nehemiahphoto wrote:
The GM series is not damn huge. The GM 85 1.4 is the only oversized one.
The GM 24,35 and 135 are small for their class.
This is not a fabulous 28 if you consider it's size, it's an f2 and it's over 5k. If you don't care about size or price (this is really very few shooters), you'll probably be happy.
To me, the m-mount system remains vastly more interesting and specific. If I want modern big fast corrected glass, other systems offer something similar if not better for far cheaper than the SL system.
We'll have to differ. I think the GM series is damn huge for the Sony form factor. I've shot the 85 and the 50 (which isn't badged GM but should be). They are better suited, however, for the Leica form factor!
Sorry, you can't complain about the Leica SL 28 when the size and performance probably matches the SL2 better than Sony's GM 28mm... oh wait...
And I'm sure it'll be fabulous. lol!
I won't own it but I'm sure it will be...
I'll keep on shooting my little old lenses... you can shoot whatever you want too! Isn't it great?
dog rocket wrote:
We'll have to differ. I think the GM series is damn huge for the Sony form factor. I've shot the 85 and the 50 (which isn't badged GM but should be). They are better suited, however, for the Leica form factor!
Sorry, you can't complain about the Leica SL 28 when the size and performance probably matches the SL2 better than Sony's GM 28mm... oh wait...
And I'm sure it'll be fabulous. lol!
I won't own it but I'm sure it will be...
I'll keep on shooting my little old lenses... you can shoot whatever you want too! Isn't it great?
Well, the ZA is not a GM though. That is a fact. I doubt the upcoming 50 GM will be as large as the either the ZA 50 or SL 50.
But really, when you look at the GM line up...
What FF AF 135 1.8/2 is smaller? What AF 24/1.4 FF is smaller? What AF 35/1.4 FF is smaller?
They are relatively small, and highly corrected. Those are also measurable facts.
What isn't a fact, is your impression that the GM line doesn't match Sony body size. That is a thought. I have thoughts too, like...I think the whole current a7x line is too big for my taste, but really, they are smaller than the Canon/Nikon/SL, I just like the gen.1 and gen.2 form factors, despite the tech isn't even close at this point. But I realize it's just a preference.
On the other hand, I really do like the SL2 lines 35/1.4, or 75/1.4, 18-24mm lenses and 100mm...oh wait, they don't have any, at any speed. But that's a silly game to play. Sony isn't offering native APO lenses either, and the SL line is new and pretty small at this point. Each system has it's strengths and weaknesses and differences.
But the Leica's SL lenses are measurably large. Just like the Sigma Arts and Otuses.
My experience with Sony is almost going on 3 years in the rear view mirror. Glad they've looked to reducing the size of their GM glass.
Don't discount the 50 ZA. It's probably the nicest 50 I've ever shot for IQ and I have at least 10 50mm lenses in my cabinet right now. I don't care if they badged it GM or not.
I defend Leica for their SL series but I likely won't own one (I think I've said that in it least 3 different posts on this thread now). But unlike the Leica haters, I don't just bash brands because of what they are and and what they do at every turn. How they see themselves in the market is their choice. It's our choice whether to buy or not. But hating is just plain hating.
I've always purchased products that are meant to last past the life of the injection mold they're created from (unless it's a Leica, then replace injection mold with CNC end mill). Other people are gearheads and want the latest tech on a yearly basis. To each his own.
Andrew Gough wrote:
Size is determined by optics, as we have seen from Zeiss and Leica with the OTIS & SL line respectively. To achieve pure APO performance requires lenses of this size. Anything smaller, requires compromise, and this is inescapable.True APO performance is the distinguishing factor with the SL lenses. The aesthetics, bokeh and draw of a Leica SL lens show this, and that is the reason for the price.
Anything smaller requires compromise, and one possible compromise is making the lens slower. A recent-era example comes from Zeiss itself in the form of the Tele-Tessar 85/4 ZM. Not that it's APO, but an APO design can be small—think Canon 300/5.6 FL-F, or the Coastal Opt 60/4 which is positively dainty. I wouldn't mind an APO design of TT85/4 or Elmar 90 for use on my MILC platforms. Sure, I own fast and highly corrected primes, but they can really suck the fun out of photography sometimes: not to mention the cash out my wallet.
So far one of the finest 28mm ever. Otus 28mm has F1.4 instead.
It is best Leica 28mm ever and much better MTF than old 28mm F2.8 V2 E55 or any 28mm M lenses.
