Leica 35/2 and 50/2 SL ASPH lenses?

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

I don't know why everyone is loosing over this two lenses. Panasonic or not, this are Leica branded!

why should Leica tell if they are PANA? they just need to say that they are selling a Leica lens. It is then up to you to make a wallet decision.

In any case many Leica lenses are optimized for video, and this are no different. Focus breading is minimized, and they don't make any noise.

If you are worried about the performance on the SL2 bodies, don't be! . In my experience all adapted lenses perform better on SL bodies. I use many EF canon lenses and they are much better on SL2 than any Sony Panasonic body. That is the little benefit to have the M lenses compatibility.

 

Why should they be honest and forthright with their customers? It’s the right thing to do to build loyalty. They certainly don’t have to and they’re not. I’ve not seen anyone “losing it”, just questioning Leica’s business practices, as customers should.

No one is second guessing that they are Leica branded, just wondering what Leica has done to justify the price premium. They could simply spell it out for the customers but choose not to. Most customers will likely have no idea these may be rebranded Panasonic lenses that are available at much lower prices. 

I would possibly be interested in the Leica branded lenses if I had a clear understanding of what is different between them and the Panasonics. As it stands, without that information, I just purchased a 35 APO and won’t consider these. 

[Advertisement]

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

[LD_50]

8 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

.If you are worried about the performance on the SL2 bodies, don't be! . In my experience all adapted lenses perform better on SL bodies. I use many EF canon lenses and they are much better on SL2 than any Sony Panasonic body. That is the little benefit to have the M lenses compatibility.

 

I wouldn’t worry about these Leica lenses performing well on the Leica bodies. That said, I don’t understand the comment about “all adapted lenses perform better on SL bodies.” In what way would they perform better and why? Many M mount lenses will perform better on an SL body than a non M body due to the SL being designed for the M ray angles, but why would Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Sigma? 

[Jipster]

27 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

Why should they be honest and forthright with their customers? It’s the right thing to do to build loyalty. They certainly don’t have to and they’re not. I’ve not seen anyone “losing it”, just questioning Leica’s business practices, as customers should.

No one is second guessing that they are Leica branded, just wondering what Leica has done to justify the price premium. They could simply spell it out for the customers but choose not to. Most customers will likely have no idea these may be rebranded Panasonic lenses that are available at much lower prices. 

I would possibly be interested in the Leica branded lenses if I had a clear understanding of what is different between them and the Panasonics. As it stands, without that information, I just purchased a 35 APO and won’t consider these. 

Do you know they are rebranded Panasonic lenses? Did Leica say that? If not, why should they say how they are different from lenses they might not be rebranded from? Should Panasonic say how their lenses are different from the Sigma? Whether they are or not worth the money is for you to decide after reading reviews, people’s experience or renting one. Do you want Lexus to specify how their low end models are different from the similar Toyotas? It would be also bad taste to poo-poo the quality of Panasonic lenses (by saying theirs are so much better), given they just signed a tighter alliance.

[LD_50]

30 minutes ago, Jipster said:

Do you know they are rebranded Panasonic lenses? Did Leica say that? If not, why should they say how they are different from lenses they might not be rebranded from? Should Panasonic say how their lenses are different from the Sigma? Whether they are or not worth the money is for you to decide after reading reviews, people’s experience or renting one. Do you want Lexus to specify how their low end models are different from the similar Toyotas? It would be also bad taste to poo-poo the quality of Panasonic lenses (by saying theirs are so much better), given they just signed a tighter alliance.

Look at the lens element diagrams. It’s a similar case to the 24-70 with Sigma. 

I don’t mind Leica rebranding a lens. I do think they should be clear about what’s been changed, if anything so customers can decide whether the price is justified. 

