Jump to content
m9photo

S lenses on SL

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've heard of S lenses are one of a kind on Leica line up. Anyone here can share the experience, especially with 120 S? on 35mm this lens should be around 90mm am I correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The S 120 is stunningly good.  I used it a fair amount on my SL this summer and I was extraordinarily happy with it. Some photos from San Francisco bay with it, below.

Other S lenses on the SL are superb, as well.  Their autofocus is a bit slower, but very manageable. On the SL, I do like that I can move the focus point with the toggle switch.

On 35mm format, the S120 is an actual 120mm.

On the S medium format camera it is equivalent to appx 96mm.

Rob

Edited by ropo54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rob!, Fantastic pics! 

but isn't it 80mm in medium format is 50mm in 35? so assuming 120 in MF that means this one is 90-100 in 35? I might be wrong.

Edited by m9photo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The S lenses are optically superb on the SL but they focus much slower, especially the 100 mm Summicron which is so slow that it is almost unusable in a typical fashion or portrait shoot (for me not worth the extra cost of the adapter). I am sure the AF is fine for landscape, still life, product etc., so depends on what you want to shoot. Best is to try in a store.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

m9 - thanks. 

On the  SL 601, the 120mm is 120mm f2.5.  

On the  S 007,  it is  96mm, f2 equivalent. 

My original post was erroneous.

Rob

 

 

Edited by ropo54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a word of warning. 

My S100 failed on my SL on the first time I mounted it. It’s was the same AF failure as was discussed in this part of the forum many times.  I’d send the older S lenses to Leica got the upgrade first. 

Edited by ynp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some samples of SL with S 100 (top) and S 120 (bottom two)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, m9photo said:

Thanks Rob!, Fantastic pics! 

but isn't it 80mm in medium format is 50mm in 35? so assuming 120 in MF that means this one is 90-100 in 35? I might be wrong.

The exact effective focal length conversion depends on the size of the sensor. That size varies amongst  brands and models. To be clearer, the marked focal length is the 35mm value.

Looking at it from the other direction, a 70mm S lens is effectively 56mm on an S camera. The conversation factor on the S is 0.8  (agreeing with the numbers Rob gave you). 

On the SL the native length is what you get.

Edited by hoppyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, hoppyman said:

The exact effective focal length conversion depends on the size of the sensor. That size varies amongst  brands and models. To be clearer, the marked focal length is the 35mm value.

Looking at it from the other direction, a 70mm S lens is effectively 56mm on an S camera. The conversation factor on the S is 0.8  (agreeing with the numbers Rob gave you). 

On the SL the native length is what you get.

You said that much more concisely than I did, Geoff. Thank you! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, hoppyman said:

The exact effective focal length conversion depends on the size of the sensor. That size varies amongst  brands and models. To be clearer, the marked focal length is the 35mm value.

Looking at it from the other direction, a 70mm S lens is effectively 56mm on an S camera. The conversation factor on the S is 0.8  (agreeing with the numbers Rob gave you). 

On the SL the native length is what you get.

I would change that to "the marked focal length is the one most people are used to on a FF sensor". I have used S and X1D size sensors for so long that I translate the other way. I've never used a 19mm lens on Canon, but a 24mm on the S makes instant sense. The XCD 21mm sounds like an ultra-wide. Because it is. The 28 Cron and the SK 35XL are both so familiar that I just think of them as the same. It's weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, m9photo said:

I've heard of S lenses are one of a kind on Leica line up. Anyone here can share the experience, especially with 120 S? on 35mm this lens should be around 90mm am I correct?

First of all just to clarify, the focal length of a lens is a property of the lens, nothing to do with sensors. But in order to understand the equivalent field of view, people like to convert them to the equivalent field of view on what is called a full frame sensor. So the 120mm, has the field of view of a 120mm on the SL but when used on the S it has an equivalent the field of view of 96mm on the SL.

I have used it on the SL and it performed well. Actually all S lenses were good, AF wasa bit slow as others mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it would be good to consider a lens focal length with the diagonal of the sensor format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of those topics where people like to be precise with definitions and language etc. I just tried to explain the practical rule of thumb for m9photo for using S lenses on an SL.

The active sensor area AND the lens focal length determine the angle of view.

Edited by hoppyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hoppyman said:

One of those topics where people like to be precise with definitions and language etc. I just tried to explain the practical rule of thumb for m9photo for using S lenses on an SL.

The active sensor area AND the lens focal length determine the angle of view.

Quite so! This subject requires the six inches of fine print at the end of every posting - like an email from a law firm or financial institution - detailing the assumptions ...

Field of View (FoV) refers to....

Disclaimer: Comparing 3:2 and 4:3 aspect ratios is fraught with imprecision and we adopt the following...

"Equivalence" is not precise, but refers to those settings most likely to result in the most similar print of a fixed size... etc.

In fact, I'm going to write an article on it. 😎

Matt

Edited by mgrayson3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 12:03 AM, mgrayson3 said:

The XCD 21mm sounds like an ultra-wide. Because it is.

Matt, since you have experience with both, I wondered how much wider the XCD 21mm really is, compared to the 24mm on our beloved S. After all, the S has the advantage of the wider aspect ratio, so I would guess the Hasselblad 21mm on the XCD is about as wide as the 24mm on the S.

(Of course the 21mm Hasselblad may very well be a less optimally corrected wide angle and therefore give the impression of an ultra wide😁😁😁 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, peterv said:

Matt, since you have experience with both, I wondered how much wider the XCD 21mm really is, compared to the 24mm on our beloved S. After all, the S has the advantage of the wider aspect ratio, so I would guess the Hasselblad 21mm on the XCD is about as wide as the 24mm on the S.

(Of course the 21mm Hasselblad may very well be a less optimally corrected wide angle and therefore give the impression of an ultra wide😁😁😁 )

The 21 is quite linear (after corrections), so it's not that. The aspect ratio isn't a big deal because the X1D sensor is 44mm wide and the S sensor 45mm. Most of the difference is height (33 vs. 30). And, of course, it's all relative. The Voigtländer 10mm on a CL/TL2 is even wider at 15mm FFE (full frame equivalent). The X1D 21 is a 16.8, the S24 a 19.2...

But the numbers don't convey the feelings. Each of these lenses looks radically different, not subtly. (Of course, the 10mm on an SL looks truly bizarre unless you're photographing the sky.) Maybe it's that I don't yet "see" at the X1D's FoV, and so I'm always surprised when I bring the camera up to my eye. The S24 is striking, but not unnatural. The 21 looks odd, and the Voigtländer comical.

This is the most "natural" shot I've gotten with the 21, and perspective correction has removed a lot of the frame. 

More typical is:

24 on the S from the same place, but not the same framing. And the tallest buildings in the 21 pic weren't yet built.

Matt

Edited by mgrayson3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice shots, I really like the New York image. The S 24mm is a lovely wide angle, and although I’m not so much a wide FOV guy myself, this lens has opened up many possibilities for me. I use it wide open in interiors because I like the bokeh a lot and outdoors it’s very sharp corner to corner at f9,5 🙂

Share this post


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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy