Future SL Roadmap -guesses

[dem331]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any informed/ reasonable  guesses about future SL lenses beyond those announced?

Should we not expect a 135mm for  2021/2022

I am surprised that they have covered every focal length from 21-90mm before introducing a 135mm, but this may just be because of the shared body of the summicrons. I hope that they do not go to macro, ultra-wide or short-range zooms before 135mm or 180mm.

 

[helged]

51 minutes ago, dem331 said:

Any informed/ reasonable  guesses about future SL lenses beyond those announced?

Should we not expect a 135mm for  2021/2022

I am surprised that they have covered every focal length from 21-90mm before introducing a 135mm, but this may just be because of the shared body of the summicrons. I hope that they do not go to macro, ultra-wide or short-range zooms before 135mm or 180mm.

 

I hope for a long lens, 400+ mm; but overly optimistic I am not...

[frame-it]

 A Native L mount T/S would be good too

[Jeff S]

The L mount alliance with Panasonic and Sigma cuts two ways.  On the one hand, it creates sales competition, but it also may take some pressure off to fill some voids in offerings, e.g., Sigma 135.

Jeff

[scott kirkpatrick]

It's hard to see where Leica would go to improve on the stated roadmap.  They know how to make wide angle Super Elmars of even greater resolution (the 24, 21, and 18) but the Summicrons already cover 100 MPx sensor requirements, and the 16-35 is almost as good.  So an 18 mm prime is only a faint possibility.  I would bet that a 135 f/2 or f/2.8 could fit into the same frame as the Summicrons, so that is a possibility.  But wouldn't a 180 or 200 be more useful?  Anyway extensions at the telephoto end seem more plausible, probably not wide aperture, more like f/4s, now that image stabilization and higher ISO capabilities are a given.

I wonder if a faster, super high quality zoom set in the easy portions of the Summicron design space would be possible.  Something like a 21-35 f/2 or a 28-50?

[Daniel81]

An autofocus SL macro lens would be awesome

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

33 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

It's hard to see where Leica would go to improve on the stated roadmap.  They know how to make wide angle Super Elmars of even greater resolution (the 24, 21, and 18) but the Summicrons already cover 100 MPx sensor requirements, and the 16-35 is almost as good.  So an 18 mm prime is only a faint possibility.  I would bet that a 135 f/2 or f/2.8 could fit into the same frame as the Summicrons, so that is a possibility.  But wouldn't a 180 or 200 be more useful?  Anyway extensions at the telephoto end seem more plausible, probably not wide aperture, more like f/4s, now that image stabilization and higher ISO capabilities are a given.

I wonder if a faster, super high quality zoom set in the easy portions of the Summicron design space would be possible.  Something like a 21-35 f/2 or a 28-50?

Wasn't there a thread a few weeks back, where the lens designer basically said use the CL as an extender ?

Edited January 8, 2020 by frame-it

[scott kirkpatrick]

13 minutes ago, Daniel81 said:

An autofocus SL macro lens would be awesome

The 35 and 50 focus down to 5:1.  The CL 60 macro does go to 1:1 but only covers 20 MPx of the SL2's frame.  You get the effect of using it on the SL2 plus a bit more by using it on the CL it was designed for.  The S 120/2.5 exists and is awesome...but large and slow to focus.  I wonder what a 90 macro, with internal focus (like the CL 60) and designed to go to 0.5:1 would look like.  That would be a lens that hasn't been offered anywhere, to my knowledge, and thus an attractive challenge for Leica to offer the flower-lovers.  With IBIS!!.  Maybe with 47 MPx it is not necessary to go to 0.5 magnification.

Edited January 8, 2020 by scott kirkpatrick

[Jeff S]

The SL 24-90 focuses to .3m with a max reproduction ratio of 1:3.8 at the long end. Plus it offers OIS (in addition to SL2 IBIS).

Jeff

[jplomley]

24-45-90 Tilt shift lenses

but realistically, I’d first like to just see the wide angle primes sometime this year, meaning actually availability once announced 

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

The L mount alliance with Panasonic and Sigma cuts two ways.  On the one hand, it creates sales competition, but it also may take some pressure off to fill some voids in offerings, e.g., Sigma 135.

Jeff

Which, from my use over the past couple of weeks, is an extremely satisfying optic. Having also shot a few frames with the APO-Telyt-M 135 on the SL2, I no longer can make much of a case for owning it. It's very hard to imagine a Leica offering in this space that would displace the ART from my arsenal.  Given 135mm and above tends to be a lower percentage of most users captures and the likely cost differential, I think Leica is better served concentrating on the wide end.  Along with one or two lower cost SEM equivalents ($5k a pop gets tiresome after a while), I'd agree with jplomley that a native TS lens or two, would be of interest.  