These car analogies don’t typically work. One, Lexus is a Toyota brand, Audi is a VW brand, etc. Two, they absolutely try to market the differences to get you to choose their luxury brands. You could argue the newest Toyota Supra being heavily a BMW sourced product is a similar case to to what Leica is doing, but the difference between a Supra and a BMW M2 is dramatic and both companies are clear about the roles they played in the Supra. Many Toyota fans were disappointed to see the Supra brand diluted by being BMW powered and engineered. I agree with that sentiment even though I understand Toyota’s reason for going that route. 

[Archiver]

8 hours ago, huwm said:

I think I'd likely go for the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art over the 50mm f2 ASPH

I've had and got rid of the Panasonic 50mm f1.8 in favour of the Sigma 65mm f2 which I was very happy with but really wanted a 50mm so I finally acquired my one and probably only APO, the 50mm

I'm also very happy with the Sigma 35mm f2 but it has become my webcam lens and been replaced by the 35mm f1.4 Art which although considerably cheaper than the 'new' Leica is unlikely to be in any way inferior other than bulk

Would I have succumbed to the 50mm APO if the Art had been available or this new Leica, tricky

OT: how do you find the Sigma 35/2 compared with the 35/1.4? I can get a decent secondhand 35/2 for half the retail price of the 35/1.4. My primary lens on the M9 is the Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4, and I'm leaning towards the Sigma 35/2 because of the size, weight and cost advantages, but I wonder what I'm giving up by not getting the 35/1.4.

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, LD_50 said:

Why should they be honest and forthright with their customers? It’s the right thing to do to build loyalty. They certainly don’t have to and they’re not. I’ve not seen anyone “losing it”, just questioning Leica’s business practices, as customers should.

No one is second guessing that they are Leica branded, just wondering what Leica has done to justify the price premium. They could simply spell it out for the customers but choose not to. Most customers will likely have no idea these may be rebranded Panasonic lenses that are available at much lower prices. 

I would possibly be interested in the Leica branded lenses if I had a clear understanding of what is different between them and the Panasonics. As it stands, without that information, I just purchased a 35 APO and won’t consider these. 

I think you just have made my point. LOL

[hoppyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am unsure about objections/ issues raised in this thread but of course everyone is free to contribute to the discussions. I applaud Leica's making options available and there are the other 2 L mount alliance members too.
I am fortunate to own and use both the APO 35 and the 50 and the MTF diagrams and the results reinforce for me why I chose to invest in those.

The weights and dimensions of the new ones are markedly less of course. 
For me the dimensions of the APO lenses are not out of line with those of the SL2. I do use the system almost entirely in studio and normally on tripod as with the S system previously.

Should there be a hypothetical future smaller lighter full Frame L mount body perhaps the new design advantages might be a significant factor in my view, I still have the CL but we know that is gone now.

Edited February 10, 2023 by hoppyman
typos

[kobra]

1 hour ago, LD_50 said:

Why should they be honest and forthright with their customers? It’s the right thing to do to build loyalty. They certainly don’t have to and they’re not. I’ve not seen anyone “losing it”, just questioning Leica’s business practices, as customers should.

No one is second guessing that they are Leica branded, just wondering what Leica has done to justify the price premium. They could simply spell it out for the customers but choose not to. Most customers will likely have no idea these may be rebranded Panasonic lenses that are available at much lower prices. 

I would possibly be interested in the Leica branded lenses if I had a clear understanding of what is different between them and the Panasonics. As it stands, without that information, I just purchased a 35 APO and won’t consider these. 

Honestly, as you've stated it, I think your comments are somewhat naive. Just to peel back some layers:

-there are contractual arrangements within the L(2) Alliance that we have no knowledge of that may impact what Leica can or cannot disclose.

-even with similar design, the build and assembly can be completely different and more costly, and it seems they are. The end result could produce greater reliability as well as improved IQ. Reviews and actual images could prove (or disprove) the latter, but none of us know that yet.

-optical lens grinding (often by hand with Leica) could dramatically increase the final cost and quality of the same lenses that may be just mass produced by Panasonic. Again the end product could be quite different in cost and quality.

