Why only one Summilux in the SL line up?

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Biotar said:

If they had released top MF lenses simultaneously, then it would have been clear and the poor AF performance would not have undermined the system.

This is such a bizarre logic! They wouldn’t have been criticized for slow AF if they did not release AF at all? On the contrary, the vast majority of users would be asking what the hell they were thinking. This would have been commercial suicide, even in 2015. 
I also think you are overstating the issue. The AF does not undermine the system, it is just not as good as the best cameras for AFc and tracking. I have been using it professionally for six years and the AF has not failed me in any sense during that time. On the contrary, it is exceptionally accurate because of the contrast detect. It is orders of magnitude more accurate and reliable than the S system was while I was using it, far more so than the M system and R system too. I have shot them all for 25 years now. The SL system is the best of all of the for demanding professional work. 

[Biotar]

Based on the initial question, there will be no further Luxes with AF, because they would have to be far larger in Leica quality than the existing 50. And that contradicts the now shrunken body design. If Leica were to dispense with AF in the Luxes, they would be able to deliver, but now meet with incomprehension - as can be seen here. It wouldn't be a problem now if it were two-pronged from the start. That's all I wanted to say. 

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Stuart Richardson:

The SL system is the best of all of the for demanding professional work. 

The SL performs perfectly with the APOs in AF and Zeiss in MF.

[S Maclean]

10 hours ago, Biotar said:

Based on the initial question, there will be no further Luxes with AF, because they would have to be far larger in Leica quality than the existing 50. And that contradicts the now shrunken body design. If Leica were to dispense with AF in the Luxes, they would be able to deliver, but now meet with incomprehension - as can be seen here. It wouldn't be a problem now if it were two-pronged from the start. That's all I wanted to say. 

The SL performs perfectly with the APOs in AF and Zeiss in MF.

And with the zooms and really well with the sigmas.  
 

it is not a sports  camera, although I have captured some dancing and biking etc with it,  but it is really, really accurate and effective for portraits, landscape, architecture, non racing animals, and even street.  
 

now, if you want AF that won’t make you think at all, and just basically does everything for you….Sony, Fuji, Canon, Nikon…. All have that. 
 

For me, it is great.

[Planetwide]

The whole problem for Leica is the L mount alliance. Quite simply, I can buy Sigma's and Panasonic lenses for a lot less. There are very good lower cost lenses available, and with this in mind, why would I spend twice as much for the Leica version? It's simply bad marketing, and a waste of resources.

It made sense for Panasonic to develop a low cost line of lenses, as they offer low cost Camera's in L mount. All manufacturers do this, a lower performance, lower cost line. The thing is, for Leica in L mount, this space is inhabited by Sigma and Panasonic. Leica needs to play to their core strengths, they need a co-ordinated product strategy.

The people who bought into the Leica SL system, did so for top quality AF lenses. It is the only reason to buy Leica body over the equivalent Panasonic. 60 - 45mp is not that much of a big deal realistically. The L mount alliance needs to co-ordinate ranges etc... It functions as a single mount, their singular advantage is that each manufacturer can control specific market areas, and dominate in those area's. We don't need 8-10 50mm lenses. We need long lenses, wide zooms, F2.0 zooms, and tilt shift lenses. How about a body with really fast AF, APS-C, a range of pancake lenses, I could go on...

Just my 2c.

 

[Benoo]

28 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

The people who bought into the Leica SL system, did so for top quality AF lenses

Clearly not or they wouldn’t be making and selling the 3rd party lenses, I bought into the SL system for the APO and M lenses and have since added the 70-200 and 100-400 from Leica.

How many of you have actually run a business? The L mount alliance is about offering customers choice, it’s clear you can’t please all the people all the time.

[LocalHero1953]

8 hours ago, Planetwide said:

The people who bought into the Leica SL system, did so for top quality AF lenses.

Just one of many reasons. For me they also included best EVF, simplest user interface, weather protection, durable design/construction.....

Some say they bought into it because it was the best option for focusing M lenses without a rangefinder.
Some bought into it because a multi-brand mount is more attractive than brand-specific mounts.
Some bought into it because they want to shoot sports and wildlife - and then complain about the AF "Sony can do this, why can't Leica?".
Some, because they have a lot of money, it's expensive and it's Leica. Then something doesn't work and they post here "At this price point I expect perfection....".

For the L-mount alliance, Leica's market cachet transfers a little to humble Panasonic and Sigma, to their benefit. Leica has benefitted because owners can confidently buy a Leica body and know there is a wide range of lenses at different prices, and can buy Leica lenses knowing they're unlikely to be left stranded if Leica stops selling bodies (see R mount......).

