a good backup camera for SL

[caissa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

S1 review:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FAFVTmvyfg
S1 vs a7III   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sN0dYb7ix8      (excellent comparison, not just giving silly points. After seeing that, it is easy to make a decision which camera is better for one's typical use.)

Best viewfinder and best in box stabilization and AF down to -6 EF of the S1 is for me more important than smaller weight and faster AF (to -3 EF) of the A7III (which is currently also cheaper). For a newcomer the Sony has a wider choice of lenses (in different price categories), but for a Leica user (SL) the lens choice is already wide enough (but at a different price point).

 

Edited August 18, 2019 by caissa

[caissa]

Panasonic firmware updates for lenses and cameras:      https://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/global/cs/dsc/download/index4.html

[Advertisement]

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

[caissa]

Jono Slack about the new Apo 50mm.  http://www.slack.co.uk/50-summicron-sl.html

In a certain way this is the new “entry lens” for the SL (maybe also the S1/R). It is cheaper than the Summilux SL 50 (but really not much) and much cheaper than the famous Apo M50. And also much better regarding MTF graphs than the famous Apo lens. (In practical use the IQ difference is probably just minor).   https://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-SL/SL-Lenses/Prime-Lenses/APO-Summicron-SL-50

Edited August 19, 2019 by caissa

[caissa]

This lens really shows the tragedy of the SL system to me. Of course it is great that we have now the top 50mm Apo lens for the SL. But at the same time it is a bit clumsy. And the exceptional MTF graphs do not convert to exceptional photos. Or just in very rare circumstances. With the Sigma 2.8/45mm probably very similar photographic results can be achieved with a much handier lens.

So I actually miss the equivalent of the good old 50mm Summicron, or even better would I like a 60mm Macro. Great if it could be 2.0 instead of 2.8 . The (humble) optical quality of these lenses is actually what I need, and the relatively small size (about half the size of the new lens). In his report Jono Slack has destroyed the old 50mm Mandler Summicron, the MTF graphs are really terrible (what a shame Mr. Mandler). Still I am so stubborn to say, I prefer the old lens, because it gave me 30 years the quality I needed. (Obviously not everybody has the talent to make good use of the highest quality lenses.)

So the new Apo Summicron will be a famous lens, many will write about it and many will lust for it. But in the end it is not exactly the ideal lens for practical photography. (Too expensive, optically too good, too big, too obtrusive, maybe also too slow regarding AF, not really close focusing with only 1:5 ratio .).  So yes, congratulations to this master lens ! But at the same time it is easy to see how a much better lens could have been constructed. This I find tragic. And yes, maybe this “better” lens would not find as many buyers, because it would not fulfill so many superlatives. This I see as the tragedy of Leica. (Forced to chase superlatives, instead of producing the best lenses for practical use).

(I am no fan of Fuji, but I think they have succeeded to jump right into that gap.)

Edited August 20, 2019 by caissa

[jonoslack]

2 minutes ago, caissa said:

This lens really shows the tragedy of the SL system to me. Of course it is great that we have now the top 50mm Apo lens for the SL. But at the same time it is a bit clumsy.

SNIP

So the new Apo Summicron will be a famous lens, many will write about it and many will lust for it. But in the end it is not exactly the ideal lens for practical photography. (Too expensive, optically too good, too big, too obtrusive, maybe also too slow regarding AF, not really close focusing with only 1:5 ratio .).  So yes, congratulations to this master lens ! But at the same time it is easy to see how a much better lens could have been constructed. This I find tragic. And yes, maybe this “better” lens would not find as many buyers, because it would not fulfill so many superlatives. This I see as the tragedy of Leica. (Forced to chase superlatives, instead of producing the best lenses for practical use).

I can't tell you how much I disagree with this assessment 

1. the lens balances really nicely on the SL, it's neither big nor obtrusive and can easily be handled all day

2. Optically 'too good' - I've heard this said about other lenses before, but it seems to me that a sharp lens with lovely bokeh both in front and behind the point of focus is a good thing! The fact that it has no vices is also a good thing - I just don't get the (commonly held) logic that you need bad lenses to take good pictures.

3. Too expensive - well, that depends on what you can afford, but compared to lots of cine lenses and quite a few M lenses it's a pretty good deal.

4. Slow AF - seems okay to me? 

5. Close focusing - 0.35mm is pretty good for such a lens (and sticking on a Marumi +3 gets you much closer without sacrificing much quality).

To me this is a wonderful and pragmatic lens - pitched between the enormities of the Zeiss Otus and the 50 'lux SL and many other similar lenses . . . 

It works so well as a 'go to' lens on the SL (and the S1 and S1r come to that)  to my mind it is EXACTLY

"The Best Lens for Practical Use" (which is why I bought one)

[caissa]

I agree that it balances well, the size is acceptable (and very fine) for 75 and 90mm. I like these lenses and use them very often. And it is maybe my deformation, but the same size (and about he same prize) for all is not desirable for me. Maybe it is so for video users.

But as explained a IQ wise more relaxed and weight wise more minimal approach is actually what I need for the classic lenses - 50, 35, maybe also 28mm. And also a more relaxed price scheme. Apo and the extreme effort is maybe a difference at 100 MP. In the distant future for me.

