APO macro Summarit S 120 on SL2

[hoppyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got the S to L Adapter to also be able to use my 120 on the new camera. It comes with a removable bracket that fits the lens for tripod mounting. The adapter is expensive but very well made and works perfectly. There’s a toggle  at the lens mount  end for quick no tool fit/remove that’s like the old M baseplate arrangement. I put a small plate from RRS on the tripod end.

i use back button AFs focus  From MF mainly. Because I am shooting in a narrow distance range for portraits, I find that the AF time is quite acceptable ( that is the lens is not operating from macro or infinity, it’s where it was from previous shot).  MF  with the magnification triggered is available full time ( AF and MF), unlike the L lenses which will only do it in MF mode. The magnified image makes very critical focus easy and is more precise than peaking for me.

The results look superb, each frame from 600 or so is critically sharp, used the way I did, as from the S with bonus extra pixels and the additional focus capabilities on the SL2 very welcome.

[helged]

+1 for the S-lenses on SL/SL2! Although the L-primes are optically superior (and the L-zooms outstanding), the S-rendering is very, very pleasant. So yes, S+SL makes sense (for me). 

[Advertisement]

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

[tom0511]

I agree. I prefer the size and speed of SL lenses but the S lenses draw very nice. Some days ago I used the 120 Macro on the SL2 and it worked very well.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[hoppyman]

My shoot was for a friend’s business promotion and I can’t even show the models as yet. We didn’t have any snakes 😂  but did have a lot of  vibrant women with very cool hair and makeup looks. Shall show when I can too

[hoppyman]

On 3/9/2020 at 7:03 AM, helged said:

+1 for the S-lenses on SL/SL2! Although the L-primes are optically superior (and the L-zooms outstanding), the S-rendering is very, very pleasant. So yes, S+SL makes sense (for me). 

It’s an interesting aspect isn’t it? I had read one reference in this forum that suggested the S lenses needed to be more critical optically than the L lenses in that there may be some automatic correction  in the SL cameras. We do know that lens profiles are available for the S lenses when developing, whereas the new Summicron L’s at least show that as built in.

I don’t know. I think that the results from all of the lenses I have are wonderful and the only L Summicron I have ( the 35) is superb and maybe my favourite lens ever.

The S lenses offer full time option to fine tune/adjust focus manually from AF or M on the SL2 whereas my  Summicron L 35 does not.

My several years old and much shot Summarit S 70 has had to be repaired three times though ( my 5 year old 120 hasn’t failed so far) and that new focus system in the Summicron  L ‘s is lightning fast in focus.

[Chaemono]

Here are some examples with this lens on the SL2: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-QcK5sX/i-3SgHDqh

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, hoppyman said:

It’s an interesting aspect isn’t it? I had read one reference in this forum that suggested the S lenses needed to be more critical optically than the L lenses in that there may be some automatic correction  in the SL cameras. We do know that lens profiles are available for the S lenses when developing, whereas the new Summicron L’s at least show that as built in.

 

With the S, the OVF requires distortion correction via lens design, whereas an EVF  based camera can rely on software, as Toni Felsner (Product Manager for S and SL) tells Hugh Brownstone (7 minute mark)...

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the SL incorporates lens software correction, but the lower price points for SL vs S lenses might  suggest so (although of course the S lenses cover a larger format, while the SL lenses have economies from sharing common barrel size, etc).

Jeff

Edited March 10, 2020 by Jeff S

[davidmknoble]

10 hours ago, Jeff S said:

With the S, the OVF requires distortion correction via lens design, whereas an EVF  based camera can rely on software, as Toni Felsner (Product Manager for S and SL) tells Hugh Brownstone (7 minute mark)...

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the SL incorporates lens software correction, but the lower price points for SL vs S lenses might  suggest so (although of course the S lenses cover a larger format, while the SL lenses have economies from sharing common barrel size, etc).

Jeff

Interesting point, @Jeff S. I had not thought about distortion through the OVF.  Essentially this is the only OVF system left in Leica and after using it, and not seeing significant distortion, you come to expect it.  Even after shooting film for so long,  I had not though about this.  

Very good point and if you download the spec sheets on the SL lenses, none of them (I only checked a few, including the first, the 24-90) have the distortion and light fall-off the other lens specification sheets show.  This seems to show that distortion is present in the system at some significant level and is being corrected in the software of the EVF and the final image.  Otherwise, I would expect Leica to have provided that like in their other lens sheets. 

Again, nice point.

[hoppyman]

16 hours ago, Jeff S said:

With the S, the OVF requires distortion correction via lens design, whereas an EVF  based camera can rely on software, as Toni Felsner (Product Manager for S and SL) tells Hugh Brownstone (7 minute mark)...This doesn’t necessarily mean that the SL incorporates lens software correction, but the lower price points for SL vs S lenses might  suggest so (although of course the S lenses cover a larger format, while the SL lenses have economies from sharing common barrel size, etc).

Jeff

Yes I saw this too. One outlier might be the M system, well it is technically mirrorless too, but not in the same way. We know that the digital M’s do also add correction ( for corners etc).

On pricing, here at least some SL lenses are broadly comparable to those from the S system anyway.. Also mostly made of unobtanium still though.

My personal impression is that the design/ engineering of the SL Summicrons is a large advance on the earlier designs in the S system, specifically the new focus mechanism. The MTF graphs tell their own story too..

Using just part of the image circle of the S lenses on the SL2 is another situation again. But this is just levels of excellence as a practical matter. I know that for portraits on tripod that 120 on the SL2 is very compelling now.

[davidmknoble]

40 minutes ago, hoppyman said:

Yes I saw this too. One outlier might be the M system, well it is technically mirrorless too, but not in the same way. We know that the digital M’s do also add correction ( for corners etc).

If by outlier you mean the M system has distortion correction, I would agree that many have low distortion, i.e. most every summicron.

[hoppyman]

20 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

If by outlier you mean the M system has distortion correction, I would agree that many have low distortion, i.e. most every summicron.

David I meant that digital M cameras do apply some in body automatic corrections,, specifically to reduce some corner darkening/ Italian Flag discolouration. I am not aware of any distortion correction, for example barrel or pincushion correction. That’s is not a criticism of the M system. I used the M system for some years from the M6 through to the M (Typ 240).

 Inbuilt  distortion correction is common as part of the complete system design for some systems, compacts for example, and not limited to Leica of course. This is maybe getting a bit off track for my topic.

With the S system lenses, some subtle distortion corrections are implemented optionally by the use of lens profiles in Lightroom. For the APO Summicron SL 35 at least a profile is currently reported as built in.

 

[davidmknoble]

14 minutes ago, hoppyman said:

David I meant that digital M cameras do apply some in body automatic corrections,, specifically to reduce some corner darkening/ Italian Flag discolouration. I am not aware of any distortion correction, for example barrel or pincushion correction. That’s is not a criticism of the M system. I used the M system for some years from the M6 through to the M (Typ 240).

 Inbuilt  distortion correction is common as part of the complete system design for some systems, compacts for example, and not limited to Leica of course. This is maybe getting a bit off track for my topic.

With the S system lenses, some subtle distortion corrections are implemented optionally by the use of lens profiles in Lightroom. For the APO Summicron SL 35 at least a profile is currently reported as built in.

 

That makes sense @hoppyman.  I did not take your comments as a criticism... I thought it was a good comparison that there are a group of M lenses with very little distortion, more important when shooting film and pre-computer fixing.  Someone else made an astute observation that the S lenses were well corrected because of the OVF.  

I think using the LR lens profiles is a great starting point for any of the Leica camera / lens combinations, and it is easy to turn it off if something more natural is desired....