SL 28-70 f2,8 on June 12?

[Oxfordian]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

53 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

I don’t think Leica needs similar lenses to Nikon. I wouldn’t expect Leica supertelephotos or the large range that Nikon offers. That wasn’t the point at all, it was offering unique lenses to the mount.

I do think Nikon needs unique lenses when compared to Sony and Canon. If they simply rebadged/rehoused Sigma or Tamron, there would be little reason to choose them over Sony or Canon, who both offer unique lenses and in Sony’s case those very similar or same lenses from the other brands. 

I do think Leica needs unique lenses. They’ve shown this works with the M, and originally it’s half of what got me into the SL (the other being the ability to use those unique M lenses).

If Leica only produced M or SL lenses that were rebadged/rehoused versions of Zeiss, Voigtlander, Sigma, and Panasonic, I wouldn’t own either the M or SL systems. I just don’t want that to be the future of the SL system.

The same goes for the S system, it was attractive to me because of the unique set of lenses (outside the AF reliability problems). If they had produced a mirrorless body, I would have bought in because of that unique set of lenses. If the lenses had been rebadged/rehoused Fuji or Hasselblad, I would never have considered it. 

Leica has unique SL lenses, the APO and 50 Summilux range, what more do they need?

Nikon has some unique lenses as does Canon and Sony with fast but large primes and zooms, if Leica produced these lenses based on APO prices any unique / Special lens would be astronomical in price, sure the well healed will buy them but it will be outside of many people's budgets and overall sales will be low volume.

I am unsure what it is that you want Leica to produce, what special lenses are needed, is it fast primes or long telephotos or.....?

Isn't the objective of the L mount collaboration to allow parties to develop lenses for that mount, a mount that is used by 3 different camera brands, nothing in that collaboration indicates that Leica must produce 'Special or Unique' lenses for their SL cameras, Leica can add to their L range as and when they want to - maybe they have finished and there are no more to come - maybe Leica are going to leave Sigma and others to fill any gaps.

I wonder though whether by using a Sigma or Panasonic lens or rebadged/reworked clone there is a perception amongst some folk that this collaboration weakens the name of Leica, because a true Leica user would only use a lens designed and built by those nice people in Germany.

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[LD_50]

2 hours ago, Oxfordian said:

Leica has unique SL lenses, the APO and 50 Summilux range, what more do they need?

Nikon has some unique lenses as does Canon and Sony with fast but large primes and zooms, if Leica produced these lenses based on APO prices any unique / Special lens would be astronomical in price, sure the well healed will buy them but it will be outside of many people's budgets and overall sales will be low volume.

I am unsure what it is that you want Leica to produce, what special lenses are needed, is it fast primes or long telephotos or.....?

Isn't the objective of the L mount collaboration to allow parties to develop lenses for that mount, a mount that is used by 3 different camera brands, nothing in that collaboration indicates that Leica must produce 'Special or Unique' lenses for their SL cameras, Leica can add to their L range as and when they want to - maybe they have finished and there are no more to come - maybe Leica are going to leave Sigma and others to fill any gaps.

I wonder though whether by using a Sigma or Panasonic lens or rebadged/reworked clone there is a perception amongst some folk that this collaboration weakens the name of Leica, because a true Leica user would only use a lens designed and built by those nice people in Germany.

The L mount collaboration allows parties to develop lenses for the mount without Leica rebadging/rehousing any of them. Having two different versions of the same lens (with different prices and materials) isn’t particularly useful for anyone shopping for a new camera system, even if some are willing to pay more for different aesthetics or housing materials. 

What more do they need? I mentioned in this thread, in my first response what I would want Leica to produce that is unique. I could also add a nice macro lens as my number 4, though the Sigma 105 has served me well.

Quote

If Leica were designing new in-house lenses, what would everyone like to see?

My choices that I would buy immediately:

1- Statement Summilux lens for portraiture - do a 90 f/1.4 with all the best engineering - something deliberately focused toward portraits like Nikons 135/f1.8 Plena is what I have in mind with cost toward size/weight reduction and highest in

2- Revise the 50 Summilux to match

3- 1.4x teleconverter for the 90-280”

You keep mentioning that unique Leica lenses would be astronomical in price. That’s really nothing new. Compare each of the unique SL lenses to similar offerings from other makers and the corresponding price differences (16-35, 24-90, 90-280, 50 Summilux, APO Summicrons). Why would it be different here? I would bet a small number of Summiluxes to go with the APO Summicrons would do well, as they do with the M system, despite their high cost relative to other brands. You may be right that I’m overestimating the market and sales may not justify the investment. 

I do believe that rebadging/rehousing lenses can weaken the Leica brand, but not because the lenses aren’t made in Germany. What has built the Leica brand for me is the unique options they offer. This goes for each system I’ve mentioned in this thread (M, SL, S, Q). I’m not referring at all to who owns a patent or who did the design work, or in which country the equipment is built. Brand value is subjective and can change quickly (see the previous references to Hasselblad rebadging/rehousing Sony cameras with higher quality materials and slightly different designs). I want Leica to be strong so I can continue to stay with them, and this is one part of it. 

 

 

[Oxfordian]

11 hours ago, LD_50 said:

The L mount collaboration allows parties to develop lenses for the mount without Leica rebadging/rehousing any of them. Having two different versions of the same lens (with different prices and materials) isn’t particularly useful for anyone shopping for a new camera system, even if some are willing to pay more for different aesthetics or housing materials. 

What more do they need? I mentioned in this thread, in my first response what I would want Leica to produce that is unique. I could also add a nice macro lens as my number 4, though the Sigma 105 has served me well.

You keep mentioning that unique Leica lenses would be astronomical in price. That’s really nothing new. Compare each of the unique SL lenses to similar offerings from other makers and the corresponding price differences (16-35, 24-90, 90-280, 50 Summilux, APO Summicrons). Why would it be different here? I would bet a small number of Summiluxes to go with the APO Summicrons would do well, as they do with the M system, despite their high cost relative to other brands. You may be right that I’m overestimating the market and sales may not justify the investment. 

I do believe that rebadging/rehousing lenses can weaken the Leica brand, but not because the lenses aren’t made in Germany. What has built the Leica brand for me is the unique options they offer. This goes for each system I’ve mentioned in this thread (M, SL, S, Q). I’m not referring at all to who owns a patent or who did the design work, or in which country the equipment is built. Brand value is subjective and can change quickly (see the previous references to Hasselblad rebadging/rehousing Sony cameras with higher quality materials and slightly different designs). I want Leica to be strong so I can continue to stay with them, and this is one part of it. 

 

 

Personally I couldn't care less whose name is on the lens or whether it is a clone or rebadge of another lens as long as it does what I want it to do and I certainly don't believe that it cheapens a brands image if anything it enhances it.

I am now a Leica owner, I have my foot in the door with a Q3 and SL2, I have access to a wide range of lenses many of which are budget friendly options that produce exceptional results. Do I look at the APO range or that 50mm/f1.4 and wonder, sure I do but I also wonder if buying a 35mm APO I would get me a better lens than the 35mm F1.2 Art from Sigma or even a f1.4 version, somehow I doubt that it would.

In over 40 years of taking images I have learnt that a bagful of own brand lenses doesn't guarantee a better picture just a wallet with less money in it.

In opening up the L mount for collaboration Leica made a very smart move, they created a mount that encourages others to join in, it is said that in time the L mount could become one of the best mounts in photography with a variety of camera designs and capabilities to fit the budget and needs of many people. In reality Leica do not need to do anything in terms of lens development, they could bring in a new selection of lenses but if they do I wouldn't mind betting that they will work with a 3rd party to help bring those lenses to market.

Long live the L Mount.

[jaapv]

Long gone are the times that Leica lenses were built by gnomes in caves deep in the Bavarian mountains 

[BernardC]

23 hours ago, Oxfordian said:

Why haven't Leica followed the example of CaNikony and developed a wider range of lenses incorporating ultra fast primes or big telephoto's or other unique lenses for the SL series my guess that the answer is cost and limited interest.

Different markets. Super-telephotos and ultra-fast "pro" bodies are Canon and Nikon's prestige products, just like the M and APO lenses are Leica's prestige products. It's been that way for 50+ years. I don't know if they still do, but Canon owned the back cover of National Geographic for decades and used that premium space to showcase their ultra-expensive "white lenses" and "1" cameras (F1, EOS-1, 1D, now R1), in order to sell more mundane kit. Nikon had a similar marketing strategy.