And with the higher resolution sensors, there will probably also come other (digital) technologies to improve image results. Look at the current high res mode in Lumix, that gives a first impression what can be achieved digitally in the future. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by caissa

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, caissa said:

But as explained a IQ wise more relaxed and weight wise more minimal approach is actually what I need for the classic lenses - 50, 35, maybe also 28mm. And also a more relaxed price scheme. Apo and the extreme effort is maybe a difference at 100 MP. In the distant future for me.

 

I think that Leica have already proved that more relaxed lenses are not a very good way forwards(thinking summarits). They aren't really set up to make high volumes of lower priced lenses - and it would appear that when they tried people didn't buy them!.

But I still don't agree - making the lenses all the same size is already a real cost saving, and for most photographers having a series of lenses with consistent handling far outweighs the need to actually look at the number to see which lens is which!

I imagine that the 'more relaxed' lenses you want may be released from other manufacturers, but if Leica didn't make these wonderful lenses it's certain that nobody else would have done. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by jonoslack

[caissa]

Sorry the Marumi is no go area. It is very bad quality compared to a real macro lens. Yes, I tried it, I do a lot of macro. Other close up lenses are just as poor. Yes I know some users here like them. But for me it is stupid to use a 5000 $ lens with a close up lens. Adapt a macro lens instead and you spend only a fraction of the price with much better results. Manual usage is not so bad for macro.

[jonoslack]

Just now, caissa said:

Sorry the Marumi is no go area. It is very bad quality compared to a real macro lens. Yes, I tried it, I do a lot of macro. Other close up lenses are just as poor. Yes I know some users here like them. But for me it is stupid to use a 5000 $ lens with a close up lens. Adapt a macro lens instead and you spend only a fraction of the price with much better results. Manual usage is not so bad for macro.

Well, I find the Marumi works well - but of course you can easily and successfully use the 100 macro R if you need serious macro, and if the 50 was a macro lens then it wouldn't be such a good general purpose lens!

[caissa]

2 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

I think that Leica have already proved that more relaxed lenses are not a very good way forwards(thinking summarits). They aren't really set up to make high volumes of lower priced lenses - and it would appear that when they tried people didn't buy them!.

But I still don't agree - making the lenses all the same size is already a real cost saving, and for most photographers having a series of lenses with consistent handling far outweighs the need to actually look at the number to see which lens is which!

I imagine that the 'more relaxed' lenses you want may be released from other manufacturers, but if Leica didn't make these wonderful lenses it's certain that nobody else would have done. 

I agree that Leica made the right decision, it is their business model. They need to follow that path. That I see as the tragedy of Leica. And for me (this special case) unfortunately it does not produce the “best” lens that I would be the most happy with.

[caissa]

I generally also like the high quality of the SL lenses, but I miss the practical add-ons. A dedicated Leica close-up lens (the marumis do not even have the right diameter) and a close-up ring adapter. (Macro adapter).     Or a continuous power supply for the SL (no problem with the S1R).  And of course a 1.7x extender for the 90-280 .

The tragedy again, the SL is less usable than the old R or even the M (which was not really meant for tele or macro).

[caissa]

20 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Well, I find the Marumi works well - but of course you can easily and successfully use the 100 macro R if you need serious macro, and if the 50 was a macro lens then it wouldn't be such a good general purpose lens!

I can’t follow you here. The old R 60 macro was a very capable general purpose lens. A modern version (in 50 or 60mm with f/2 e.g.) could be a very swell “general” lens again. 

[caissa]

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

I can't tell you how much I disagree with this assessment 

1. the lens balances really nicely on the SL, it's neither big nor obtrusive and can easily be handled all day

2. Optically 'too good' - I've heard this said about other lenses before, but it seems to me that a sharp lens with lovely bokeh both in front and behind the point of focus is a good thing! The fact that it has no vices is also a good thing - I just don't get the (commonly held) logic that you need bad lenses to take good pictures.

3. Too expensive - well, that depends on what you can afford, but compared to lots of cine lenses and quite a few M lenses it's a pretty good deal.

4. Slow AF - seems okay to me? 

5. Close focusing - 0.35mm is pretty good for such a lens (and sticking on a Marumi +3 gets you much closer without sacrificing much quality).

To me this is a wonderful and pragmatic lens - pitched between the enormities of the Zeiss Otus and the 50 'lux SL and many other similar lenses . . . 

It works so well as a 'go to' lens on the SL (and the S1 and S1r come to that)  to my mind it is EXACTLY

"The Best Lens for Practical Use" (which is why I bought one)

Generally I agree with you, but two points were weird.

ad 4.   I do not know if it is slow. But it is a good guess that it is not different than the other primes. I do not care for fast focusing lenses, but it could be a worthwhile design goal. (Not just optimal IQ but also focus in time)

ad 2.  That was a cheap answer. I like you so I do not want to go into the details. (The logic you describe is no logic and nobody shares it). But I compare it to the old 50mm. I think it is a practical lens. (Not the new one) The Apo designation is good for sales, but not practical. (An comparison from the non-electric past: Like 450 horsepower for a car used for going shopping. Just ordinary shopping for the weekend, not shopping horses or boats. Which is the typical use ?)

