Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree, it seems to be a number of factors, the Q2 certainly among them. Personally, the most interesting to me will be the 21mm, as it will give a lens that is fantastic for interior architecture shoots as well as for night landscapes. 21mm is extremely wide, but the 47mp in the SL2 allow for a lot of cropping, and I find that if you are reaching for a lens in this range, generally the wider the better (24mm might be the most natural "very wide", but with zero distortion a 21mm can be more useful). I also crop most times to 4x5, so the 21mm helps account for that extra cropping from the film edges. 28mm for me has always been a neither here nor there focal length for me...not wide enough for true wide angle use, but a bit too wide for standard use. I still have 24mm and 35mm Sigma lenses on the SL, with just the one SL Summicron at 50mm. In the future I would like to add a 35mm SL Summicron and a 21mm SL Summicron...that would be it for me, unless they decide to do a 135mm, which could be great (but which I don't expect).

Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 15 Stunden schrieb jplomley:

Or weather sealing? That's a big plus for the SL lenses. I love shooting in inclement weather and these fit the bill, especially with heir deep lens hoods.

yes. However, if it rains I rather use a zoom because I dont want to change lenses in the rain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Karbe had the idea to make all the Summicrons of identical specs (apart from FL). I am no video user, so I find this idea not too useful. With the 75 and 90 the size was ok. But latest with the 35 it was clear that the size is actually too big. So I wait for a smaller 50 and probably also for a smaller 28.

Yes the IQ is great at f 2. With the longer lenses this is useful. With the wide-angles it is not mandatory for me. And the price is a killer. So the budget dictates in the end which lenses will be acquired.

By the way. The identical specs are also a reason why the Summicrons are the most expensive primes (apart from some M lenses). But funny enough Karbe mentioned the identical size and reuse of some parts as a reason for economy of scale (reuse of parts resulting in reduced cost). Kind of a bad joke ?

Another joke ? The 35 was mentioned by Karbe as probably the best corrected lens. Funny that many testers (serious ?) found it not better (actually slightly worse) than lenses from competitors ....    Well I don’t mind, but I wonder if there is a way to get an objective judgement about its qualities and weaknesses. Usually testers either try to find all weaknesses and forget to look for strengths or vice versa. Or is the difference because Leica MTFs are only computed and not actually measured ?

Edited by caissa
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/14/2021 at 3:06 PM, hansvons said:

That's what I'd do: get a 24-90 and add a 35mm SL or a 50mm SL. Why is that? Well, the SL2-S I recently purchased is my first professional digital stills camera (before that, I got myself a Fuji XE-3, a nice little companion). But as a director/DoP for commercials and filmmaker, I've owned lenses and film cameras (digital and analogue) over the last three decades. My experience on moving-picture gear, as I found out immediately, can safely be transferred on stills (and, of course, video).

That's what I've figured out on my journey, often with some pain:

For many jobs, a short zoom (in stills land that's called a standard zoom) that covers the field of views which are not too alien to human perception (which is in FF typically 24-90mm focal length, with the 24mm perhaps a tad too wide), does that job and is a fast and reliable way to get your shots. When amid everything, when time is a factor, when the temporary moods of your subjects matter, when there are scenes that won' be repeatable, nothing beats a zoom lens. You don't have to swap glass and realign yourself to the new lens. These saved seconds are hell more worth than the possible gain in optical quality coming with primes.

And to be happy with the outcome, the zoom lens should be excellent and not a cheaper makeshift for missing primes. The 24-90 tics that box. It does its job so well that I'm hesitant to buy a PL-adaptor for my Angenieux Optimo, which costs three times more than the Leica zoom. It's that good. And for stills, its AF implementation is very snappy and accurate.
But besides the zoom lens, I used to own a set of primes, in my case Zeiss Super Speeds. But truth be told, the primes were hardly used, only on selected jobs and could have been easily rented without economic sacrifice. However, there was only one lens which I used more than the others, I'd say by the factor 10. It's been the 35mm prime. In FF land, that translates to the 50mm. So, I figure, I'm a fifty guy. Others find themselves being 35mm aficionados.

In my case, any other focal length in a prime would be an add-on, a luxury item, or a speciality lens like a very long zoom lens for birders or sports photographers (who would never buy into the Leica SL system anyway). But like with the zoom, the prime should be very, very good and a joy to work with. Otherwise, where's the point to shoot with it?

