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

[Archiver]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@huwm Thank you for the reply. Sorry, I was a little ambiguous in my question. I have a Panasonic S5 and and considering the Sigma 35/1.4 vs the 35/2 Contemporary. I love the look of the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f1.4 on my M9, especially wide open, and while reason says that the Sigma f1.4 would be closer in look, I wonder how close I could get with the f2 Contemporary. I might take a trip to a shop and try the f2 Contemporary on my S5 and compare it with the Distagon adapted to the S5.

[Advertisement]

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

[BernardC]

8 hours ago, beewee said:

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.

The MTFs are very different in the corners. That difference may not matter to you, but it's undeniable given the little information we have.

Given that these new lenses are meant to be sold in kits, I guess you are saying that the price premium is fine by your standards? As others have pointed-out, buying an SL2 kit with one of these lenses comes-out at a similar price to buying body-only with a Panasonic lens! That's not even counting any warranty, support, and build differences which are very likely to come-out in Leica's favour.

[insomnia]

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!

[BernardC]

15 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Yes and no. The R lenses were released at a time where information, reviews, analysis, dissection and comparisons about these lenses was not so instantly available. Yes, there was internet when the R mount was in its final moments in 2008/9, but it was not as ubiquitous as it is now, and smartphones were at a early stage. Times have changed, you cannot easily get away with these gimmicks nowadays, remember the Hasselblad Lunar?

Moreover, the R lenses can be adapted to any mirrorless, and that's another reason why they still command a higher prices on the used market. The same cannot be said of the new L mount lenses.

All people are saying on various forums is that Leica is just reselling Panasonic and Sigma gear at an inflated price, and after all who can blame them? Short term there may be a welcomed monetary boost for Leica, long term who knows? 

I would argue that for what we've gained in internet static, we've lost quite a few high-quality sources of information. We used to have access to independent magazines from Japan and Europe that would conscientiously test almost every lens. Even some American magazines ran tests, although their feature articles were heavily influenced by advertising revenue. Information was as ubiquitous as news stands and book stores. people also printed more back then, so you could see actual results instead of relying on influencers.

R and MD lenses can both be adapted to mirrorless. That doesn't explain why an R lens sells for more than a similar MD lens, or Kyocera lens, or Sigma lens. There are counter-examples where a notorious lens actually sells for more under a "lesser" brand name. Off the top of my head, there's a "Tower/Sears" 55mm that's worth more under that brand than it is under better-known brands (Rollei and Mamiya?).

I really don't think that this will hurt Leica, as long as they still offer their top-line APO lenses. They've been doing this type of thing for a very long time.

[rsh]

10 hours 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

Just my two cents - If the 21 APO is announced in the Spring, the SL lens lineup will be 21, 28, 35, 50, 75 & 90 which is consistent with the M lens lineup.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, rsh said:

Just my two cents - If the 21 APO is announced in the Spring, the SL lens lineup will be 21, 28, 35, 50, 75 & 90 which is consistent with the M lens lineup.

And the 135?

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, MediaFotografie said:

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

It’s not the designer of the lenses that seems to be an issue. If Leica and Panasonic co-designed a new 35mm lens and they both announced it for sale on the same day, one at 3x the price and without any clarification as to why, it’s expected for customers to question what justifies the price premium. 

I own the 90-280 and it’s excellent, if not unwieldy. I don’t care if Panasonic holds the design patents. If though, Panasonic had sold the same lens at 1/3 the price with the same optics, I would have purchased it instead of the Leica. 

I don’t see these new lenses as “kit lenses” in the traditional sense. Typically that indicates low price, lower quality lenses. These are premium priced in comparison to the Panasonic versions.
 

I would also question the logic of building lenses for “new users” when a sale is a sale. If they sell a new lens to existing users, they’re more likely to sell the SL3 to those same users. Lenses keep me and many others in the system.  Many existing users (myself included) are interested in smaller, high quality primes, even at Leica prices. These could possibly be that, but could also just be heavily marked up Panasonic lenses that were already available. I hope at the price these are significantly better than the Panasonic lenses. 