In short, if you are a top-level professional working in sports, or if you do something similar, your shopping list will only consist of Canon and Nikon. That's what they do best, and they aren't shy about asking $10,000+ for each lens. On the other hand, their regular lenses are rarely as good a Leica's offerings, save for a few showcase 1.0 and 1.2 lenses. That's not to say that their cheaper lenses are bad, but they were never any better than lenses made by Tamron, Sigma, Sony, or historical brands like Minolta, Olympus, etc.

[Olaf_ZG]

4 hours ago, Al Brown said:

I would not trade my XCD 80/1.9 for any SL lux out there...

I would love to see a comparison of both lenses with the same model…

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Oxfordian said:

Personally I couldn't care less whose name is on the lens or whether it is a clone or rebadge of another lens as long as it does what I want it to do and I certainly don't believe that it cheapens a brands image if anything it enhances it.

I am now a Leica owner, I have my foot in the door with a Q3 and SL2, I have access to a wide range of lenses many of which are budget friendly options that produce exceptional results. Do I look at the APO range or that 50mm/f1.4 and wonder, sure I do but I also wonder if buying a 35mm APO I would get me a better lens than the 35mm F1.2 Art from Sigma or even a f1.4 version, somehow I doubt that it would.

In over 40 years of taking images I have learnt that a bagful of own brand lenses doesn't guarantee a better picture just a wallet with less money in it.

In opening up the L mount for collaboration Leica made a very smart move, they created a mount that encourages others to join in, it is said that in time the L mount could become one of the best mounts in photography with a variety of camera designs and capabilities to fit the budget and needs of many people. In reality Leica do not need to do anything in terms of lens development, they could bring in a new selection of lenses but if they do I wouldn't mind betting that they will work with a 3rd party to help bring those lenses to market.

Long live the L Mount.

You seem to be reading something I’m not writing. 

I support the L mount alliance and multiple companies producing L mount lenses. I don’t care where the lenses are made. I own Leica and Sigma. 

I don’t think it’s particularly useful to look at an image and then question subjectively whether it would be “better” with another lens. There’s no way to determine that without trying the lenses back to back or spending a lot of time with each. Objectively the images would be different and there are tests that can show what those differences would be.

The Sigma 35/1.2 is said to be a good lens. It can do things the 35 APO can’t. I do think the APO is better for me, but you may not. It’s good to have choices. Now if Leica releases a 35/1.2 rebadge I would again question the strategy because the lens already exists.

Having a bagful of Leica lenses vs a mix of brands of course doesn’t guarantee objectively better images, though a bagful of the APOs would. You seem to be referring to subjective results which vary from person to person. 

 

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

Different markets. Super-telephotos and ultra-fast "pro" bodies are Canon and Nikon's prestige products, just like the M and APO lenses are Leica's prestige products. It's been that way for 50+ years. I don't know if they still do, but Canon owned the back cover of National Geographic for decades and used that premium space to showcase their ultra-expensive "white lenses" and "1" cameras (F1, EOS-1, 1D, now R1), in order to sell more mundane kit. Nikon had a similar marketing strategy.

In short, if you are a top-level professional working in sports, or if you do something similar, your shopping list will only consist of Canon and Nikon. That's what they do best, and they aren't shy about asking $10,000+ for each lens. On the other hand, their regular lenses are rarely as good a Leica's offerings, save for a few showcase 1.0 and 1.2 lenses. That's not to say that their cheaper lenses are bad, but they were never any better than lenses made by Tamron, Sigma, Sony, or historical brands like Minolta, Olympus, etc.

Well, that may be true for the SL series but not for 50+ years - the Apo-Telyt modular set, APO Telyt 4.0/280 (Even diffraction limited), 2.8/280, etc.  were world-class lenses that have not been surpassed yet. There were plenty of excellent long lenses up to 800 mm (and even 1600!)  in the R system, and before that in the V-mount M system as well. 

 

 

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!

[TeleElmar135mm]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Long gone are the times that Leica lenses were built by gnomes in caves deep in the Bavarian mountains 

... Bavarian Mountains? Rather the Kalsmunt  ... or in the Grube Fortuna   

https://www.hessenschau.de/tv-sendung/christstollen-aus-dem-stollen-ganz-spezielle-aktion-in-wetzlar,video-190370.html

 

[jaapv]

No - they were imported into Hessen, just like the optical glass was melted in Dülmen and Haltern in NRW and the cameras came  from the workshops of the Trolls under the roots of the Black Forest. 😜

[BernardC]

44 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Well, that may be true for the SL series but not for 50+ years - the Apo-Telyt modular set, APO Telyt 4.0/280 (Even diffraction limited), 2.8/280, etc.  were world-class lenses that have not been surpassed yet. There were plenty of excellent long lenses up to 800 mm (and even 1600!)  in the R system, and before that in the V-mount M system as well.