Of course, we're all different. And I have mates who are essentially lens collectors, and that perfectly fine. But when I'd buy into a new system, I'd buy first the best standard zoom I could possibly get and get my preferred focal lengths as a prime. However, this prime lens should render the pictures in a way my zoom lens could never achieve. For my taste, that would be typically dimensionality (which the 24-90 shows plenty), focus roll-off, bokeh, and sharpness that is kind to skin. 
Since March, I've shot over 20.000 photos with the SL2-S and the 24-90 (please note my affection for culling; thus, I show no hesitation pressing the trigger button). But I still don't feel the desire to decide between the Summicron 50mm SL and the Summilux 50mm SL for the next purchase. Right now, I'm leaning towards the Summilux. But after the next 20.000 shots, I might think differently. Or I'll stay with the zoom. It's a hell of a lens. 

Thank you for this very interesting post. I guess you are referring to the 2.8-4 Leica lens and uses it for video work. Isn't the varibale aparture a problem for you in that regards? I also thought about it but I figure a constant aparture like in the new 24-70 would easier on set. And I am so amazed by the comparison to the Optimo Ang. that I feel intrigue to know more..

Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 35 Minuten schrieb caissa:

...

Another joke ? The 35 was mentioned by Karbe as probably the best corrected lens.

...

Each lens has positva and negativa. No lens is perfect. The question is, what's your idea behind the lens and how to correct it, to reach theis idea.

... and isn't it true that our children are the "best corrected" childs in the world? :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amal said:

I guess you are referring to the 2.8-4 Leica lens and uses it for video work. Isn't the varibale aparture a problem for you in that regards? I also thought about it but I figure a constant aparture like in the new 24-70 would easier on set. And I am so amazed by the comparison to the Optimo Ang. that I feel intrigue to know more..

Variable aperture has never been an issue for video. There are many cine zooms that have a tendency to ramp, meaning at the long end they tend to render pictures darker. Just select the f-stop that is the minimal f-stop at the longest end you want to use, and your images won't darken when zooming. From that perspective, the 24-90 is an f 4.0 lens with the option to shoot at f 2.8 at 24mm.

The 24-90 can compete with the Optimo in some areas very well. It's as sharp, even sharper. It shows similar spheric distortions, which are absolutely acceptable. Chromatic aberrations are as well controlled or even better. And it has character, which motivates me to shoot with it. 

However, the Optimo is more prone to moody flares, which I kind of miss with the 24-90. The Leica 24-90 hardly flares at all, making it more of a stills lens because, in filmmaking, nice flares are a feature and not a bug. Both hold contrast very well in backlight situations. 

The 24-90 is focusing fly-by-wire, which is a deal-breaker for proper cinema lenses. But it breathes almost as minimal as the Optimo, which is what you want with a cinema lens. The 24-90 isn't parfocal, which, again, is a no-go in cinema land. Both render saturated and natural colours a tad to the warmer side (which benefits skin tones).

Bottom line: The Optimo is a great PL-zoom and does what a good cine lens is expected to do: serving a demanding film crew reliably to shoot moody and sharp video sequences conveniently and fast in the S-35mm format. The 24-90, however, is a brilliant FF AF and stabilised zoom for stills but can serve as a good video lens in a single operator setup when the operator is willing to deal with the pitfalls of fly-by-wire focusing and doesn't want to zoom. 

For me, the 24-90 is a superb hybrid lens which, essentially, the SL2-S is too (and that's been the reason for me to buy the camera). For film shoots that require a proper crew, I'd always chose the Optimo over the 24-90, but then I wouldn't take the SL2-S either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2021 at 8:42 PM, hansvons said:

Variable aperture has never been an issue for video. There are many cine zooms that have a tendency to ramp, meaning at the long end they tend to render pictures darker. Just select the f-stop that is the minimal f-stop at the longest end you want to use, and your images won't darken when zooming. From that perspective, the 24-90 is an f 4.0 lens with the option to shoot at f 2.8 at 24mm.

The 24-90 can compete with the Optimo in some areas very well. It's as sharp, even sharper. It shows similar spheric distortions, which are absolutely acceptable. Chromatic aberrations are as well controlled or even better. And it has character, which motivates me to shoot with it. 

However, the Optimo is more prone to moody flares, which I kind of miss with the 24-90. The Leica 24-90 hardly flares at all, making it more of a stills lens because, in filmmaking, nice flares are a feature and not a bug. Both hold contrast very well in backlight situations. 

