SL 28-70 f2,8 on June 12?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, LD_50 said:

They have quite a few top lenses for the SL system that are unique to Leica:

Summicrons: 21, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90
Zooms: 16-35, 24-90, 90-280
Summilux: 50

I'm probably missing a few, but the Summicrons 35 and 50 and the 90-280 are by Panasonic

[LD_50]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

I'm probably missing a few, but the Summicrons 35 and 50 and the 90-280 are by Panasonic

I mentioned before I wasn’t talking about who designed the lenses or who owns patents. 

I was referencing the lenses that are unique to Leica. 

[jaapv]

 Nothing unique about  those Summicrons. The Panasonic 35 and 50 are identical, the only thing Leica did was reduce the max aperture from 1.8 to 2.0 to get marginally less coma “wide open” and give them a metal barrel; in fact I prefer the composite of the Panasonic versions.  The 90-280 was indeed a Panasonic design which   only Leica used. 

[LD_50]

33 minutes ago, jaapv said:

 Nothing unique about  those Summicrons. The Panasonic 35 and 50 are identical, the only thing Leica did was reduce the max aperture from 1.8 to 2.0 to get marginally less coma “wide open” and give them a metal barrel; in fact I prefer the composite of the Panasonic versions.  The 90-280 was indeed a Panasonic design which   only Leica used. 

I never referenced the Summicrons that appear to be duplicates of the Panasonics. I referenced as unique to Leica: the APOs, the Summilux 50, the 16-35, 24-90, and 90-280. 

[SrMi]

22 hours ago, vkdev said:

Thanks leica. but that was the last straw. I wont invest in the l system anymore and might sell it. I bought the system with top lenses but have expensive copies of 3 dollar lenses.

I want a choice. I want top-quality primes  (APOz), and I want lightweight, well-performing lenses (like the one announced).

[jaapv]

13 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

I never referenced the Summicrons that appear to be duplicates of the Panasonics. I referenced as unique to Leica: the APOs, the Summilux 50, the 16-35, 24-90, and 90-280. 

You probably mistyped. 😉

Leica does indeed appear to be concentrating on the advanced designs and Leicafying third party lenses for the rest of the SL stable. It would point to optimal use of the L Alliance to compensate for limited resources. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I want a choice. I want top-quality primes  (APOz), and I want lightweight, well-performing lenses (like the one announced).

Agree. It is a bit ridiculous to call the excellent lenses by Sigma and Panasonic 3 dollar designs. Why should Leica not cater to a market that likes mental barrels, and Leica mechanical design and haptics with very good albeit not unique optics?  And pay a premium for the pleasure?  

[TL3]

Colour me surprised, I was thinking 100 macro 2.8 would be their next rebadged lens, not another standard ranged zoom.  If money was no object, I’d definitely go for the unique Leica offerings.  But I don’t mind the existence of the elevated copies; they have their own specific use cases (smaller, lighter, constant apertures, CHEAPER), different materials and build that justify their existence.  I think it’s smart of them to simultaneously widen their product offerings with fewer design resources dedicated, and offer lenses at a lower price point to enable more people to take the plunge into the SL system.  If one was deciding between an SL3 or Sony A1 II, I think the price difference is $7500 vs $6500.  And with reasonably priced lenses to match, then I think the barriers to choosing an SL3 are going to be that much lower for the cost conscious.

[BernardC]

This has been going on for longer than most of us have been alive. The rangefinder systems (screw mount, M) have offered "third party" lenses since the 1930s. Many R lenses came from outside suppliers. Each of us can decide how we spend our lens budget. There's something to be said for owning only "true" Leica lenses, like the APO-Sumicrons, but many people also want an affordable standard zoom.

The interesting thing about this rumour is that it might point to a line of smaller lenses, which could in turn point to a smaller L-mount body.

[jaapv]

7 hours ago, TL3 said:

Colour me surprised, I was thinking 100 macro 2.8 would be their next rebadged lens, not another standard ranged zoom.  If money was no object, I’d definitely go for the unique Leica offerings.  But I don’t mind the existence of the elevated copies; they have their own specific use cases (smaller, lighter, constant apertures, CHEAPER), different materials and build that justify their existence.  I think it’s smart of them to simultaneously widen their product offerings with fewer design resources dedicated, and offer lenses at a lower price point to enable more people to take the plunge into the SL system.  If one was deciding between an SL3 or Sony A1 II, I think the price difference is $7500 vs $6500.  And with reasonably priced lenses to match, then I think the barriers to choosing an SL3 are going to be that much lower for the cost conscious.

The Sigma is presently the only compact lightweight fast zoom in the L lineup. Basically Leica has only to spruce up corner performance at 70 mm and weatherproof it to have a winner. 

[helged]

8 hours ago, TL3 said:

Colour me surprised, I was thinking 100 macro 2.8 would be their next rebadged lens, not another standard ranged zoom.  If money was no object, I’d definitely go for the unique Leica offerings.  But I don’t mind the existence of the elevated copies; they have their own specific use cases (smaller, lighter, constant apertures, CHEAPER), different materials and build that justify their existence.  I think it’s smart of them to simultaneously widen their product offerings with fewer design resources dedicated, and offer lenses at a lower price point to enable more people to take the plunge into the SL system.  If one was deciding between an SL3 or Sony A1 II, I think the price difference is $7500 vs $6500.  And with reasonably priced lenses to match, then I think the barriers to choosing an SL3 are going to be that much lower for the cost conscious.