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 hours ago, Biotar said:

Based on the initial question, there will be no further Luxes with AF, because they would have to be far larger in Leica quality than the existing 50.

I'm curious, why would they have to be larger than the Summilux 50? I'm not a lens designer, so you may be right, but in M mount, the 35mm lenses are smaller than the 50mm. It is often said (correctly?) that 35mm is the easiest FL to design small.

[Simone_DF]

23 hours ago, Biotar said:

Based on the initial question, there will be no further Luxes with AF, because they would have to be far larger in Leica quality than the existing 50.

That's strange. Everybody else is perfectly capable of producing high performance lenses in a smaller form factor, thanks to improvements in AF motors, miniaturization, and lens design.

23 hours ago, Biotar said:

If Leica were to dispense with AF in the Luxes, they would be able to deliver

Why buy a manual Leica lens in L mount when you can buy the M version? Who would even bother to buy that? Leica keeps repeating that the SL is the best platform for M lenses after an M body, so they are basically telling you there's no point in that, and no commercial gain for them. In fact, even Voigtlander and Zeiss are ignoring the L mount, but both have native lenses for Sony and Nikon. They probably follow the same logic as Leica that the SL with an M is good enough and there's no market for a L mount manual lens.

[Luke_Miller]

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

That's strange. Everybody else is perfectly capable of producing high performance lenses in a smaller form factor, thanks to improvements in AF motors, miniaturization, and lens design.

Most of those high performance smaller form factor lenses rely on significant digital correction of optical flaws in-camera for jpegs,and in post processing programs for raw images. Nothing wrong with that, but apparently Leica prefers to minimize that.

[BernardC]

13 hours ago, Planetwide said:

The whole problem for Leica is the L mount alliance. Quite simply, I can buy Sigma's and Panasonic lenses for a lot less. There are very good lower cost lenses available, and with this in mind, why would I spend twice as much for the Leica version? It's simply bad marketing, and a waste of resources.

Maybe a look at the history would help you figure-out whether it's a problem or not. Leica tried doing things by themselves with the R line. It nearly made them bankrupt.

The L mount Alliance isn't a problem, it's a huge advantage for all partners (not just the initial 3). Sure, there's overlap between the brands, but it's obvious that the real competition comes from Canon/Nikon/Sony, not from the other L-mount partners. 

Brand snobs aside, everyone benefits if you put a Lumix lens on a Leica body, or vice versa. Everyone also benefits if you buy a camera kit that includes a "rebadged" (although physically different) lens.

[Simone_DF]

36 minutes ago, Luke_Miller said:

Most of those high performance smaller form factor lenses rely on significant digital correction of optical flaws in-camera for jpegs,and in post processing programs for raw images. Nothing wrong with that, but apparently Leica prefers to minimize that.

Correct. Leica does it too, the Q28mm is a prime example of that. 

[Jeff S]

19 hours ago, Planetwide said:

The people who bought into the Leica SL system, did so for top quality AF lenses. It is the only reason to buy Leica body over the equivalent Panasonic.

 

Could have fooled me; you omitted my many reasons.

[costa43]

On 6/29/2025 at 4:26 AM, tjphoto said:

I love Leica lenses , they are all fantastic. But, I like the 50mm Summilux the most. It seems strange that Leica hasn’t added more to the SL line. I know they are big and expensive, but all major brands have a full set of 1.4 primes.

It’s always about money. If they don’t think they can turn a decent profit then it is low on the list of priorities. 

[Biotar]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Simone_DF:

That's strange. Everybody else is perfectly capable of producing high performance lenses in a smaller form factor, thanks to improvements in AF motors, miniaturization, and lens design.

vor 12 Stunden schrieb LocalHero1953:

I'm curious, why would they have to be larger than the Summilux 50? I'm not a lens designer, so you may be right, but in M mount, the 35mm lenses are smaller than the 50mm. It is often said (correctly?) that 35mm is the easiest FL to design small.

High-quality lenses with "hardware correction" remain large - as Zeiss shows with the new OTUS for Canon and Sony. If AF is added, they have to become even bigger.

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Simone_DF:

Why buy a manual Leica lens in L mount when you can buy the M version?

Because only the L-mount offers aperture control.

[LocalHero1953]

45 minutes ago, Biotar said:

High-quality lenses with "hardware correction" remain large - as Zeiss shows with the new OTUS for Canon and Sony. If AF is added, they have to become even bigger.

Yes, large, but why larger than the 50, when 35s tend to be smaller?