-coatings are not cheap yet can make a substantial difference in the end quality of optics. A simple example are glasses with coatings from the optometrist vs drug store lenses. The latter are a fraction of the cost, and I keep a spare pair or 2 in my vehicles, but you know immediately if you are using the high quality ones or the low quality ones. 

-companies do not, and cannot, give away their IP. To do so would be suicide and negate the extensive R&D efforts that, in this case, Leica is making. Other than broad statements about the new L2 alliance, we have no idea what parts Leica contributes, vs Panasonic, vs Sigma. Each has a vested interest in continuing their already successful business models to maximize profits for their shareholders. Again, nothing surprising nor unethical about any behaviour discussed here.  

...and the list could go on. 

IOW, any attempt by any of us on this thread to use the very little amount of information we currently have about these lenses and then suggest that Leica is being dishonest by what they are doing, is simply foolish and potentially just self serving. If someone doesn't see value in these lenses, don't buy them. But I fail to see why attempting to smear a company's reputation needs to be part of the justification for someones choice. 

BTW, I don't think an APO is a bad choice and I did buy the SL50 APO. Also I am not sure I will buy one of these new lenses; for me there is not enough information yet, and I do have concerns that the IQ may not be what I am looking for. But before I cast judgement, I am waiting to see more images and reviews. YMMV. 

Brad

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I haven't had an occasion to try the Panasonic 35 and 50/1.8 lenses which seem to have the same optical design as these new Summicron-ASPH-SLs.  But I did buy a Panasonic 85 and a Sigma Contemporary 24, to fill in some spots where Leica still does not have an SL prime.  I resold the Panasonic rather quickly but still enjoy using the Sigma 24.  I haven't even heard whispers of an APO SL replacement for it.

[beewee]

11 hours ago, cj3209 said:

I don't understand the negativity on these two new Leica lenses:  they are more affordable versions of the APO lenses.  Not expecting similar image quality to the APO versions and yes, you can get Panny versions as well.  Choices are good.  Win-win for everyone.

 

I don’t see these as ‘more affordable version of the APO lenses’. They’re not even a poor man’s APO. The optical performance isn’t anywhere close to the APO SL. They’re simply a grossly overpriced ($1900) version of a $350 Panasonic lens sharing the same optical formula. 

I wouldn’t be complaining if Leica priced it at $600 or even $900 if they want to put a red-dot premium on a rebranded lens. I wouldn’t buy it either way, knowing I could get a Panasonic version for $350. But $1900 is totally over the top when you look at the MTF charts and how they are basically identical to the Pany that costs 18.4% of the Leica. To put things into perspective, the Panasonic version literally costs less than the VAT for the Leica lens in many European countries.

 

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!

[kobra]

3 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

I haven't had an occasion to try the Panasonic 35 and 50/1.8 lenses which seem to have the same optical design as these new Summicron-ASPH-SLs.  But I did buy a Panasonic 85 and a Sigma Contemporary 24, to fill in some spots where Leica still does not have an SL prime.  I resold the Panasonic rather quickly but still enjoy using the Sigma 24.  I haven't even heard whispers of an APO SL replacement for it.

A major Leica dealer suggested that we should see the announcement of the SL 21 APO soon (spring?), but that the SL 24 APO will not be announced anytime soon; not sure why. 

Brad

[kobra]

8 minutes ago, beewee said:

I don’t see these as ‘more affordable version of the APO lenses’. They’re not even a poor man’s APO. The optical performance isn’t anywhere close to the APO SL. They’re simply a grossly overpriced ($1900) version of a $350 Panasonic lens sharing the same optical formula. 

I wouldn’t be complaining if Leica priced it at $600 or even $900 if they want to put a red-dot premium on a rebranded lens. I wouldn’t buy it either way, knowing I could get a Panasonic version for $350. But $1900 is totally over the top when you look at the MTF charts and how they are basically identical to the Pany that costs 18.4% of the Leica. To put things into perspective, the Panasonic version literally costs less than the VAT for the Leica lens in many European countries.