[hansvons]

When I buy a lens, I foremost look at what I want to do with it. In cinematography land, that's an easy question, as no one buys single primes. Instead, people buy sets that cover the standard framing sizes, from the long shot to close-up. Classic (minimal) S-35mm sets consist of 5 lenses, 18-85mm.

The goal is to be consistent in terms of colour and contrast. If that's nailed, other attributes come into play, e.g. dimensionality, bokeh, flares and so on. And lastly, how robust are the lenses built to withstand the hostile environment of film sets? The APO SL line-up interestingly matches these criteria quite well. They even share the same housing size and front diameter, as pricy cine primes usually do to speed up changing lenses. I like this idea very much, albeit I don't own a single one.

And that's because, in the still photography world, we don't tell stories that rely on constant lens changing, but we think instead in genre terms, e.g. landscape vs portraiture. And if you are storytelling, e.g. photo essays and reportages, you are likely choosing a standard zoom to keep the necessary pace (that's why I own the 24-90). So, if I buy a stills lens, I think twice about what I will use it for. The criteria are legend. Genre, character, weight, flaring, non-flaring, corner sharpness, vintage look/vignetting, bokeh with cat eyes and soap bubbles or perfectly rounded orbs, AF or MF, and so on.

One of the new Leica primes may tick some boxes for me - or not. I shall see. But the last question I have is who designed that lens.

For now, I'm contemplating getting the APO 35mm SL. I'd use it for portraits, as I like that crystal-clear, clinical look in combination with that particular field of view, and it doesn't distort faces as much as other 35mm lenses do. But before I pull the trigger, I have to make sure that there's a project that finances the purchase.

[Jipster]

14 hours ago, LD_50 said:

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. 

With all due respect (I mean it), similarities in lens design does not entail rebranding. There have been many cases of identical designs of lenses across manufacturers with very different results: glass used, coatings, but also production standards make a difference. And then there is the casing, ...

[Jipster]

13 hours 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

 

Beautifully said (better than I ever could).

[dem331]

15 minutes ago, hansvons said:

, and it doesn't distort faces as much as other 35mm lenses do.

Very well written and informative. Thank you. 
 

I must say though I don’t understand the part about not distorting faces as much as other 35mm lenses. 

[Virob]

When the first rumours appeared of smaller, less expensive Leica lenses, I was expecting slower speed lens vs lenses with the same speed as the APO Summicrons, with "lower" optical quality. Personally, I was looking forward to some smaller, less expensive 2.8 APO lenses. Realistically, I have no idea how much cheaper these would be vs a 2.0 APO lens.

For example, the upcoming 21/2 APO looks like it will be a fantastic, expensive, heavy lens. F2.0 in this focal length is overkill for my needs and I would welcome the option for a smaller, lighter, less expensive 2.8 or 3.5 APO version. The same goes for some of the other focal lengths.

Curious what others think. To compliment the 2.0 APO's would you rather have the current option of a smaller, lower quality 2.0 lens, or would you have preferred a smaller, 2.8 or 3.5 Apo lens that may be a little more expensive than these 2.0 ASPH lenses?

I assume Leica did a market analysis to come up with the current strategy, but I have to wonder if they made the right decision.

[gotium]

4 hours ago, BernardC said:

The MTFs are very different in the corners.

Where are you finding that comparison? I imagine the corners would behave differently on the different camera systems, respectively?

[BernardC]

4 minutes ago, gotium said:

Where are you finding that comparison? I imagine the corners would behave differently on the different camera systems, respectively?

The MTFs are on Panasonic and Leica's web sites. The Leica ones seem to only be in the specifications pdfs.