[IkarusJohn]

22 hours ago, Biotar said:

High-quality lenses with "hardware correction" remain large - as Zeiss shows with the new OTUS for Canon and Sony.

Like Leica’s 35 APO Summicron-M?

[Planetwide]

On 7/6/2025 at 4:14 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

Just one of many reasons. For me they also included best EVF, simplest user interface, weather protection, durable design/construction.....

Some say they bought into it because it was the best option for focusing M lenses without a rangefinder.
Some bought into it because a multi-brand mount is more attractive than brand-specific mounts.
Some bought into it because they want to shoot sports and wildlife - and then complain about the AF "Sony can do this, why can't Leica?".
Some, because they have a lot of money, it's expensive and it's Leica. Then something doesn't work and they post here "At this price point I expect perfection....".

For the L-mount alliance, Leica's market cachet transfers a little to humble Panasonic and Sigma, to their benefit. Leica has benefitted because owners can confidently buy a Leica body and know there is a wide range of lenses at different prices, and can buy Leica lenses knowing they're unlikely to be left stranded if Leica stops selling bodies (see R mount......).

All valid reasons. Personally, I bought in to shoot pictures, specifically with Leica glass. I have and still do own Sigma & Panasonic lenses. But my preferred choice is Leica glass. If someone is planning to shoot only Panasonic lenses, then it makes no sense to buy a SLx. If your choice is Sigma lenses, then a lower cost Panasonic S1r II is probably a better buy. The S1R series do provide better lens & body stabilization and image correction with Panasonic lenses vs the Leica body. Ironically, my SL glass is ever so slightly sharper on the Panasonic S1r vs the Leica SL2, I attribute this to the addition of microlenses required for M compatibility. A worth while tradeoff. 

Edited July 8 by Planetwide

[Luke_Miller]

6 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Like Leica’s 35 APO Summicron-M?

It seems that it is less expensive to produce really good L-mount lenses with performance as the priority over size and weight than it is to produce really good M-mount lenses that must be kept small to minimize rangefinder blockage. Even If one assumes the APO Summicron-M and the APO Summicron-SL 35mm lenses are optically equivalent, the smaller lens commands $3500 more.  

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, Luke_Miller said:

It seems that it is less expensive to produce really good L-mount lenses with performance as the priority over size and weight than it is to produce really good M-mount lenses that must be kept small to minimize rangefinder blockage. Even If one assumes the APO Summicron-M and the APO Summicron-SL 35mm lenses are optically equivalent, the smaller lens commands $3500 more.  

Sure, but not the point.

@Biotar was referring to optical correction and size - the 35 APO Summicron-M rather contradicts his main point.  I haven’t tested the M & SL 35 APO’s against each other, as I don’t see the point.  One is AF, the other manual, and I’ve sold my SL lenses, bar one.  I think the more interesting point is that M lenses have to be as optically perfect (or close to it) as possible as there is no software correction in camera.  Conversely, the SL APOs don’t have that limitation, enabling the designers to produce the best lens they can, and to then correct any optical aberrations they couldn’t deal with in the software.

As I recall, Leica was quite open about this.  In terms of the end result (the image), not being constrained by purely optical corrections and size (as with the M lenses), the SL primes can be made as good as possible, then any residual corrections made in software.  Why anyone should  be bothered by this is beyond me - by a Leica SL APO, and use it on an SL camera.

I agree price is always a factor, but that is not what I was responding to - Otus lenses are not cheap either …

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Luke_Miller]

10 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

As I recall, Leica was quite open about this.  In terms of the end result (the image), not being constrained by purely optical corrections and size (as with the M lenses), the SL primes can be made as good as possible, then any residual corrections made in software.  

There are software corrections for the 50 Summilux-SL, but not for the APO Summicron-SL lenses.  So Leica uses both approaches in the SL line.  Presumably the 'Lux would be even larger if fully optically corrected. I have and enjoy both the 'Lux and the "Crons.

In his review of lenses that have software correction Sean Reid regularly compares the corrected versus the non-corrected image.  With the 50 'Lux the impact on image quality is insignificant, but that is not universally true.  As in most things there is no free lunch. The more significant the software correction of optical shortcomings, the greater effect of the software correction on the image.  Capture One and Adobe ACR allow one to open the image without the corrections applied if desired. I find this useful, particularly with shots from my Q2.

I guess my comments are directed towards those who think the Leica SL glass is unnecessarily too big and heavy.  The smaller and lighter and less expensive L-mount lenses so often used for comparison almost universally have significant correction in software.  I think the old saying remains true today, "price, quality, size/weight, pick any two."