 

 

See my post #129 above... I believe there are a lot of reasons to say it is premature to label these as "basically identical to the Pany" lenses. 

And, again, if you want to compare promotional prices, you can get the Leica lenses for less than the cost of the Panasonic ones. 

Brad

[beewee]

Fun fact. For the 102g difference between the Pany 50/1.8 and the Leica 50/2 non-APO, even if all that weight difference was made up of top end Spanish coupe saffron, the world’s most expensive spice, it would only cost $1200 USD at retail prices and still less than the $1550 difference. Maybe the remaining $350 could be for the red dot?

[beewee]

4 minutes ago, kobra said:

See my post #129 above... I believe there are a lot of reasons to say it is premature to label these as "basically identical to the Pany" lenses. 

And, again, if you want to compare promotional prices, you can get the Leica lenses for less than the cost of the Panasonic ones. 

Brad

I read your post but the MTFs beg to differ. It’s on Leica’s marketing team to tell the customer why they should pay over 3x more for a nearly identical product and so far they’re doing a terrible job.

Edited February 10, 2023 by beewee

[LD_50]

19 minutes ago, kobra said:

Honestly, as you've stated it, I think your comments are somewhat naive. Just to peel back some layers:

-there are contractual arrangements within the L(2) Alliance that we have no knowledge of that may impact what Leica can or cannot disclose.

-even with similar design, the build and assembly can be completely different and more costly, and it seems they are. The end result could produce greater reliability as well as improved IQ. Reviews and actual images could prove (or disprove) the latter, but none of us know that yet.

-optical lens grinding (often by hand with Leica) could dramatically increase the final cost and quality of the same lenses that may be just mass produced by Panasonic. Again the end product could be quite different in cost and quality.

-coatings are not cheap yet can make a substantial difference in the end quality of optics. A simple example are glasses with coatings from the optometrist vs drug store lenses. The latter are a fraction of the cost, and I keep a spare pair or 2 in my vehicles, but you know immediately if you are using the high quality ones or the low quality ones. 

-companies do not, and cannot, give away their IP. To do so would be suicide and negate the extensive R&D efforts that, in this case, Leica is making. Other than broad statements about the new L2 alliance, we have no idea what parts Leica contributes, vs Panasonic, vs Sigma. Each has a vested interest in continuing their already successful business models to maximize profits for their shareholders. Again, nothing surprising nor unethical about any behaviour discussed here.  

...and the list could go on. 

IOW, any attempt by any of us on this thread to use the very little amount of information we currently have about these lenses and then suggest that Leica is being dishonest by what they are doing, is simply foolish and potentially just self serving. If someone doesn't see value in these lenses, don't buy them. But I fail to see why attempting to smear a company's reputation needs to be part of the justification for someones choice. 

BTW, I don't think an APO is a bad choice and I did buy the SL50 APO. Also I am not sure I will buy one of these new lenses; for me there is not enough information yet, and I do have concerns that the IQ may not be what I am looking for. But before I cast judgement, I am waiting to see more images and reviews. YMMV. 

Brad

 

It’s not naive to say a company chooses how to communicate with their customers. There’s a lot of speculation about what they “could” achieve by utilizing better tolerances, better coatings, etc but they don’t tell anyone whether that’s the case. The available information doesn’t support the conjecture. Maybe the IQ will later but I’ve not seen that with the 24-70 and don’t expect to here. 

Multiple posts suggest that there could be contractual reasons not to explain the differences between the Leica and Panasonic lenses. Of course this is just made up to give an excuse as there’s no indication they’ve any such limitation. If they did, it would be a choice to sign on to such a contract.

Also, Leica would not have to create an A/B comparison to Panasonic to let the customer know what makes these lenses special. If they did some spectacular work with hand grinding or special coatings, they could simply advertise that and never mention Panasonic. If the optical formula were tweaked for better IQ they could show that in the diagrams and MTF charts. 