The obvious difference between the two versions is that the sagittal and tangential lines separate noticeably in the corners for the Panasonic MTF. This indicates possible astigmatism, or differences in field flatness and coma. It's certainly something to check, if anybody bothers to do an in-depth comparison of these 4 lenses.

[Planetwide]

Personally, I think that these lenses are a mistake. If I want a cheap light lens, then I'll get the Sigma or the Panasonic version. Leica is supposed to be the lens design superstar, and the SL APO primes were sold that way. Instead of devoting production to these rebranded lenses, they should be shipping the already announced (3YEARS AGO) 21 & 24mm primes. I think that most people are expressing their disappointment over this. The SL line needs a lot more from Leica, 35, 50 & 90mm Summilux's, 18mm prime, 135mm APO F2.0 how about a 28-75mm F2.0 zoom, or a 70-200mm F2.8 - I could go on.

 

 

[LD_50]

30 minutes ago, Jipster said:

With all due respect (I mean it), similarities in lens design does not entail rebranding. There have been many cases of identical designs of lenses across manufacturers with very different results: glass used, coatings, but also production standards make a difference. And then there is the casing, ...

I’ve already covered this in this thread. Of course Leica could use amazing lens coatings, hand ground lens elements, different glass, etc. That doesn’t appear to be the case with the 24-70, though the casing is obviously different.

I am suggesting if they are doing something to justify the price premium, they communicate that to the customer.

[Jipster]

16 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

I’ve already covered this in this thread. Of course Leica could use amazing lens coatings, hand ground lens elements, different glass, etc. That doesn’t appear to be the case with the 24-70, though the casing is obviously different.

I am suggesting if they are doing something to justify the price premium, they communicate that to the customer.

Well, RedDotForum has an entire video on YouTube showing how different the Sigma and Leica 24-70 are in terms of performance. They tested it rather than speculate about it. But, of course, it could be there will be no difference whatsoever in this case. All I am saying is that looking at lens design is not a cogent argument. 

[rsh]

5 hours ago, SrMi said:

And the 135?

I should have said the same lens lineup with comparative focal lengths not counting the wider aperture ranges in the M lens lineup or the 135.

My late semi Brother in Law (his term), Col Bruce Hampton, wrote and performed  a song entitled “Basically Frightened”.   I think of it every time I post on social media.  On May 1, 2017, Bruce had a heart attack and died during the second encore celebrating his 70th Birthday at a sold out Fox Theater in Atlanta.  A cosmic end to one of the Jam Band Greats!

Edited February 10, 2023 by rsh

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[hansvons]

5 hours ago, dem331 said:

I must say though I don’t understand the part about not distorting faces as much as other 35mm lenses. 

Despite sharing the same focal length, lenses from different manufacturers, series or vintage, tend to render plasticity differently. The 24-90 creates more dimensionality in images than the 24-70 when comparing the same focal lengths. Or one could say the 24-70 renders flatter than its sibling. That's because it's a different design. My 50mm Summicron R renders much flatter than the 24-90 at 50mm/same field of view. Faces are not as distorted as the 24-90, which is, in most cases, more flattering. The same can be said about the famous 35mm Summicron R which is a favourite among cinematographers (and quite expensive today) because it shows an interesting plasticity in interior environments due to its curvature that kicks in close to the edges but renders faces for a 35mm lens relatively flat. 

Whether one prefers a high dimensionality or likes the images to be flatter depends on taste and genre. I find the 24-90 an excellent reportage lens. The plasticity in the photos it creates makes them less distant, more tangible. That's great for reportage-style images, but for portraits or anything moody that calls for flares and visible light, probably less so.

[cj3209]

19 hours 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.

 

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!

(1) These new lenses are metal and have a specific type of glass coating.  I believe they are also weather-proof.

(2) MTF charts don't always correlate to real world performance.  Leica has pros using these 'cheap' lenses already and the pics look excellent.

(3) If you can get ~85% of the performance of the APOs with less weight and all-weather construction; I think some people will really want that.