Leica to make micro 4/3 lenses!

[snaggs]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

43 rumors have had this confirmed by three sources;

 

Olympus and Panasonic rumors

"Timeline: between November 2009 and March 2010 Leica should release the first prime lens."

 

Apparently these are going to be pricey, which is good news, as they'll be the real deal.

 

Here's hoping for a 17mm f/1.4

 

Daniel.

[Riley]

interesting

of course rumours are just rumours

but still no mFT body in the works, seems a bit odd now....

[andybarton]

I don't believe it. But I will believe it when I see it.

 

Leica have "no interest" in 4/3 or u4/3, and AFAIK, have never made lenses for non-Leica bodies.

 

Remember when there was a Leica 25mm supposedly available for the Digilux-3? How many were actually made?

[mjh]

These rumors are floating around ever since Panasonic announced their Micro FourThirds cameras (and were apparently fueled by Panasonic). At the same time, Leica has stated several times and quite consistently that they had no interest in Micro FourThirds whatsoever. That they might still design some µFT lenses if Panasonic asked nicely (or just pointed out the fact that Leica still owed them money) is an entirely different matter. If they do, it will be like with Leica-labeled FourThirds lenses now – Leica will act like they don’t exist, leaving production, marketing, support, and everything else to Panasonic.

[daveleo]

it's believ-able that Leica could provide a lens *design* and a *quaity spec* to Panasonic and allow them to put "Leica" on the lenses that meet the specs.

 

but that is purely sepculation on my part.

[dull]

Now it is the truth: µFT Pancake, 20mm, f1,7, labeled with leica, overed by Panasonic, made by ...?! What's next?

[carlosecpf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't believe it. But I will believe it when I see it.

 

Leica have "no interest" in 4/3 or u4/3, and AFAIK, have never made lenses for non-Leica bodies.

 

Remember when there was a Leica 25mm supposedly available for the Digilux-3? How many were actually made?

 

I don't know how many they made, but I bought a brand new one 3 weeks ago at Adorama Camera. It is really good!!

[leicanut2]

I am thinking of picking up a Lumix GF1 and the Leica 14-140mm 4/3 lens as a small travel camera with a zoom. A 28-280mm is not bad. This lens is a Leica Micro 4/3 lens and is out now. A bit pricy at close to 900 but not for Leica glass. And it is only a tad over 3 inches long if I remember right.

 

Cheers Jan

[miami91]

I am thinking of picking up a Lumix GF1 and the Leica 14-140mm 4/3 lens as a small travel camera with a zoom. A 28-280mm is not bad. This lens is a Leica Micro 4/3 lens and is out now. A bit pricy at close to 900 but not for Leica glass. And it is only a tad over 3 inches long if I remember right.

 

Cheers Jan

 

This may be a fine lens, but its not "Leica glass". Even the four-thirds lenses that have Leica's name on them have (arguably) a dubious amount of Leica DNA in them, but the particular lens you mention isn't even branded with the Leica name. It's a Lumix, so for better or worse, this is a 100% Panasonic lens. LUMIX G Micro System Lens | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global

 

Jeff.

[nhmitchell]

There's been a lot of discussion about how few of the 25mm four thirds lenses were made. Does anyone really know if these are all that rare. I had to wait a bit to get one, but B+H had no trouble finding one for me. It just didn't strike me as all that scarce at the time.

 

And as others point out: it was well worth it.

 

Nick

[prk60091]

it's believ-able that Leica could provide a lens *design* and a *quaity spec* to Panasonic and allow them to put "Leica" on the lenses that meet the specs.

 

but that is purely sepculation on my part.

 

it is my understanding that when leica does that (ie provide design etc) that panasonic does not get the license to use Leica name- that is why you see so many Lumix lenses

[miami91]

it is my understanding that when leica does that (ie provide design etc) that panasonic does not get the license to use Leica name- that is why you see so many Lumix lenses

 

 

I don't think you have that right. I think you see so many Lumix lenses because Leica isn't involved *at all* in the design, QA, or production of these lenses. Conversely, the ones that do say Leica have likely had some input by Leica lens designers (although no one knows how much --- could merely be "sign off"), although they clearly aren't manufactured at Leica facilities or up to Leica material or build quality.

 

I have nothing against Leica compact cameras or four-thirds lenses that bear the Leica name. I've owned many of them (still do own a C-Lux 2 and D-Lux 4). But anyone that thinks these are "real" Leica lenses has clearly never owned an M lens or R lens. There is absolutely no comparison in the look and feel of the lens, the solidity of build, and in many cases, there's no comparison in optical characteristics either. There's a reason that lenses for the M and R (before discontinuation) cost anywhere from $1500.00 to $10,000.00 USD, and that four-thirds lenses are so comparatively inexpensive. Apples to oranges.