Of course choosing not to buy the lenses is an option, and that’s where I stand unless they (or others) provide more information to justify the price premium. The issue with that is there is no indication to a customer who walks into a Leica store that the lens they’re buying may be a replica of a much cheaper one. That shouldn’t be what the Leica brand stands for and it would be a simple course correction to clarify what’s great about the Leica version. 

[kobra]

15 minutes ago, beewee said:

I read your post but the MTFs beg to differ. It’s on Leica’s marketing team to tell the customer why they should pay over 3x more for a nearly identical product and so far they’re doing a terrible job.

Yes, fair point. But, have they ever been better at marketing? Maybe it's part of their success formula  

[kobra]

12 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

It’s not naive to say a company chooses how to communicate with their customers. There’s a lot of speculation about what they “could” achieve by utilizing better tolerances, better coatings, etc but they don’t tell anyone whether that’s the case. The available information doesn’t support the conjecture. Maybe the IQ will later but I’ve not seen that with the 24-70 and don’t expect to here. 

Multiple posts suggest that there could be contractual reasons not to explain the differences between the Leica and Panasonic lenses. Of course this is just made up to give an excuse as there’s no indication they’ve any such limitation. If they did, it would be a choice to sign on to such a contract.

Also, Leica would not have to create an A/B comparison to Panasonic to let the customer know what makes these lenses special. If they did some spectacular work with hand grinding or special coatings, they could simply advertise that and never mention Panasonic. If the optical formula were tweaked for better IQ they could show that in the diagrams and MTF charts. 

Of course choosing not to buy the lenses is an option, and that’s where I stand unless they (or others) provide more information to justify the price premium. The issue with that is there is no indication to a customer who walks into a Leica store that the lens they’re buying may be a replica of a much cheaper one. That shouldn’t be what the Leica brand stands for and it would be a simple course correction to clarify what’s great about the Leica version. 

I think you missed my points entirely, but that's ok. Perhaps best to say we agree to disagree on this one. And, we do disagree, greatly.  

Brad

[scott kirkpatrick]

34 minutes ago, kobra said:

A major Leica dealer suggested that we should see the announcement of the SL 21 APO soon (spring?), but that the SL 24 APO will not be announced anytime soon; not sure why. 

Brad

Leica has dropped the 24 SuperElmar from the M line of lenses, so I guess they figure with a zillion pixels, the 24 crowd can just crop a little.  It's a shame, as I like the 24mm  FOV.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[huwm]

4 hours ago, Archiver said:

OT: how do you find the Sigma 35/2 compared with the 35/1.4? I can get a decent secondhand 35/2 for half the retail price of the 35/1.4. My primary lens on the M9 is the Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4, and I'm leaning towards the Sigma 35/2 because of the size, weight and cost advantages, but I wonder what I'm giving up by not getting the 35/1.4.

 

I don't feel I would have got something like this, admittedly taken at f3.5 yesterday visiting my mother in her nursing home and essentially a 'snap' sooc, with the contemporary lens. It is just a better lens but probably not by much really. The Art line just feels 'natural' on the SL2 and makes for a really enjoyable experience but on an M might not be as symbiotic an experience.

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!

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by huwm
wrong file

[MediaFotografie]

please let me throw in two points:

First, some years ago we were very surprised when seeing that Panasonic holds the patent for Leica's SL-Zoom 90-280 - not Leica
(and there was another case, 24-90 or 16-35, I don't remember). So we see there are very different kinds of collaboration, who knows who really designed the optics of this two new lenses.

Second: The new kits save something about 1.000 - and you get a voucher for another 1.000, so new customers get 35mm or 50mm for free. And it looks like at the moment Leica only delivers kits, not separate lenses - so they bild this lenses mainly for new SL users, not for us. 

I'm happy to see there's a new choice - we will see what to do with it

 

thomas