The 24-90 is focusing fly-by-wire, which is a deal-breaker for proper cinema lenses. But it breathes almost as minimal as the Optimo, which is what you want with a cinema lens. The 24-90 isn't parfocal, which, again, is a no-go in cinema land. Both render saturated and natural colours a tad to the warmer side (which benefits skin tones).

Bottom line: The Optimo is a great PL-zoom and does what a good cine lens is expected to do: serving a demanding film crew reliably to shoot moody and sharp video sequences conveniently and fast in the S-35mm format. The 24-90, however, is a brilliant FF AF and stabilised zoom for stills but can serve as a good video lens in a single operator setup when the operator is willing to deal with the pitfalls of fly-by-wire focusing and doesn't want to zoom. 

For me, the 24-90 is a superb hybrid lens which, essentially, the SL2-S is too (and that's been the reason for me to buy the camera). For film shoots that require a proper crew, I'd always chose the Optimo over the 24-90, but then I wouldn't take the SL2-S either. 

Many Thanks for the detailed answer and insight.

Well its quite a steep price for a f4 zoom lens (as you state it is for video).

I guess when the lens first introduced the OG SL did not have IS, so this lens made a lot of sense and its probably why it is so sturdy and heavy. 

But now the SL2S has an amazing IS (best in business) and so its unnecessary.

Which leaves me with its legendary optical quality and rendering. It would be interesting to compare it with Leica newly made 24-70 f2.8. Its half the price, no IS and with lower weight. Can the diff be minor and its only that extra reach (70-90)...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Amal,

 

honestly during a quick check and also observing the pictures afterwards, I saw no meaningful optical difference between the two lenses. The 24-70 is (very) considerable smaller and also noticeable lighter on the camera. Autofocus was kind of same same.

The 20mm more reach are also not to underestimate. So, if you ask me, it is a tough decision. Constant 2.8 vs 2.8-4, weight and size and the 20mm more reach, which makes the 24-90 the better all around travel lens, if not there would be the size.

And, another small elephant, the price. A used 24-90 here in Germany is typically around 3.500 Euro, less is seldom and most of the the time for a reason. 4.690 EUR is the Price for a new one. The 24-70 is 2.550 EUR new.

A lot of variables to consider, the pure Image quality difference between the two is the least of them ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Daniel C.1975 said:

A lot of variables to consider, the pure Image quality difference between the two is the least of them ;)

I absolutely agree. 

But to determine which of the two I’d chose, I’d take both lenses and shoot a medium close-up portrait at 35mm, 50mm and 70mm at open rose against a bokeh-prone, backlit BG and compare. There can be visible differences. Bokeh can render differently, the skin tone’s colour can be different (for that use the daylight colour temp. preset), dimensionality can be day or night (slightly exaggerated), and lastly but not least, the rendering of the face can be slimmer or more rounded at the same focal lengths. These things catch my interest much more than pure IQ in terms of corner sharpens and whatnot. Shooting flowers, vintage cars, landscapes and garden gnomes only reveal a fraction of a lens’ character.

Edited by hansvons
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amal said:

Well its quite a steep price for a f4 zoom lens (as you state it is for video).

Hi Amal,

As the catalogue states, the 24-90 is a f 2.8 - 4 lens. ;) And frankly, because you cannot zoom without losing the focus a bit, the 24-90 is basically a variable prime. That way, the f 4.0 at the long end isn't an issue at all for me. I find for the FF format an f 4.0 at 90mm fully acceptable. It renders soft BG with a nice, organic non-busy bokeh. Moreover, for video and an FF sensor f 2 and even f 1.4 are unmanageable in terms of keeping subjects in focus when shooting close-ups or medium close-ups. For still portraiture and shorter focal lengths such as 35mm a fast aperture is a nice thing though. 

Hans

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Interesting thread, especially the ideas for 21 mm. I‘m waiting for the 21 mm version, no news about it since a while.  When will it finally show up, maybe together with the 24 mm, maybe as the last prime in the series? Any ideas or fresh rumours here? I’m thinking of getting a Voigtlander Nokton 21 mm in the meantime.

Cheers, Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

28mm and 35mm are too close. I’m a 35mm shooter and if I go wider, I usually go 21mm. I also shot 99% of the time with M lenses on my SL having only owned the SL 2/75mm. I didn’t purchase another SL native lens until this month! I’ve had the SL since 2018.
 

I have a Q2 for light travel and to make the wife happy with autofocus. 


A 1.4/35mm SL would get everyone stirred up. 

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...