Why don't we talk about the lenses like the M folk?

[dritz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M forum is loaded with lens comparisons e.g., "Let's talk about the 20 different 28mm lenses we have available!"  With claims about this lens better on that M variant, etc. I don't discount their sincerity... I used to have 5 variants of 35mm lenses for the M. But then, when I switched to digital it just seemed to matter less.

Us S folks don't talk much about the lenses. There is a practical reason i.e., we don't have lots of choices, but still we don't opine on their character.

Why not? Is the S just so good that we accept that performance is the problem of the photographer and not the gear?  Something else?

[Advertisement]

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

[John McMaster]

Not a choice of S lenses , other than 120mm, whereas at one time I owned 2x 21mm, 2x 35mm, 6x 50mm, 2x 75mm, 2x 90mm in Leica M. 

You get some different looks with 645, 66 or 67 lenses but none that are better for the available S focal lengths.  I sometimes use my R 70-180/2.8 at closer focussing distances and it looks very different to the 70/120/180 S lenses.  Likewise, I have the Mamiya 80/1.9, and longer options (Mamiya 300/2.8, Leica R 280/4+1.4x and the APO-Telyt-Modular bits) but within 24 to 180 focal lengths I need nothing other than S 😉

john

[hepcat]

I confess that I don't have an S.  I went a different route with the Phase One XF and a Leaf Credo back some years ago.  I have to postulate that people who are using serious "pro" medium format digital gear recognize that the differences in lenses, as minute as they are,  really don't amount to anything to discuss ad nauseam.  

[Guest]

I think if you search this forum, you will find a lot of interesting and informed discussions on S lenses, and any other system lens people decide to stick in front of their S bodies. I once asked about the 35mm Summarit, and got a whole slew of generously offered opinions, best practice advice and how it compares to the 30mm S-Elmarit thrown in for good measure. Likewise, there are folk here knowledgeable about the old Contax 645 series of lenses, and how they fare on the S. I am a big fan of the 80mm Contax Planar f2, for example, and so are a number of other S users. Endless discussions on the usefulness and merits of the 180 (verdict re IQ was thumbs way up, frequency of use not so much), or have a look at the expertise select people bring to the 120 TS specialty lens. I'm only speculating here, but once Leica releases the new series of lenses for the new S-mount, then you reasonably would expect a lot of to and fro comparisons with the older S mount lenses.

[irenedp]

I think the eco-system is not as varied, and on the other hand the Leica S lenses are superb. Sincerely, I have never been particularly interested in the differences between M lenses. I have three Summicrons (28, 50, 75) and none was bought new, but for my work they suffice and are of excellent quality. 

Regarding the S, as mentioned, the lenses are really very good. Only lens out of system I have is the Mamiya shift 50, which is pretty decent, but can only be focused well with the S007 and S3 -with the S2 it is a pain-. The 70 is a workhorse, the 30 really excellent, and the 120 t/s complex to learn but very good once you master it.

I have previous medium format experience, with the Fuji GFX range, and also have a Phase One. The GFX lenses -this is only an opinion, and I didn't have any of the newer lenses- worked very well with the GFX 50s and not so well with the 100. Fuji recommended a firmware change on all lenses as you changed the system, but I found them wanting (particularly the 100-200 zoom), and they didn't resist the comparison with the S2 files. It has to be noted, though, that an S2 has about a third of the resolution of a Fuji 100, so the comparison is not completely fair. The S3 files are also better than my previous Fuji ones and generally comparable with those of the S2. The Phase One files are superb at 150 MP, and somewhat superior to any of the S files. Again, you can take liveview in the XF camera to a 500% zoom to adjust focus and set it to shoot only when vibration is zero whilst the S3 only takes you to 100%. 

As a summary, I would say that at 65 MP the S lenses are very good. If Leica launches the new S4 at 100 MP, I would expect that the new lenses would be excellent and of Schneider-like quality (given than the prices are already quite similar), and leave a question mark for the older ones. Phase One had to reissue new blue ring lenses as they kept upgrading resolution, so I wouldn't be surprised that the older ones would not be as good in an S4.

[BernardC]

19 hours ago, dritz said:

Us S folks don't talk much about the lenses. There is a practical reason i.e., we don't have lots of choices, but still we don't opine on their character.

Why not? Is the S just so good that we accept that performance is the problem of the photographer and not the gear?  Something else?

It's because the S lens lineup is incredibly consistent. All of the lenses have similar performance and a similar look. They behave much like high-end cinema lenses that way, and indeed Leica sells cinema versions of our lenses under the Thalia brand. There's rarely any need to ask "how does the 30mm compare to the 70mm?" because they are almost the same, with a different angle of view.

The M system has a 70 year history, so there is a much greater difference between lenses from various eras. There's a lot to discuss there, especially if you want to maintain a consistent look within a project or portfolio.

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, irenedp said:

Phase One had to reissue new blue ring lenses as they kept upgrading resolution, so I wouldn't be surprised that the older ones would not be as good in an S4.

I shot Mamiya for a while, and I first started using the S with a selection of adapted Mamiya and Hasselblad lenses. The Mamiya lenses especially didn't cut it with the S, except for the 200 APO, which I still use when I need a very long lens.

PhaseOne ended-up with the Mamiya lenses . I'm not surprised that they had to redesign most lenses, you can't sell film-era designs with 150MP cameras.