A Leica macro at about 100mm has been/is under development. Whether it is Panasonic 100mm, Sigma 105mm or Elmarit-APO-R 100mm based, or something else, is hard to say, but something is coming. 

Edited June 8 by helged

[Einst_Stein]

What do you expect from Leica 28-70mm that is missing from Sigmas 28-70mm, Sigma 24-90mm, or Leica 24-70mm?

[jaapv]

As I said, improved corner performance @ 70 mm and weathersealing, whilst retaining the weight and size advantage. 

 

[LD_50]

4 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

What do you expect from Leica 28-70mm that is missing from Sigmas 28-70mm, Sigma 24-90mm, or Leica 24-70mm?

The same Sigma felt was missing when developing the 28-70 vs their 24-70. 

The Leica would offer the same difference when compared to the Leica 24-70. 

[Einst_Stein]

9 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

The same Sigma felt was missing when developing the 28-70 vs their 24-70. 

The Leica would offer the same difference when compared to the Leica 24-70. 

What defference? please explain.  And why Leica should repeat Sigma's mistake?  

[Oxfordian]

I am new to Leica, a convert of just a few months with a Q3 and SL2, but I have to say that the mix of Leica, Sigma, Panasonic and the other brands just joining the L mount group is great, it allows me, the camera owner, a great deal of choice.

So far I have a mix of lenses from L,S and P and all of them are doing a damn fine job. With regard to upgrading to Leica's APO lenses I am sure that they are better than the equivalent Sigma, Panasonic and entry level Leica lenses but how much better? Are the results from the Leica APO 50 over 10 times better than Panasonic 50/f1.8 because it costs over 10 times as much. No.

My Sigma 24-70/f2.8 Art II is awesome, is it as good as Leica's 24-90, I have no idea but at a shade under £1200 for the Sigma compared to 4 times that amount for the Leica the Leica would have to be beyond stellar to get me to splash the cash. I would doubt that an A3 print from the same scene taken on both lenses would show much if any differences and I doubt that in a visual comparison of the prints on a wall people would struggle to say which one was from the Leica or Sigma. 

At some point I would like to add a 35mm lens, I have so much choice available to me, from Leica's APO 35 at £4300 down to Sigma and Panasonic versions at £570 with many lenses in between, and all of them will allow me to create images I would be proud to have printed and framed.

There is something out there for everyone, for those requiring the best of the best then a Leica APO may be what they want but for others fast Sigma or Panasonic lenses may be just what they need, for others the Leica 'entry' range may be what it wanted. I struggle to understand why people get so hot under the collar about what Leica is or isn't doing, if you need a 35mm (or other focal length) go and buy one according to your needs and budget.

[LD_50]

59 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

What defference? please explain.  And why Leica should repeat Sigma's mistake?  

You can’t see a difference between Sigma’s 24-70 and 28-70 lenses? Really?

Focal range, size, weight, price, what else are you not seeing? 

Edited June 8 by LD_50

[LD_50]

6 minutes ago, Oxfordian said:

I am new to Leica, a convert of just a few months with a Q3 and SL2, but I have to say that the mix of Leica, Sigma, Panasonic and the other brands just joining the L mount group is great, it allows me, the camera owner, a great deal of choice.

So far I have a mix of lenses from L,S and P and all of them are doing a damn fine job. With regard to upgrading to Leica's APO lenses I am sure that they are better than the equivalent Sigma, Panasonic and entry level Leica lenses but how much better? Are the results from the Leica APO 50 over 10 times better than Panasonic 50/f1.8 because it costs over 10 times as much. No.

My Sigma 24-70/f2.8 Art II is awesome, is it as good as Leica's 24-90, I have no idea but at a shade under £1200 for the Sigma compared to 4 times that amount for the Leica the Leica would have to be beyond stellar to get me to splash the cash. I would doubt that an A3 print from the same scene taken on both lenses would show much if any differences and I doubt that in a visual comparison of the prints on a wall people would struggle to say which one was from the Leica or Sigma. 

At some point I would like to add a 35mm lens, I have so much choice available to me, from Leica's APO 35 at £4300 down to Sigma and Panasonic versions at £570 with many lenses in between, and all of them will allow me to create images I would be proud to have printed and framed.

There is something out there for everyone, for those requiring the best of the best then a Leica APO may be what they want but for others fast Sigma or Panasonic lenses may be just what they need, for others the Leica 'entry' range may be what it wanted. I struggle to understand why people get so hot under the collar about what Leica is or isn't doing, if you need a 35mm (or other focal length) go and buy one according to your needs and budget.

I haven’t seen a lot of “hot under the collar” here. There is a lot of discussion about whether it hurts the brand to essentially rehouse and rebadge cheaper lenses.

This is similar to Hasselblad’s rehouse and rebadge of Sony cameras years ago. It’s pretty well universally accepted it was bad for the brand and would have killed it if they hadn’t changed direction. 

[jaapv]

Well, it hasn’t killed off Leica for the last hundred years. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, LD_50 said:

You can’t see a difference between Sigma’s 24-70 and 28-70 lenses? Really?

Focal range, size, weight, price, what else are you not seeing? 

I mean what difference you are after?  I can't see the difference that worth to be excitedf about.