Will the SL ever become a full system?

[Archiver]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As has been stated, the R system included a lot of collaboration with other brands like Minolta, Sigma, Angenieux etc to create the complete system the OP speaks of. The L mount alliance appears to be an overt logical development of that strategy. It offers high quality lenses of almost all types, with the exception of tilt-shift and bellows lenses, just from different companies.

The L mount alliance also offers bodies for all situations, from small and discreet like the Panasonic S9 and Sigma fp and BF, to full fledged pro bodies like the Panasonic S1H for video, S1 II and S1R II for hybrid shooting, and the SL3 and SL3-S for the Leica minded. And if I can shoot sports successfully with earlier gen Panasonic S5 and S1 bodies, then the latest gen bodies with phase detection AF like the SL3-S, S1 II and S1R II can shoot sports even better.

My only gripe is that the L mount alliance never stipulated a zoom lens ring direction, as I'm very used to the direction that Panasonic lenses turn, and get thrown off when using lenses that turn in the direction of the majority of Sigma zooms.

[Archiver]

On 10/4/2025 at 1:00 PM, beewee said:

Panasonic owns the patent for the 90-280. Minolta owns the patent for the SL 16-35. It’s not clear if Leica owns the 24-90 design but the optical formula has Sigma’s fingerprints all over it.

The Leica SL 16-35mm is based on a Minolta patent? That's surprising, given that Minolta's IP was sold to Sony in the medieval period of digital cameras.

[jaapv]

Konica Minolta is a separate entity in the Sony conglomerate. 
They are owned by Sony and operate as a multinational company  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konica_Minolta

[Archiver]

20 hours ago, jaapv said:

Konica Minolta is a separate entity in the Sony conglomerate. 
They are owned by Sony and operate as a multinational company  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konica_Minolta

That's a surprise, thank you for that. I've sometimes wondered what might have happened if Leica had been able to acquire the camera division of Konica Minolta instead of Sony. They probably didn't have the budget, but imagine if they had. 

[Dazzajl]

On 10/5/2025 at 6:50 AM, Archiver said:

My only gripe is that the L mount alliance never stipulated a zoom lens ring direction, as I'm very used to the direction that Panasonic lenses turn, and get thrown off when using lenses that turn in the direction of the majority of Sigma zooms.

This is a small point but has probably made more difference to photographs over the years than the tiny percentile shifts in the detail rendering of a given lens at a given f value that we discuss.

[jaapv]

52 minutes ago, Archiver said:

That's a surprise, thank you for that. I've sometimes wondered what might have happened if Leica had been able to acquire the camera division of Konica Minolta instead of Sony. They probably didn't have the budget, but imagine if they had. 

Interestingly the camera section was sold off into Sony but the lens section, it seems, was kept in the original company. 

[helged]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At present, available L-mount bodies (SL included) show quite a diversity, certainly for the type of shooting I do, with a few, notable exceptions: The sensor read-out time is (still) too long for the electronic shutter to be used to the full potential, that continuous tracking is greatly lagging what's out there. 

I fully understand that the above wishes aren't shared by all, possibly only by a few Leica users, but I do think that forthcoming bodies will show improvement (*).

And I believe that (mostly) accurate and reliable cAF would get more users over to Leica. Certainly among the photographers I am in contact with.

(*) SL3 is still on 'Animal detection (beta)', which is underwhelming.

[Archiver]

11 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

This is a small point but has probably made more difference to photographs over the years than the tiny percentile shifts in the detail rendering of a given lens at a given f value that we discuss.

My formative DSLR years were with Canon, giving me significant muscle memory with their zooms. Switching to Panasonic was aggravating at first because of the opposite zoom ring direction, but I got used to it. Sigma can't quite make up its mind, producing zooms that rotate in either way, which is annoying when I work with their 18-35 (Nikon direction) and 24-105 (Canon direction) on the same job.

[TL3]

I'm mostly wondering if they're going to release a macro lens or not, that seems to be a huge omission in order to have a "complete" system.

[jaapv]

I count seven L Macro lenses, of which three are zoom 

[schipper]

It would be great to have a 200 apo f2 and more for sure.

[nax_gt]

You’re right, SL will never match the R system’s lens breadth. Leica went all-in on mirrorless quality over quantity. The SL line is mostly Leica primes plus Sigma filling gaps; no macro, huge teles, or PC shifts like R. If you want a full-system, Nikon/Canon is the only realistic choice. SL is R-lite, not R-max.

[jyrkialanen]

15 hours ago, nax_gt said:

You’re right, SL will never match the R system’s lens breadth. Leica went all-in on mirrorless quality over quantity. The SL line is mostly Leica primes plus Sigma filling gaps; no macro, huge teles, or PC shifts like R. If you want a full-system, Nikon/Canon is the only realistic choice. SL is R-lite, not R-max.

Never heard of Sony?

[Einst_Stein]

Let's pretend Leica will do, most likely through the L alliances and in the far horizon.

If you really need, say, fast 500mm or 600mm for BIF, I guess you will go get anything available for now, may be with Canon R5 or even Nikon D850.

Then, does it still matter if leica will or not?

[jaapv]

Lenses that are fairly irrelevant nowadays with modern sensor noise performance. 

[BernardC]

8 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

If you really need, say, fast 500mm or 600mm for BIF, I guess you will go get anything available for now, may be with Canon R5 or even Nikon D850.

I would go for a Lumix G9ii, or OM 1 Mark 2. You'll get better performance than the two cameras you mention, or even the current "pro-level" cameras from Canon/Nikon/Sony.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

I would go for a Lumix G9ii, or OM 1 Mark 2. You'll get better performance than the two cameras you mention, or even the current "pro-level" cameras from Canon/Nikon/Sony.

I am not suggesting these two choices, I am only take them as a Ramon example. But I also have not much respect to M43 when looking for IQ and performance. Isn’t M43 a dying format?

[Elliot Harper]

I found this question is like asking "is this marriage consummated?" 🫠

[BernardC]

2 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I am not suggesting these two choices, I am only take them as a Ramon example. But I also have not much respect to M43 when looking for IQ and performance. Isn’t M43 a dying format?

The IQ is indistinguishable in daylight, and still extremely good in low light. Arguably, you'll get more in-focus shots for your money with MFT, so the real-world IQ might be better for sports, birding, and similar applications.

Saying that it's a "dying format" sounds like something a paid influencer would spew-out. For a dying format, they've released a whole lot of new high-performance bodies and lenses recently. It's not for everybody (nothing is), but it's the best way to get a portable and affordable long-reach kit. MFT also has a huge presence in video, and it traditionally does well at the entry level (families, students, etc.). Larger formats are better for high resolution and extreme low light, as we all know.

Big picture: anything that's not a Canon or a Leica M is arguably a "dying format." Sony is a few bad quarters away from dropping cameras (like they have with innumerable segments they once dominated), Pentax is a hobby project, Nikon is where Olympus was 5 years ago. The future is uncertain for everyone, enjoy what you have right now instead.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Einst_Stein]

5 hours ago, BernardC said:

The IQ is indistinguishable in daylight, and still extremely good in low light. Arguably, you'll get more in-focus shots for your money with MFT, so the real-world IQ might be better for sports, birding, and similar applications.

Saying that it's a "dying format" sounds like something a paid influencer would spew-out. For a dying format, they've released a whole lot of new high-performance bodies and lenses recently. It's not for everybody (nothing is), but it's the best way to get a portable and affordable long-reach kit. MFT also has a huge presence in video, and it traditionally does well at the entry level (families, students, etc.). Larger formats are better for high resolution and extreme low light, as we all know.

Big picture: anything that's not a Canon or a Leica M is arguably a "dying format." Sony is a few bad quarters away from dropping cameras (like they have with innumerable segments they once dominated), Pentax is a hobby project, Nikon is where Olympus was 5 years ago. The future is uncertain for everyone, enjoy what you have right now instead.

I feel M43 has less room for post processing, guess it is about less dynamic range? Have not found it better IQ in real world. Portability and video is its strength, no argue. 

I have heard OM is excellent for BIF. This is the area I want something out of Leica. No direct experience with it, but Currently I have Nikon D850 + 200-500mm. It serves me very well. I bought after Canon and Nikon switched to mirrorless, hence very good price. I paid about $2500 for the set, brand new. I don’t think Leica would ever beat Nikon and Canon for this application. May be not capable, may be not interested. 

I still think M43 is a dying format. Much sooner than others you mentioned. I don’t have any facts to support this view, just a feeling. Strong enough to pay attention to this format.