SL 35 Lux: Will there be one?

[6bit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After shooting my SL 50 Lux, I of course wonder if Leica could stuff a 35 Lux into that lens casing. Anyone know if this is likely? 
 

I'm unsure of their road map and what lenses they consider priorities in the SL system. 

[Gavin Cato]

They absolutely could, but Peter has a thing for using f2 on the L mount for some reason.

I doubt it would be anywhere on the priority list let alone near the top unfortunately.

I'd buy one.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

49 minutes ago, Gavin Cato said:

They absolutely could, but Peter has a thing for using f2 on the L mount for some reason.

 

Size and weight (see SL 50 f1.4 by comparison); economies of scale using same barrel size and sharing of internal components; and mimics f1.4 to a degree by the rapid contrast falloff. 
 

Jeff

[Photoworks]

the sigma 1.4 is quite good. I got one and I have the Summicron-SL 35

Edited July 21, 2021 by Photoworks

[Gavin Cato]

22 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Size and weight (see SL 50 f1.4 by comparison); economies of scale using same barrel size and sharing of internal components; and mimics f1.4 to a degree by the rapid contrast falloff. 

I do like the f2 lenses, especially the 90. But I do wish the 35 was a 1.4

Given the SL2 high iso isn't that great, I'd love a bit of extra light sometimes on the 35 indoors.

 

[Jeff S]

26 minutes ago, Gavin Cato said:

I do like the f2 lenses, especially the 90. But I do wish the 35 was a 1.4

Given the SL2 high iso isn't that great, I'd love a bit of extra light sometimes on the 35 indoors.

 

IBIS helps and/or an SL2S for indoors.

Jeff

[beewee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got the impression that Leica had a lot of complaints about their SL lens lineup being too heavy when they released the first 3 zooms, plus the 50mm Summilux SL. Ever since then, they have only announced/released much smaller and/or lighter lenses like the APO Summicron SL line and the recent 24-70mm SL, all weighing less than 1kg. I also got the impression that Leica had a hard time selling the 50mm Summilux SL after the initial demand tapered off, which was why it was bundled with the SL2 for a while before the 24-70mm was released.

Edited July 22, 2021 by beewee

[6bit]

I would have purchased an SL 1.4/35mm over the f/2 any day of the week. I get the weight and size argument, but I want the extra stop of light. Maybe when the SL3 arrives they will have a 35 Lux.

[Simone_DF]

8 hours ago, 6bit said:

I would have purchased an SL 1.4/35mm over the f/2 any day of the week. I get the weight and size argument, but I want the extra stop of light. Maybe when the SL3 arrives they will have a 35 Lux.

Why don't you get the Sigma? 

[6bit]

Sticking with Leica or Voigtlander. It was a thought, especially at that price point.

[XRayGuy]

I also would love to see more Summilux SL lenses, including a Mark II version of the 50mm that is smaller and lighter (in an ideal world - I recognize this is unlikely).

The Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM is the weight of a Summicron SL and optically stellar.  Leica used to lead in making fast, high quality glass that was also compact.  I personally hope that after the Summicron lineup is complete, they make an attempt at going back to their roots and take another stab at f/1.4 autofocus lenses using modern processes.  

[Andrew Gough]

In this area Leica could do so much more... A 35 SL Lux would sell well, and it does not need to be any bigger than the Sigma... The 35/1.2 Sigma is a very good lens, albeit very heavy. 

I am not a fan of making all the F2 lenses fit the same barrel, it adds weight for no reason. They need a 16-35mm F/4 for the SL line, that is smaller and lighter. The Panasonic is half the weight of the SL zoom.

Leica could introduce a vintage line based upon the R lenses, with the correct flange distance built - in. They would sell like crazy...

Also, they need to stop remaking M lenses that are already superb, the 35mm Summicron comes to mind. The WATE needs revisiting, and where is my 21mm SL lens?

Thanks for listening 😉

IMHO.

Andrew

Edited July 27, 2021 by Andrew Gough

[SoarFM]

On 7/22/2021 at 9:21 AM, 6bit said:

I would have purchased an SL 1.4/35mm over the f/2 any day of the week. I get the weight and size argument, but I want the extra stop of light. Maybe when the SL3 arrives they will have a 35 Lux.

Having come from the days of film (like almost everyone here) I have a hard time rationalizing a f1.4 lens over a f2 lens based on getting an extra stop of light. It’s not as if the SL2 file falls apart at iso 800.  For me the difference between a summilux and summicron is all about how the lens draws.