I thought about mentioning those, but they were manual focus lenses, in the AF era. As good as they were, I doubt they had any impact on Canon and Nikon's bottom line. Other companies like Pentax, Mamiya, Rollei, Contax also offered a few high-quality telephotos, as showcase pieces. Rollei's lenses were particularly interesting because they were Zeiss military lenses with a Rollei mount, sold at military prices (I recall around 50,000DM). They had a night-vision lens and huge telephotos.

[jaapv]

Yes, Leica seems to have lost interest in the AF era-pity - but you did mention 50+ years 😉 Canon did offer a 280:4.0 that came close to Leica, but they needed far more lens elements. 

[Oxfordian]

5 hours ago, LD_50 said:

You seem to be reading something I’m not writing. 

I support the L mount alliance and multiple companies producing L mount lenses. I don’t care where the lenses are made. I own Leica and Sigma. 

I don’t think it’s particularly useful to look at an image and then question subjectively whether it would be “better” with another lens. There’s no way to determine that without trying the lenses back to back or spending a lot of time with each. Objectively the images would be different and there are tests that can show what those differences would be.

The Sigma 35/1.2 is said to be a good lens. It can do things the 35 APO can’t. I do think the APO is better for me, but you may not. It’s good to have choices. Now if Leica releases a 35/1.2 rebadge I would again question the strategy because the lens already exists.

Having a bagful of Leica lenses vs a mix of brands of course doesn’t guarantee objectively better images, though a bagful of the APOs would. You seem to be referring to subjective results which vary from person to person. 

 

My question still exists, what lenses do you want Leica to release, you seem to bemoan the lack of 'true' Leica lenses but don't offer suggestions of what these special or unique lenses should be.

I guess that in reality you don't actually know what you want you just don't want what Leica are doing at the moment.

Anyway I've had enough and have images to take so I'm out of here. Thanks for the discussion. 

[LD_50]

2 hours ago, Oxfordian said:

My question still exists, what lenses do you want Leica to release, you seem to bemoan the lack of 'true' Leica lenses but don't offer suggestions of what these special or unique lenses should be.

I guess that in reality you don't actually know what you want you just don't want what Leica are doing at the moment.

Anyway I've had enough and have images to take so I'm out of here. Thanks for the discussion. 

See post #2 in this thread where I stated exactly what I am interested in and would buy immediately. 

See post #62 in this thread where I answered (and quoted) you the first time you asked this of me, and I quoted my own post #2. 

[davidmknoble]

The key here is that Leica maintains several lens lineups and camera mounts.  We also seem to forget that the Leica M lenses have no electronics, which is why my 1954 50mm Summicron works with M11 and my current APO 35mm f/2 works on my M3.  

The SL and S system are electronic systems.  We will likely not be using 70 year old SL lenses on the SL99.  Leica does what they do best - they designed some incredibly unique APO summicrons that draws in a unique way that no one else has replicated.

Yet, through their partnership, they can share lens designs and capitalize off of them.  The lenses Leica chooses to rebrand have better lens coatings and while they might be heavier and use metal instead of plastics, it matches their existing lineup and whatever slightly different specs they have, customers seem to buy.

But they are not going to work on new SL lenses that have never been done while they are actively working on other new products.  The S system has been a leader in total image quality and workflow since they released it. Why wouldn't they spend development time on it?

The Leica M users could just as easily wish Leica would stop working on the SL sytem and make more M lenses!  We should be happy with what Leica is doing, and enjoy going and shooting more images, rather than worrying about what they should or should not be making next. 

I have the Sigma 500mm f/5.6 and really like it.  Other than the R lenses, Leica doesn't have long focal lengths like this, so I bought the Sigma.  I doubt Leica will ever rebrand that lens, but who knows?  

Just my 2 cents.