 

Jeff.

[leicanut2]

I stand corrected, well then I might as well go for the cheap lens and save 500+ bucks.

And yes when I had the r8 and the 280mm f4 it was wonderfull glass. Along with many of my leica M lenses. Most are now gone sold to get the m9 they all where really nice.

 

Jan

[jrethorst]

Didn't Leica/Panasonic just release a Leica-branded 90mm macro with the micro 4/3 mount?

[Riley]

I don't think you have that right. I think you see so many Lumix lenses because Leica isn't involved *at all* in the design, QA, or production of these lenses. Conversely, the ones that do say Leica have likely had some input by Leica lens designers (although no one knows how much --- could merely be "sign off"), although they clearly aren't manufactured at Leica facilities or up to Leica material or build quality.

 

I have nothing against Leica compact cameras or four-thirds lenses that bear the Leica name. I've owned many of them (still do own a C-Lux 2 and D-Lux 4). But anyone that thinks these are "real" Leica lenses has clearly never owned an M lens or R lens. There is absolutely no comparison in the look and feel of the lens, the solidity of build, and in many cases, there's no comparison in optical characteristics either. There's a reason that lenses for the M and R (before discontinuation) cost anywhere from $1500.00 to $10,000.00 USD, and that four-thirds lenses are so comparatively inexpensive. Apples to oranges.

 

Jeff.

 

going by a few Panasonic built, Leica tagged lenses like the 25/1.4, and the lens on the Digilux 2, these are pretty good lenses.

 

This sort of thing just doesnt happen overnight, they get this quality from somewhere,

if not Leica, then where?

 

And the D2 zoom had that rather odd 69mm filter thread,

I mean, who on earth would do that if not Leica?

 

Yes we all know theyre built mostly by automation, but then, they have a need to satisfy volume production. Leica are quite probably the only ones still hand building.

 

Im not saying you are wrong, I dont know that. But I dont think you have looked at this from all angles

[spylaw4]

<SNIP>

Remember when there was a Leica 25mm supposedly available for the Digilux-3? How many were actually made?

 

No supposedly about it - I had one! And very good it was too!

[miami91]

going by a few Panasonic built, Leica tagged lenses like the 25/1.4, and the lens on the Digilux 2, these are pretty good lenses.

 

This sort of thing just doesnt happen overnight, they get this quality from somewhere,

if not Leica, then where?

 

And the D2 zoom had that rather odd 69mm filter thread,

I mean, who on earth would do that if not Leica?

 

Yes we all know theyre built mostly by automation, but then, they have a need to satisfy volume production. Leica are quite probably the only ones still hand building.

 

Im not saying you are wrong, I dont know that. But I dont think you have looked at this from all angles

 

I don't disagree with you at all. Nowhere did I say that they aren't good lenses, or that they don't have some level of Leica contribution to their design. Similar to the Leica compact cameras, we don't know what the level of collaboration is. I've seen some people claim that Leica hand-picks all the best built compact digicams for the red dot, or that the tolerances are tighter. Others claim that they're all built on the same assembly line, and that there are absolutely no differences other than the cosmetics (and higher price). We just don't know. So for the lenses, they could have massive Leica contributions to them, right up to the point of manufacture and distribution. Or they may have next to no contribution --- Leica may just be allowing the use of their name for the several million shillings that we know Panansonic has extended them over the past few years.

 

The only point I was trying to make is that it's a bit disingenuous when we marvel at "getting Leica glass for under $1000.00". The unspoken point of comparison here is with the premium Leica lenses, those made for the M, R, and S systems. But, in my opinion, this is not a comparison at all. You're not going to get M/R/S quality at that price point. The materials aren't the same, the workmanship isn't the same. That's not to say one approach is better and one worse. Rather, if you want to compare these lenses to their peers, choose to compare to Olympus (for four thirds), or Canon. I'm not sure on this basis whether the Lumix/Leica lenses are good value for the money.

 

Maybe we'd all accept the trade-off of lower prices in the M lineup as well for assembly line goods produced in Asia. But the fact that Leica does continue to hand make the premium lenses in Germany, with metal barrels and the finest optical glass, does, in my opinion, lead to some unique attributes, both in the handling, build quality, and performance.

 

Jeff.