Jump to content

SL 35 Lux: Will there be one?


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by beewee
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Andrew Gough
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by SoarFM
Link to post
Share on other sites
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)
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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...