The new M 75 Noct/90 Lux that want to be like S

[setuporg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The new M 90mm Summilux f/1.5, following the M 75mm Noctilux f/1.2, are reviewed as separating the subject from the background and having beautiful bokeh.  They are also met with disbelief for weighting around 1kg, and having a hard time for tack sharp focus while wide open.

Remind you of anything?

[Sandokan]

I am not sure what you mean. 

For me, the easiest rangefinders to focus with accurately, are the Contax III and Nikon S3, due to the very large turning circle to go from infinity to close focus, as opposed to the 90 degrees required for M lenses. I wish M lenses took 150 degrees to focus. 

[otto.f]

I did not read this review from Mr. Anonymous completely but in his examples I do not yet see the ‘pop’ that my APO Summicron 90 gives me.

35 minutes ago, Sandokan said:

I am not sure what you mean. 

For me, the easiest rangefinders to focus with accurately, are the Contax III and Nikon S3, due to the very large turning circle to go from infinity to close focus, as opposed to the 90 degrees required for M lenses. I wish M lenses took 150 degrees to focus. 

I think what’s meant by OP, is if you are prepared to carry the weight of these lenses, the S line is an easier and better way to attain the beauty of OOF and selective focus in your images. 

[Jeff S]

9 hours ago, setuporg said:

The new M 90mm Summilux f/1.5, following the M 75mm Noctilux f/1.2, are reviewed as separating the subject from the background and having beautiful bokeh.  They are also met with disbelief for weighting around 1kg, and having a hard time for tack sharp focus while wide open.

Remind you of anything?

I see a trend here.  The M lenses remind you of the S.  The SL lenses remind you of the S.  Methinks you’re fixated on the S... 😁

Although I’m not a buyer of any of these fast beasts, I do agree with Sandokan regarding short vs long focus throws on modern M lenses, even the smaller versions like the 50 APO.  Unfortunately the small size of that lens also sacrifices a fully knurled focus ring (appearing later on the larger LHSA and black chrome versions), and the diminutive size also comes at a steep sales price considering it’s a Summicron, not a Noctilux.  Trade offs. 

Jeff

Edited December 28, 2019 by Jeff S

[John McMaster]

Leica themselves show the 90/1.5 on an SL(2) rather than an M....

john

[helged]

Regarding focus precision: The 120mm-S or 180mm-S wide(ish) open, mounted on an EVF body (S1R or SL2 in my case), demonstrates that a tiny rotation of the focus ring easily put the lens off focus. I havn't realised this sensitivity on the S006, but a high-res EVF clearly shows this. The rear screen on the S007 should show the same, I presume. So no wonder that perfect focus is difficult on the S. But it was new to me that the longer S-lenses need very, very careful adjustment of the focus on SL2/S1R. Even at long, 100 m and longer, distances. Actually, a longer focus throw would help manual focus of the S-lenses, methinks. So no wonder that the new 75mm and 90mm Nocts are used on SL2...

[setuporg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, otto.f said:

I think what’s meant by OP, is if you are prepared to carry the weight of these lenses, the S line is an easier and better way to attain the beauty of OOF and selective focus in your images. 

Exactly.

[setuporg]

4 hours ago, Jeff S said:

I see a trend here.  The M lenses remind you of the S.  The SL lenses remind you of the S.  Methinks you’re fixated on the S... 😁

 

I like history and seeing it at work, and tracing it back, so this is a hypothesis of an inspiration of one line from another.  It's also interesting how they arrive at about the same form and weight in the SL 16-35 zoom, the M 90/1.5, and the S primes.  Seems like the 82mm front filter is a magic number, and 1kg is a magic weight...

[Jeff S]

5 minutes ago, setuporg said:

I like history and seeing it at work, and tracing it back, so this is a hypothesis of an inspiration of one line from another.  It's also interesting how they arrive at about the same form and weight in the SL 16-35 zoom, the M 90/1.5, and the S primes.  Seems like the 82mm front filter is a magic number, and 1kg is a magic weight...

Sure, but big M and R lenses predated the S lenses by decades.  The SL primes are 67mm and near 700g, and are the new benchmark. And the new, fast and big M lenses are well suited to the SL.

Jeff

[John McMaster]

I have 21/1.4, 50/0.95, 50/1, 75/1.4, 80/1.4 and some longer R glass - apart from the 280/4 and APO-Telyt-Modular nothing is as bulky/heavy as S glass.  The faster SL Summilux is an E82 and the two recent (75mm and 90mm) M Noctilux lenses are +50% heavier than any previous M lens.....

john

[Jeff S]

None of those M or R lenses had autofocus mechanisms inside.  The tele lenses didn't have OIS either.  And the competitive landscape (see Otus, etc) wasn't the same.  Different times.

Jeff

[01af]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb Sandokan:

I wish M lenses took 150 degrees to focus. 

So do I.

The Leica S system was (nearly) dead on arrival. The S2 came when sensors larger than 24 × 36 mm inevitably were CCD but then, very soon, live-view-capable CMOS sensors in medium-format sizes materialized. That was when the death blow hit the S system. Unfortunately, they missed the direction of progress. The anachronistic flipping mirror will eventually kill the S system. What they have to do now is going the way of Olympus—they went from Fourthirds to Micro-Fourthirds years ago.

So, Leica Camera—cut the S system's flange distance in half, drop the mirror, and introduce the 'Micro-S' system (following mirrorless Hasselblad XCD and Fujifilm GFX) before it's too late! I'd suggest the name 'SM system.'

Edited December 28, 2019 by 01af

[setuporg]

12 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Sure, but big M and R lenses predated the S lenses by decades.  The SL primes are 67mm and near 700g, and are the new benchmark. And the new, fast and big M lenses are well suited to the SL.

Indeed.  Still S was a critical pivot from R to AF, leading to SL...  I think lots of folks in M and SL forums do not realize that, like I had no idea until recently.

[Jeff S]

And many didn’t realize that the unlabeled 4 button interface on the back of the S, (passed on to the SL before being abandoned on the SL2), originated with Phase, back when Leica had a relationship. Or that Panasonic has been integral to many things inside Leica bodies and lenses. A lot of people also mistakenly think that the push-out sealed battery from the S (then SL) started with the X1D.  Design heritage starts in many places.  

Jeff

Edited December 28, 2019 by Jeff S

[setuporg]

I missed out on the 4-button UI with the SL, additionally proving it was a slimmed down S.  But the quick menu and touch UI on the SL2 is OK.

The X1D clearly borrowed the S battery charging by plugging a charger into it.  I enjoy the S one the most.  I had to get a bunch of the Q2 ones for the summer trip to Europe and now go through 3 a day with the SL2.  That is as  bad or worse than the X1D.

When did the Panasonic partnership start?  I also am bothered by the Huawei relationship, which spells nothing but trouble in the US.

[Jeff S]

41 minutes ago, setuporg said:

When did the Panasonic partnership start?  

At least back to 2000...

https://news.panasonic.com/global/topics/2014/29096.html

Jeff

Edited December 28, 2019 by Jeff S

[peterv]

Interesting discussion guys, I remember Leica design history exactly as Jeff S says and yes, the SL line has no doubt benefited a lot from the experience Leica obtained from building the S line.

 

A thing or two about sharpness in general:

 

- For one, it's all relative and the thing with our S lenses is that they are so incredibly sharp and the exact point of focus where the image is at its sharpest, is so very, very thin that shooting wide-open is always going to be difficult if you want 100% available sharpness out of an S lens, whether you're in the studio or outside in the field. But since it's all relative, the area immediately around the absolute point of focus can still be very acceptably sharp with the lens stopped down a bit for a depth of field.

 

- In my past six years with Leica S, in my experience OOF areas do not suffer much with larger f numbers, you just have to take very good care what you put in the background. If you can control the light and the material in the background it will make all the difference. For example for portraits, I do not hesitate to shoot at f8 because I will still get a very nice out of focus area in the background. Honestly, I think people are obsessed a bit too much with shooting wide open all the time. As we all know in the end, with good technique and some thought, sharpness together with nice OOF areas in combination with sufficient DOF is a luxury the S system provides that I have really come to appreciate.

 

- During the past weeks I have been watching The Morning Show on AppleTV+ and now I am in the middle of The Witcher on Netflix - I don’t like both series story-wise but I watch them out of cinematographic interest. Both series are shot with Panavision Primos on a comparable size sensor in between so-called FF and the S, but yikes.

The designer of these lenses is very well known in the industry and also very much respected. I suppose it's all a matter of taste but I really, really dislike the OOF areas in The Witcher. And these are lenses 3 to 5 times more expensive, if you can buy them because they are mostly rented out.

 

As for the people who think that Leica should follow the crowd and make a mirrorless, micro-S or whatever you wanna call it, I say invest now in S lenses because once word about their qualities gets out in cinematographic circles, prices will surely go up 😎

[davidmknoble]

4 hours ago, 01af said:

The Leica S system was (nearly) dead on arrival. The S2 came when sensors larger than 24 × 36 mm inevitably were CCD but then, very soon, live-view-capable CMOS sensors in medium-format sizes materialized. That was when the death blow hit the S system. Unfortunately, they missed the direction of progress. The anachronistic flipping mirror will eventually kill the S system. What they have to do now is going the way of Olympus—they went from Fourthirds to Micro-Fourthirds years ago.

I disagree with your concept here.  There have been significant advances in the S system up through the S007.  The dynamic range is superb and while I don’t love the mirror, it is one of the fastest on the market and extremely bright to view and focus through.  Using an optical viewfinder also allows for longer battery life.  The entire process from shot to print is easy and takes much less post processing.  I love the SL and the SL2 has great pixel size, but even the SL2 has a lower dynamic range than the S007.  I think the S line is maturing, but its got a ways to go before being replaced - given the users it is designed for anyway.

Just my humble opinion

[tom0511]

I wrote this also in another thread - I am not fully convinced that mirrorless is the one and only future for all systems.

It sure has benefits, but even after many years on the market there are still drawbacks as well.

All I would wish for in the S is a somewhat more sophisticated AF (mainly smaller area/ spot focus and multiple points if possible).

This is not meant as bashing of Hassy or Fujy, but if I take a x1dII in my hands and look through it or a S than I have to say the S feels more advanced, faster, I can see the real light in real time, not "Live view".

And also not meaning to bash the SL-system, but the S lenses do focus smoother when focusing manually, and they have a distance scale, and for my taste -even having adapted to the 3 button design, I still prefer the 4 button design of the S and the SL(1).

I sometimes believe the success of mirrorless has more to do that it is less complex and probably cheaper to produce with less restrictions and calibration issues for body and lenses. But I am not convinced that it is the better user interface overall.

I am afraid though that when reading it often enough and people jumping on mirrorless as the "new and future" technology that brands maybe forced to let DSLRs dye or at least invest more money in development of mirrorless systems. I sometimes believe the success of mirrorless has more to do that it is less complex and probably cheaper to produce with less restrictions for body and lenses. And yes, I also do like the SL system in general, but IMO there is a place for both worlds, dslr and mirrorless. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[John McMaster]

9 hours ago, Jeff S said:

None of those M or R lenses had autofocus mechanisms inside.  The tele lenses didn't have OIS either.  And the competitive landscape (see Otus, etc) wasn't the same.  Different times.

Jeff

I was just replying to your

John