[Archiver]

If Leica releases a 28-70/2.8 which is based on the Sigma design, it could be to provide a less expensive entry point to the SL system. When the SL2-S was released, Leica Australia bundled it with the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 v1 for the first month or two. The SL2-S was bundled with the Leica version after it was released, and also with the Summicron SL Asph lenses, again presumably to attract new buyers to the SL system. I can easily see a Leica branded 28-70mm as a new bundle partner with the SL3 and SL3-S. It is the only way to make sense of releasing a lower price lens that competes with something already in their catalogue, i.e., the 24-70/2.8.

As for unique and interesting lenses, Leica could continue with shorter and longer focal lengths like the R system, like an 18 or 19mm f2 APO, a 100mm f2.8 Macro, or a Summilux 35mm f1.4 SL. Whether they do this on their current R&D budget is another thing.

[Oxfordian]

9 hours ago, LD_50 said:

See post #2 in this thread where I stated exactly what I am interested in and would buy immediately. 

See post #62 in this thread where I answered (and quoted) you the first time you asked this of me, and I quoted my own post #2. 

There is a f1.4 portrait lens, it is by Sigma - 85mm DGDN Art, why not buy that?

There is a 50mm f1.2 available, again by Sigma, faster than Leica's Summilux, why not buy that or Sigma's f1.4 version?

There are longer lenses provided by Sigma including a 300-600/f4 and competitively priced at under £6k, there is also the excellent Sigma 70-200 which is getting rave reviews and can use TC's.

As I have said throughout this discussion there are lots of options out there for L mount camera owners, I struggle to comprehend why there is so much snobbery around 'Leica' lenses when there are excellent alternatives out there if owners would only remove the blinkers and open their eyes.

With their M cameras and lenses Leica have developed a very unique and iconic system, to expect them to replicate that in L glass is unrealistic IMHO.

[LocalHero1953]

22 minutes ago, Oxfordian said:

As I have said throughout this discussion there are lots of options out there for L mount camera owners, I struggle to comprehend why there is so much snobbery around 'Leica' lenses when there are excellent alternatives out there if owners would only remove the blinkers and open their eyes.

You're assuming opinions that just aren't there. Many of us (most of us?) have other brands as well. I have the Sigma 85 you mention, a Sigma 70 macro (for film copying), a Blackmagic L-mount camera (mainly for video) and I've had the Sigma fp previously - and I keep an eye on Panasonic, Sigma and BM for bodies I might want in certain scenarios.

As it happens, I'm not looking for another L-mount lens, but as I spend quite a bit of time in the portrait lens melting pot, I would certainly be interested in seeing a Leica Summilux 90 - to compare it with my VE 24-90, Sigma 85, Summilux 50, Apo-Summicron 75, and Summilux-M 75. They all have their character, and they all have their use cases. Sure, one of these would have to go if a new one came in the door, but if Leica made a Summilux-SL 90, I would be surprised if it didn't have its own distinctive character. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[davidmknoble]

37 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

As it happens, I'm not looking for another L-mount lens, but as I spend quite a bit of time in the portrait lens melting pot, I would certainly be interested in seeing a Leica Summilux 90

Based on the 50 Summilux L lens, I think Leica has taken a different route.  The work they did on the Summicron L 90 shows that wide open, it operates very closely to the depth of field of a Summilux.  The light gathering is that of an f/2, but the drawing is between and f/2 and an f/1.4.  That decision allows the lenses to be smaller, lighter and all take the same filter size.  

I doubt you will see another Leica Summilux L lens.  Just my opinion of course.

[LD_50]

1 hour ago, davidmknoble said:

Based on the 50 Summilux L lens, I think Leica has taken a different route.  The work they did on the Summicron L 90 shows that wide open, it operates very closely to the depth of field of a Summilux.  The light gathering is that of an f/2, but the drawing is between and f/2 and an f/1.4.  That decision allows the lenses to be smaller, lighter and all take the same filter size.  

I doubt you will see another Leica Summilux L lens.  Just my opinion of course.

Thanks for this input. I have shot a small amount with the 90SL Summicron, but not enough to have a definitive opinion. I will say the images looked great but didn't stand out to me for portraits the way the 50SL Summilux does, or the way the 100S Summicron did when I tested it on a S007. Those images had me very close to convincing myself I could get over the AF limitations of the S system.

I may need to do some more research and some more shooting of the 90SL Summicron but I'd really love if Leica would produce the 'definitive portrait lens' for the L mount. The Sigma 85 f/1.4 isn't that for me, though it looks good.