Edited August 20, 2019 by caissa

[LocalHero1953]

14 minutes ago, caissa said:

ad 2.  That was a cheap answer. I like you so I do not want to go into the details. (The logic you describe is no logic and nobody shares it). But I compare it to the old 50mm. I think it is a practical lens. (Not the new one) The Apo is good for sales, but not practical. (An old comparison like 450 horsepower for a car used for going shopping. Just ordinary shopping for the weekend, not shopping horses or boats. Which is the typical use ?)

I am interested in this discussion, and Jono is well capable of answering for himself. But I take exception to someone who says they speak for me: at least one person (me) understands and shares his logic. The language you use ("terrible", "tragedy", "clumsy", "destroyed", "nobody shares") is a bit OTT if you're trying to convince us your opinions are valid, given that you don't seem to have actually used the lens.

Edited August 20, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[caissa]

No I do not want to convince you of my opinion. I am just stating my thoughts. 

This is not a debate where people try to turn reality according to their mind map (BOJO is a genius in that). No need to do that, I do not want to achieve anything.

I do not mind at all if you have a different opinion. Regard it as someone buying a customized music instrument, e.g. a guitar. (Gibson Les Paul e.g.) Different players have different preferences. Guitar manufacturers offer accordingly hundreds of options.

Unfortunately here the choice is limited. And I agree many will find this Apo lens worth lusting for. But I have a simpler taste and would like to have a simpler and smaller (less sophisticated regarding IQ) lens. (But more sophisticated regarding usability, e.g. AF speed, size, weight, cost)

If you like this lens as it is, then you should simply be happy. While I have to go on looking for a lens better suited for me.

Sorry to say that, but your reply also contains a cheap element. (No your reply is very decent and I like that style). You write that a user has to have many weeks, or even months experience with this lens, before he is allowed to have an opinion on it.    Think about it, it is simply ridiculous.   Of course nobody has much experience with this lens, besides Jono.   And it is not necessary to have it. (Also because the 75 and 90 are exactly the “same”.) For example I have never intensively used a car with 450 horsepower, still I have a firm opinion about it.  And I have no bad conscience that I have this lack of experience.  An old saying: You don’t need to be able to lay eggs to smell a bad one.

Edited August 20, 2019 by caissa

[jonoslack]

2 minutes ago, caissa said:

But I have a simpler taste and would like to have a simpler and smaller (less sophisticated regarding IQ) lens. (But more sophisticated regarding usability, e.g. AF speed, size, weight, cost)

I can’t follow you here. The old R 60 macro was a very capable general purpose lens. A modern version (in 50 or 60mm with f/2 e.g.) could be a very swell “general” lens again. 

 

Okay - to try and stop this getting complicated

I agree it would be nice if they made a simpler and smaller and lighter lens with better AF at much smaller cost

(we both think it's unlikely having been burned by the Summarits, and having limited manufacturing capacity - but I agree it would be nice)

I also agree that it would be very good if they did a modern L mount version of the Excellent 60 macro R (which I often use today) - although at f2 it would inevitably be very large. . . certainly not compatible with the first idea.

I agree - it would be great if they made both of these useful lenses.

But what I don't understand is why you appear to think that they SHOULDN'T have made this wonderful, pragmatic excellent all purpose SL summicron? 

I do understand why you don't want it - but it's clear that lots of other people do (myself included). 

[caissa]

Because it is anything but pragmatic.   🤔      But agreed, it is simply in line with their strategy. 

Of course I cannot see what the cost is. But I do not believe that a common size makes things much cheaper. I rather think it is an idea from cinematography, that they found attractive. It would have been possible to use one size for the longer ones and another one for the shorter ones (50 downwards). For a Summicron 135 they will need a different size again anyway. Or maybe it means this lens will never come. Probably also for a macro 100.

Edited August 20, 2019 by caissa

[jonoslack]

3 minutes ago, caissa said:

Because it is anything but pragmatic. 🤔

Now THAT is your opinion - which of course you're entitled to. But it is not my opinion (which of course I'm entitled to).

[thighslapper]

18 hours ago, caissa said:

Unfortunately here the choice is limited. And I agree many will find this Apo lens worth lusting for. But I have a simpler taste and would like to have a simpler and smaller (less sophisticated regarding IQ) lens. (But more sophisticated regarding usability, e.g. AF speed, size, weight, cost)

If you like this lens as it is, then you should simply be happy. While I have to go on looking for a lens better suited for me.

 An old saying: You don’t need to be able to lay eggs to smell a bad one.

Taking all this to it's logical conclusion I find it surprising that you are seeking what you require from Leica. 

Perhaps an entry level Canon DSLR and some nice Tamron lenses would be more in line with your requirements  ..... 

Edited August 21, 2019 by thighslapper

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb jonoslack:

But what I don't understand is why you appear to think that they SHOULDN'T have made this wonderful, pragmatic excellent all purpose SL summicron? 

Perhaps because of the experience of pain at the sight of this lens rooted in the biological drives for survival and procreation?