A serious question. At what ISO point do you find the SL2 file unacceptable? I ask this because I haven’t really decided myself. When the light gets low I pull out the  M10M and it feels like I’m cheating 🙂. I also have an M10R, but truth is I usually use the SL2 for color as long as I’m not worried about bulk or weight of gear.

Edited July 27, 2021 by SoarFM

[beewee]

5 hours ago, Andrew Gough said:

They need a 16-35mm F/4 for the SL line, that is smaller and lighter.

Isn’t that just the 16-35mm Super-Vario-Elmar? Unless you mean f/4 primes?

The Sigma 24/3.5 is astoundingly good when stopped down to f/5.6. Unless you’re trying to achieve that large aperture creamy, low contrast bokeh with a wide angle, there’s really no reason to get a 24mm APO Summicron SL.

I shared a 100 MP multi-shot example with crops here (post #16)
 

 

[6bit]

3 hours ago, SoarFM said:

Having come from the days of film (like almost everyone here) I have a hard time rationalizing a f1.4 lens over a f2 lens based on getting an extra stop of light. It’s not as if the SL2 file falls apart at iso 800.  For me the difference between a summilux and summicron is all about how the lens draws.

A serious question. At what ISO point do you find the SL2 file unacceptable? I ask this because I haven’t really decided myself. When the light gets low I pull out the  M10M and it feels like I’m cheating 🙂. I also have an M10R, but truth is I usually use the SL2 for color as long as I’m not worried about bulk or weight of gear.

I too come from the film days from way back. The extra stop of light and the subject separation are always welcome. The real reason is I am a bokeh nut and cannot be satisfied. I would love to see a SL 35 Nocti and I would buy it (manual focus okay). 

I love my M10, but the SL2 is my new favorite M camera. 😉 Weigt and bulk do suck, but if I put an M 35 Lux or CV 1.4/35 on it, it becomes a lightweight package I can live with all day.

[XRayGuy]

20 hours ago, SoarFM said:

Having come from the days of film (like almost everyone here) I have a hard time rationalizing a f1.4 lens over a f2 lens based on getting an extra stop of light. It’s not as if the SL2 file falls apart at iso 800.  For me the difference between a summilux and summicron is all about how the lens draws.

A serious question. At what ISO point do you find the SL2 file unacceptable? I ask this because I haven’t really decided myself. When the light gets low I pull out the  M10M and it feels like I’m cheating 🙂. I also have an M10R, but truth is I usually use the SL2 for color as long as I’m not worried about bulk or weight of gear.

I personally am reluctant to go above 3200 ISO on my SL2 if I can help it.  The jump in noise to 6400 to me becomes noticeable.  I find that indoors or late in the day an extra stop of light can make the difference between 3200 and 6400.

In contrast, I feel like I get an extra 1.5 stops out of the M10R, and the M10M I will happily shoot at 25600 with no complaints.

[Simone_DF]

Who knows. The 50 Lux was one of the first lenses released for the SL, some time has passed and technology evolves. The original Sony/Zeiss 35mm 1.4 was also humongous, but the most recent Sony iteraction is reasonably small but high quality.

Maybe Leica can squeeze in a 1.4 lens into the APO casing, creating a Summicron APO line for people looking to have optical perfection and a 1.4 line for those who are willing to sacrifice performance for that extra stop of light and different rendering

[Gavin Cato]

On 7/28/2021 at 7:56 AM, SoarFM said:

A serious question. At what ISO point do you find the SL2 file unacceptable? I ask this because I haven’t really decided myself. When the light gets low I pull out the  M10M and it feels like I’m cheating 🙂. I also have an M10R, but truth is I usually use the SL2 for color as long as I’m not worried about bulk or weight of gear.

I shoot weddings. I won't go higher than 3200 iso on my SL2's.

I suspect everyone will have a different number here. For me the files at 3200 still print well in an album but 6400+ they fall apart.

[Photoworks]

11 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Who knows. The 50 Lux was one of the first lenses released for the SL, some time has passed and technology evolves. The original Sony/Zeiss 35mm 1.4 was also humongous, but the most recent Sony iteraction is reasonably small but high quality.

Maybe Leica can squeeze in a 1.4 lens into the APO casing, creating a Summicron APO line for people looking to have optical perfection and a 1.4 line for those who are willing to sacrifice performance for that extra stop of light and different rendering

the Summilux-M 35 is probably one of the most important lenses for the M system.

I can see leica producing the SL version. Making a lens Leica takes about 4 years .

in the meantime the sigma 35mm 1.4  is very good

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Stuart Richardson]

So is the Summilux M FLE...while it is not tack sharp corner to corner at 1.4, it holds up better than most M wides and is very good stopped down a bit.