[mgrayson3]

7 hours ago, BernardC said:

I shot Mamiya for a while, and I first started using the S with a selection of adapted Mamiya and Hasselblad lenses. The Mamiya lenses especially didn't cut it with the S, except for the 200 APO, which I still use when I need a very long lens.

PhaseOne ended-up with the Mamiya lenses . I'm not surprised that they had to redesign most lenses, you can't sell film-era designs with 150MP cameras.

I agree about the 200/2.8 APO. The 300/5.6 ULD is a great lens, too. The Zeiss 250/5.6 and 350/5.6 Superachromats are also amazing on the S. But anything in the existing S range is not going to compete.

This is taken with a Hassy X2D, and is a tight crop, but it shows what the 300/5.6 ULD can do.

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!

Matt

[davidmknoble]

Two things, IMHO.

First, the S system is relatively new.  The M system has lenses back to the late 1950’s that work on current M digital systems.  Because the lenses are all mechanical, this works.  The S system has electronic lenses and only one iteration (if you don’t count the focus motor issue).

Second, this forum does talk a lot about other compatible lenses, but as John pointed out, they are discussions about a type of look or whether they are truly compatible, because the S native lenses are that good.

The SL system forum is similar, but there are a wider range of SL compatible lenses that are current, and typically not as good as the Leica native lenses.

Just my thoughts.

[Stuart Richardson]

I think Bernard has a very good point, which is that the S lenses are basically a cinema lens set in philosophy and execution. They are rehoused and sold as Thalia lenses for insane amounts of money. The are very very consistent in terms of character. There is some quality variation, in that the 45mm and 120mm in particular are a bit better technically than the 70mm, and the 100mm is a bit of an outlier for example, but overall they are extremely good and similar in their overall image quality. I think people do not talk about it as much because it is a given, and as said before there are no real options to compare to. They are all the same generation and there were no updates or optical changes. So it is basically do you like them or not? No one would use the system if they did not like them. The only comparisons are to adapted lenses, almost none of which can really compare in terms of sheer image quality. Those that do are highly specialized (such as the Superachromats).

Edited January 25, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[bags27]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think Bernard has a very good point, which is that the S lenses are basically a cinema lens set in philosophy and execution. They are rehoused and sold as Thalia lenses for insane amounts of money. The are very very consistent in terms of character. There is some quality variation, in that the 45mm and 120mm in particular are a bit better technically than the 70mm, and the 100mm is a bit of an outlier for example, but overall they are extremely good and similar in their overall image quality. I think people do not talk about it as much because it is a given, and as said before there are no real options to compare to. They are all the same generation and there were no updates or optical changes. So it is basically do you like them or not? No one would use the system if they did not like them. The only comparisons are to adapted lenses, almost none of which can really compare in terms of sheer image quality. Those that do are highly specialized (such as the Superachromats).

This is one of the most informative posts I've ever read. Now I understand what I love about S lens' rendering. Thanks!

[Stuart Richardson]

To be clear, they are not identical to the Thalia lenses, there are some changes, but ultimately the Thalia lenses were based on the S lenses. But otherwise I stand by it! I think the APO summicrons have a similar goal: same body shell, same APO correction and aperture, very consistent look. It is more of a cinema derived philosophy than stills. 

[tom0511]

First I think we do not see much discussion because the lenses appeared many years ago.

Second...once one has used S lenses one understands that they are all excellent, and they all (mostly) show a very similar character. They do not put a "stamp" on the image, They are sharp without being clinical, they show a smooth bokeh, they have only mild vignetting, they show great midtowns and color. 

You don't even have to think about the f-stop other than exposure and DOF.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

If I recall, the one of the philosophies around the S lenses was that you should be able to use them at any aperture or distance, and that they would give superlative results. So basically from wide open and close up they should already be very sharp and high contrast with minimal aberrations. It was certainly my experience of them. It was great to have a system where the aperture only really dictated depth of field. This was certainly not the case with most medium format lenses, particularly on the wide end. I remember being totally blown away by the 35mm 2.5 when I mistakenly took a photo at 2.5 and found that it was blazingly sharp on center but still quite sharp all the way to the extreme corners in a night photo that had both work lights on a machine blown out and northern lights in the background. No veiling flare, just crisp and sharp. I found it a bit harder to get those results with the 70mm  (2.5 on my lens was somewhat soft in the edges and sometimes you saw a bit of chromatic aberrations and the field curvature could be an issue in landscape work), but overall it was still a fantastic lens and good enough to be my most used lens. I don't think any other system has ever had such consistently great lenses. The L mount would be closest, but they are still missing a few key lenses from Leica at least: no macro, no tilt shift and no telephoto prime. There is not as much of a loss, however, as the S lenses themselves could be adapted, or the Sigma 105mm Macro or Panasonic 100mm. The 90-280 covers the telephoto range, and while terrific, it is still not quite as good as the APO primes. But the S lenses are truly something else. In my streetlight project I remember taking a picture of a set of streetlights with the 120mm. One of the light poles was really quite far away, but when I zoomed in I could read the text written on the bottom of the pole. This was pixelated because it was at 400%, but it shows how much resolution there was still to be had in those lenses. I am attaching the sample.

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!

[Pieter12]

Is that corrosion I see?

[davidmknoble]

13 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

Is that corrosion I see?

That looks like the bright light on snow to me…. 

[Stuart Richardson]

I took that when the camera was less than a year old, so I don’t think so…just lots of specular highlights and some graininess from the deconvolution sharpening, I guess. 

[1joel1]

Mandler didn't design S lenses. 😀

Edited February 1, 2024 by 1joel1

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear