TL lenses on SL3

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, prismstorm said:

Since TL lenses are almost 9 - 10 years old at this point, just hope that they were designed to resolve a higher megapixels sensor like the one on the SL3.  

unlikely

[Advertisement]

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

[Leicaboy Norway]

On 8/14/2024 at 11:51 AM, jaapv said:

The image quality will be at least as good but likely better than on an older sensor. A lens-sensor system is not a weakest link situation but an additive one. 

I don't get it, and forgive me, I'm not trying to arrest you

But I watched some interviews with Karbe

And I'm trying to understand, I think he said the TL lenses were made for this and this MPX.

You say lenses only get better with more megapixels or newer sensors. Maybe not the same, but I interpreted him as saying the new SL lenses for example was good for 100 mpx even, and thereby future proof.

The older m lenses I think he said 40 mpx? He spoke in terms of lenses being able to cope with sensors, and aren't you saying the opposite here?

 

Again this is complicated to me, but maybe it's not objectively

[Leicaboy Norway]

And I also asked chatGPT the same.

"Will a sensor with more megapixels demand better lenses, or does lenses only get better with newer sensors"

Answer:

"A sensor with more megapixels will typically demand even better lenses to take advantage of the increased resolution fully."

 

I also asked CGPT about the weakest link think and this is what it said:

 

"The lens-sensor system is somewhat dependant on both components being of high quality, so "the weakest link" idea is valid to some extent.  You won't always get better or as good performance just by pairing and old lens with a modern sensor. In some cases the bombination might highlight limitations in the lens that were previously masked by a lower resolution sensor".

Edited August 15, 2024 by Leicaboy Norway

[BernardC]

5 hours ago, prismstorm said:

Since TL lenses are almost 9 - 10 years old at this point, just hope that they were designed to resolve a higher megapixels sensor like the one on the SL3.

The SL3's sensor is 26MP when cropped to APS-C, so it's similar to the 24MP TL2.

[Stuart Richardson]

12 hours ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

I don't get it, and forgive me, I'm not trying to arrest you

But I watched some interviews with Karbe

And I'm trying to understand, I think he said the TL lenses were made for this and this MPX.

You say lenses only get better with more megapixels or newer sensors. Maybe not the same, but I interpreted him as saying the new SL lenses for example was good for 100 mpx even, and thereby future proof.

The older m lenses I think he said 40 mpx? He spoke in terms of lenses being able to cope with sensors, and aren't you saying the opposite here?

 

Again this is complicated to me, but maybe it's not objectively

 This largely goes back to an article by Roger Cicala about how he disliked people referring to lenses as being ascribed a certain megapixel number, whereas Peter Karbe is referring to a megapixel number as a simple way of expressing a resolution target for their lens designs. I believe he also says, if you explore further, that the target is 60% contrast across the frame at 100mp. That is different than just saying "100mp". Basically the argument is not really an argument. Cicala is saying that the performance is better thought of as system performance: that is the resolution of the camera combined with the resolution lens. Whereas Karbe is talking about a resolution standard (100mp at 60% contrast) combined with the resolution of the lens. Honestly it is the same thing and I have always found it weird when people get bent out of shape about it. When people suggest getting better lenses to go with a high resolution body it is not because older lenses do not work, it is because you are leaving potential resolution on the table (you still have those pixels, but they are lower contrast or blurry). The better lenses will raise the overall system performance. It does not mean you cannot use older lenses, it just means that the overall system resolution will be lower. It may still be higher than a great lens on an lower resolution camera...that will depend on the combination. That is why people would rather talk about system resolution than lens or sensor resolution alone.

Edited August 15, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[Leicaboy Norway]

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

 This largely goes back to an article by Roger Cicala about how he disliked people referring to lenses as being ascribed a certain megapixel number, whereas Peter Karbe is referring to a megapixel number as a simple way of expressing a resolution target for their lens designs. I believe he also says, if you explore further, that the target is 60% contrast across the frame at 100mp. That is different than just saying "100mp". Basically the argument is not really an argument. Cicala is saying that the performance is better thought of as system performance: that is the resolution of the camera combined with the resolution lens. Whereas Karbe is talking about a resolution standard (100mp at 60% contrast) combined with the resolution of the lens. Honestly it is the same thing and I have always found it weird when people get bent out of shape about it. When people suggest getting better lenses to go with a high resolution body it is not because older lenses do not work, it is because you are leaving potential resolution on the table (you still have those pixels, but they are lower contrast or blurry). The better lenses will raise the overall system performance. It does not mean you cannot use older lenses, it just means that the overall system resolution will be lower. It may still be higher than a great lens on an lower resolution camera...that will depend on the combination. That is why people would rather talk about system resolution than lens or sensor resolution alone.

I think we  might agree, if I interpret you correctly.

 

Back to topic:

So I think we agree. I also never said they did not work (the older lenses), but that there is gain to be had on upgrading lens quality, and that INDEED the lenses are made for certain megapixels in terms of sharpness, contrasts, lens aberrations etc.

Right?

If so, I'm shocked by how many times this is mistaken on forums everywhere, and here by the moderator. 

 

Because if it is like I interpret us both saying; then indeed it is NOT additive and bette sensors may reveal weaknesses in older lenses, weaknesses that are "hidden" on older sensors, and hence they DO NOT get better with better sensors.

 

It is perhaps not 100 % weakest link, but there is definetely parameters pointing in support of this excisting to some degree. Lenses and cameras work in tandem it seems.

Edited August 16, 2024 by Leicaboy Norway

[TL3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 hours ago, frame-it said:

unlikely

There’s a Peter Karbe interview talking about lens design, and IIRC he said TL lenses were targeting 50% contrast at 60 lp/mm which I think is fine for 60 megapixel sensors.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Most of the TL lenses are spectacular. Even the zooms. Slow but optically fabulous. The 18 and 23 were the only *lesser* options. And at the time I though the CL sensor was as good as it got in APSC. I was very unhappy when they just dropped the system and abandoned their customers because they wanted to cement their *luxury* focus.

I think people who say the TL lenses are lesser than the SL options, obviously haven't used them.

Gordon

[Leicaboy Norway]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Most of the TL lenses are spectacular. Even the zooms. Slow but optically fabulous. The 18 and 23 were the only *lesser* options. And at the time I though the CL sensor was as good as it got in APSC. I was very unhappy when they just dropped the system and abandoned their customers because they wanted to cement their *luxury* focus.

I think people who say the TL lenses are lesser than the SL options, obviously haven't used them.

Gordon

Even Peter Karbe says the TL lenses have less contrast / ipm or whatever than SL lenses.

Yes for two different systems but obviously when he says the SL lenses are a new benchmark in terms of quality, opening up for 100 mpx +, it obviously means the SL lenses are  better in terms of quality. I dont understand what does have to do with whether youve tried both systems or not

[Leicaboy Norway]

This is from Leica themselves saying image quality is better on the SL lenses than on the TL (TL here even represented by their best lens the 35 1.4)

End of discussion? ;);)

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!

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Most of the TL lenses are spectacular. Even the zooms. Slow but optically fabulous. The 18 and 23 were the only *lesser* options. And at the time I though the CL sensor was as good as it got in APSC. I was very unhappy when they just dropped the system and abandoned their customers because they wanted to cement their *luxury* focus.

I think people who say the TL lenses are lesser than the SL options, obviously haven't used them.

Gordon

I will take your word on it for the other ones, but I had the 23mm and it was the worst contemporary Leica lens I have ever used. I started using my M lenses on the TL body and they were much much better...not even the latest and greatest, but lenses designed twenty plus years ago. Seeing as it was the standard lens for the whole system, it did not give me the confidence to invest in it any further. Most of the rest of the lenses were big enough to make it no longer a compact camera, so it did not make any sense for me as compared to the M or SL cameras. But I agree with you, I wish they had invested in the system such that it was a viable APS option.

Edited August 16, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[EUSe]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb FlashGordonPhotography:

Most of the TL lenses are spectacular. Even the zooms. Slow but optically fabulous. The 18 and 23 were the only *lesser* options. And at the time I though the CL sensor was as good as it got in APSC. I was very unhappy when they just dropped the system and abandoned their customers because they wanted to cement their *luxury* focus.

I think people who say the TL lenses are lesser than the SL options, obviously haven't used them.

Gordon

I wouldn't say that the 18-56 zoom is spectacular.  I have got good results, but sometimes not, the same goes for the 23 mm Summicron. There may also be some sample variations. The 60 mm TL was said to be the benchmark lens and I can second that. As for the 35 mm, chromatic aberrations were strong wide open, but that also goes for the M equivalent wide open, it is a sharp lens, though. I once compared the 35 mm Summilux TL on the CL and the 50 mm Summilux on the M 240 - no real difference in image quality. I always loved the bigger 50-135 zoom. 

The APS-C system was flawed by the absence of OIS and IBIS - I think that is why I keep getting sharper images with a FF stabilised 20 megapixel camera. There is a price to pay for compactness. There is no need for me to defend Leica and their politics, but I understood that the APS-C system sales world-wide implied that they had no choice (and were awfully sorry for that). Essence of what I heard in a Wetzlar meeting from Leica a few years ago when everybody was wondering about the future of APS-C.

Edited August 16, 2024 by EUSe

[BernardC]

6 hours ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

So I think we agree. I also never said they did not work (the older lenses), but that there is gain to be had on upgrading lens quality, and that INDEED the lenses are made for certain megapixels in terms of sharpness, contrasts, lens aberrations etc.

Right?

If so, I'm shocked by how many times this is mistaken on forums everywhere, and here by the moderator. 

 

Because if it is like I interpret us both saying; then indeed it is NOT additive and bette sensors may reveal weaknesses in older lenses, weaknesses that are "hidden" on older sensors, and hence they DO NOT get better with better sensors.

You have it the wrong way round. Lenses aren't "made for certain megapixels." They aren't made for certain brands of film either. What Leica stated is that they have a target contrast that they try to reach with new lenses. As a manufacturer, they need to establish performance targets, and ways to measure those targets.

Lenses don't suddenly stop working when a new camera is released. They deliver the same contrast that they did previously. If you take two pictures with the same lens, one on a 24MP camera, and one on a 60MP camera, and enlarge them to the same size, you will get the same contrast. The 60MP image will show more fine detail, provided that your enlargement is big enough to show this level of detail. It will not get worse.

 

I'm not sure who you are referring to as "mistaken moderators." Many moderators are also regular contributors. I'm sure that whatever you disagreed with was written as a regular member (normal font), not as a moderator (bold blue font).

[Leicaboy Norway]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

You have it the wrong way round. Lenses aren't "made for certain megapixels." They aren't made for certain brands of film either. What Leica stated is that they have a target contrast that they try to reach with new lenses. As a manufacturer, they need to establish performance targets, and ways to measure those targets.

Lenses don't suddenly stop working when a new camera is released. They deliver the same contrast that they did previously. If you take two pictures with the same lens, one on a 24MP camera, and one on a 60MP camera, and enlarge them to the same size, you will get the same contrast. The 60MP image will show more fine detail, provided that your enlargement is big enough to show this level of detail. It will not get worse.

 

I'm not sure who you are referring to as "mistaken moderators." Many moderators are also regular contributors. I'm sure that whatever you disagreed with was written as a regular member (normal font), not as a moderator (bold blue font).

 

 

If I'm mistaken I apologize...

Edited August 16, 2024 by Leicaboy Norway

[BernardC]

29 minutes ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

Karbe literally used megapixel as a quality statement and yes a higher megapixel sensor may reveal lack of sufficient quality in older lenses.

And no, contrast isn't necessarily the same in a newer higher megapixel sensor even though it's the same lens 

Contrast is the same at the same final print size. What Leica explained is that their goal is to maintain that target at a constant enlargement ratio, not print size. So your old lenses keep performing the same as before, but your new lenses meet the same minimum contrast target with larger prints. That's a vast over-generalization, of course. A Summicron 50, designed 40+ years ago, is still excellent on a 60MP sensor. A 1930's Elmar, will show more detail on a 60MP sensor, but it still won't be anywhere close to a modern lens.

Practical example: find a 1930s Elmar, take one picture 3 times (ISO 100 film, 24MP, 60MP). Print all three to a common size, for instance 12*18"/30*45cm. Barring any post-processing enhancements, the 60MP print will have more detail, if all 3 are printed to the same overall contrast. The film shot is an outlier, because it depends on your materials and technique, but you are definitely getting a bit more from the higher MP image.

 

Back to the original question: your TL lenses will perform the same on an SL3 (26MP effective in APS-C mode) and a TL2 (24MP effective). The difference between 24 and 26MP isn't enough for anyone to notice. An APO-Summicron-L will be better than any TL lens, but it's also several times more expensive.

 

[jaapv]

Let's have an  authoritative voice:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/
Scroll down for the bit on lenses on sensors

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

21 hours ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

Even Peter Karbe says the TL lenses have less contrast / ipm or whatever than SL lenses.

Yes for two different systems but obviously when he says the SL lenses are a new benchmark in terms of quality, opening up for 100 mpx +, it obviously means the SL lenses are  better in terms of quality. I dont understand what does have to do with whether youve tried both systems or not

My point is if you put the TL lenses on a CL and a SL lens on a 24MP SL2-S you don't really see any real improvements other than the APO performance of the APO lenses. There's also the non APO SL primes and the TL are at least as good as those. Maybe better. Sure the SL APO's are made for higher resolving sensors but since there are none for APSC it's not relevant. It's not like any of the Fuji stuff is better.

The CL didn't do as well as it should because there was no IS. A CL2 with IBIS would have been great. But Leica wanted you to buy something with a bigger margin. IQ wasn't the issue.

[tomasis7]

On 8/16/2024 at 11:33 AM, Leicaboy Norway said:

This is from Leica themselves saying image quality is better on the SL lenses than on the TL (TL here even represented by their best lens the 35 1.4)

End of discussion? ;);)

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!

TL is as good as M gen 3 lenses so it is pretty good! 

Good enough for 60mpx Apsc then it means 100mpx or little higher for the full frame. 

Edited August 18, 2024 by tomasis7

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[KenTanaka]

Using Leica TL (and Sigma APS-C L-Mount) lenses on the SL3 (or SL2) is one of the truly wonderful perks of owning this camera.  You will get the same superb image quality but with a smaller file.  Why walk around with a honkin' 24-90 bazooka if you really don't need 60mp images?  Pick-up a used 18, 23, 35, or 55-135 TL lens and you'll be in heaven.  Truth be told, my SL3 hosts TL and M lenses more than full-frame L lenses.  It's a true joy of the system that significantly enhances the Sox cameras' versatility and usability! 

[prismstorm]

All the technicalities aside, the original intent of this thread was to probe at the viability of mounting TL lenses on the SL3, given that the weight and size savings are huge (e.g. 256g for 18-56 vs 1140g for the 24-90) and the 60MP sensor on the SL3 gives a resolution of 2MP more than even the native APS-C bodies (such as the CL / TL2) at the same APS-C image circle. 

I recall that David Farkas at Red Dot Forum has said in one of their videos that the TL lenses were engineered to 20 more lines per mm than typical APS-C lenses (60), and hence why I largely feel that performance in APS-C mode on SL3 would be equal to or better than on the APS-C-centric bodies. 

It is acknowledged that a lot of pixels are being thrown away this way. However, for serious shoots I have APO-Summicron-SL and M lenses to rely on, the TL lenses are just to find another usage for the SL3 when one wants to travel light and carefree.