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

The 35 and 50 focus down to 5:1.  The CL 60 macro does go to 1:1 but only covers 20 MPx of the SL2's frame.  You get the effect of using it on the SL2 plus a bit more by using it on the CL it was designed for.  The S 120/2.5 exists and is awesome...but large and slow to focus.  I wonder what a 90 macro, with internal focus (like the CL 60) and designed to go to 0.5:1 would look like.  That would be a lens that hasn't been offered anywhere, to my knowledge, and thus an attractive challenge for Leica to offer the flower-lovers.  With IBIS!!.  Maybe with 47 MPx it is not necessary to go to 0.5 magnification.

There is also Panasonic Lumix S 24-105mm f/4 Macro with 1:2 macro reproduction ratio.

[verwackelt]

vor einer Stunde schrieb jplomley:

24-45-90 Tilt shift lenses

I guess we have to live with Canon TS lenses via Adapter to L-Mount for the next decade…
So the Canon TS Lenses are not bad, the L-alliance will not feel so much pressure to develop own TS lenses…

[caissa]

A 1.7x extender would be by far the most useful next piece for me. Even more so, if it would work not only with the 90-280, but also with the primes (50, 75, 90). It could be a step towards macro. (A prime would then get 1:3 instead of only 1:5).

But I think Karbe is completely against it. (But even Hasselblad offers it, and they are no slouch.)  

Or an even simpler element, a macro adapter (also for these lenses).

 

[caissa]

2 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

The 35 and 50 focus down to 5:1.  The CL 60 macro does go to 1:1 but only covers 20 MPx of the SL2's frame.  You get the effect of using it on the SL2 plus a bit more by using it on the CL it was designed for.  The S 120/2.5 exists and is awesome...but large and slow to focus.  I wonder what a 90 macro, with internal focus (like the CL 60) and designed to go to 0.5:1 would look like.  That would be a lens that hasn't been offered anywhere, to my knowledge, and thus an attractive challenge for Leica to offer the flower-lovers.  With IBIS!!.  Maybe with 47 MPx it is not necessary to go to 0.5 magnification.

2.5/90 was my first macro lens (from Tamron). But it probably does not count. I would prefer a 100 or 120. But the Leica prize ?  The Apo 90 with a close up adapter or an extender would probably still give nice results. Nicer than using the 100$ close up lenses on the 5k Leica lenses. Maybe the Sigma 70mm is acceptable and Panasonic will bring another macro (focal length still a surprise). The Sigma 150mm also looks not bad (is it still available ?).

[setuporg]

14 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

I wonder if a faster, super high quality zoom set in the easy portions of the Summicron design space would be possible.  Something like a 21-35 f/2 or a 28-50?

As the SVE SL 16-35mm supersedes the WATE, something could supersede the MATE...

[scott kirkpatrick]

I wonder if an SL- MATE would work within the SL Summicron form factor.  Probably it would need to grow to the size of the SL 50/1.4 in order to make room for the slotted cylinder that Leica uses for repositioning elements when they zoom, but it should not need to be any longer than the 50.  Now, what if the amount of common internal glass elements in the SL Summicrons permitted zooming over a narrow range by just repositioning a selection of elements that are already in manufacture?  That might make an f/2.8 SL-MATE a real possibility at a non-nosebleed price. Impossible with the tools available to a lens designer 10-20 years ago, but with today's computer power, maybe a solution can be found.

[caissa]

From Sigma there is already the "Summicron" f2 24-35 Art. Optically it is much better than the MATE. And it is not too big. So I would rather like to get a small and light (compared to 24-90) 28-75 (non OIS) or a smaller Summicron 50 (without Apo) along the lines of the Summicron R 50mm.  This prime would be my most used lens (for travel and on the streets) and I would really like to have a Leica lens for that.  (Currently I use the R 50 or a Canon EF 1.8/50 STM which is surprisingly good.)   (50 mm lenses were good since many decades, even without Apo which only adds a lot of bulk.)   I think it is a shame that I have to use such a cheapo lens, instead of a "reasonable" Leica AF lens of moderate size and weight.    If Leica could provide a small AF lens for the Q/Q2 then they should also consider (at least one) small lens for the SL/SL2. 
I would not be surprised if it became their best seller.

Edited January 14, 2020 by caissa

[caissa]

Could the 1.7/28mm from the Q2 be switched to the SL2 ?   It is not on the level (IQ) of the SL Summicrons, but all the corrections would already be known, so should be a “minor effort” to move it to the L-mount ?!   A 50 or a 28, both would be very welcome.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, caissa said:

 (50 mm lenses were good since many decades, even without Apo which only adds a lot of bulk.)   

Or cost... the 50 M APO Summicron is tiny... but comes at a price. SL lenses need space for other reasons, especially AF.  And, for better or worse, the decision was made to standardize sizes (and costs) for the SL Summicron range. Karbe explained how the SL 35 would normally have been the smallest Summicron, but the extra space provided opportunities to optimize performance.  It’s a matter of design/cost trade offs.

Jeff