It is better than Elmar-M 24mm F3.8 MTF. It is better than Leica SL 35mm F2 APO in MTF
but behind Sony new 35mm f1.4 GM which is finest MTF in this range so far and
better than Voigtlander 35mm F2 APO-Lanthar that is to come.
I expect the outcome from field test and experts between these (which one):
Sony 36mm F1.4 GM
Voigtlander 35mm f2 APO-Lanthar
Leica Summicron-L/SL 28mm F2 APO Asph.
From Jono's image set I got the feeling that this one looks a little 'strident' and overdrawn, might be the best words for it. Need to see more. The issue is that APOs - especially Leica's because they are a lens-wide-open design company - are always going to be biased for f2. As Herr Karbe says: 'why stop down?'
At f5.6 the 35/2 SL APO is a much better proposition than the 28/2 APO - not only does it have no field curvature, it's 40lpmm average above 80% until the APS-C corner (IH ~15mm) whereas the 28mm has a huge curvature/astigmatic fall in the tan line.
You can't judge anything from Sony apart from well-engineered comparisons. They use fake computerised MTF, and it is really (truly) unrepresentative. They want you to think the 55/1.8 gives you 97% of 40lpmm at f8, lol. It's a case of broken trust, therefore.
I prefer CV's take on the matter. Their 35/2 APO MTF is almost as strong (2-3%) at f4 as the 28/35 SL pair are at f5.6, and both of CV's 35/50 pair actually increase performance from f2 to peak at f4 - a much better deal for landscapers and general usage, which of course needs adequate DOF.
So, the Leica SL APOs are the best at f2 but fade thereafter, on stop down. Their 35/2 SL APO does so with much more grace than the 28/2 SL APO. And both CVs together (35/50) weigh the same as one SL APO. I'm not about to do a tough trip with 1500 grams taken up in just two lenses, plus heavy hoods and large filters.
And of course we have different colour models and bokeh, focus fall-off and DOF etc. to consider. CV has the sunstars and now, rounded apertures at f2.8-f5.6-f16. If (when?) they get to do a 28/2 APO it would be quite different in usage, feel, carry and rendering.
The new 35/2 APO M lens will also be technically very interesting. I have a hunch it will be CV-strong with very good outer frames.
That is interesting comment that amateur do not know much and just follow their AD like me.
I may need more input from expert like philip_pj that I enjoyed his site and trust in the review from the site. I wish I get more input about from expert.
Forgot to add: the specialty issue Otus 28mm is technically not so wonderful. It's terrific in the central zone at f4 (presumed peak) but the outer frames are far from ideal there. It's another wide open design, but with trad MTF, lowish detail for portraits - the exact opposite of the new SL APO 28/2.
At 1350g for the one with an aperture ring (!), it also weighs in at double the SL APO lenses. It's now five years old, plus the design phase can be long for such a lens. You see them on sale for much less than RRP.
A lot has happened in optics these past 5-6 years - fabrication methods, tolerance control, glass formulations, glass affordability, asph machining and more. It's why we see such excellent performance in lower cost lenses from everyone.
Thanks to wonderful explanation to philip_pj.
I may get more info once it is available through his review site.
I really love Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO-lanthar than any other 50mm.
One thing about these super clean APOs is they almost seem to disrupt the visual appreciation by removing the waste products of residual aberrations, and the better ones do it out to the very corners. But these residues are part of the content that we've seen all our lives in our images (with rare exceptions).
It's like looking back on 2010 images here, you see the high contrast and blocked shadows from the low dynamic range of sensors back then right away. It will take time for this colour purity / naturally high saturation / contrast control look to reach the mainstream as a positive.
philip_pj wrote:
One thing about these super clean APOs is they almost seem to disrupt the visual appreciation by removing the waste products of residual aberrations, and the better ones do it out to the very corners. But these residues are part of the content that we've seen all our lives in our images (with rare exceptions).
It's like looking back on 2010 images here, you see the high contrast and blocked shadows from the low dynamic range of sensors back then right away. It will take time for this colour purity / naturally high saturation / contrast control look to reach the mainstream as a positive. ...Show more →
I think that we are seeing a divergence into "classic look" 60's - 80's and a "modern look" I do find that the new Leica's essentially get the lens out of the equation. The above image is rendered exactly like it looked, which is great. Close up at F/2 the lens is superb, and fully corrected, as you have mentioned. If I am looking for a classic look, then I would probably go for a vintage lens, or retro, modern equivalent.
Interestingly, my RF glass is very good, but not in the same league as the Leica's - when it comes to this high aperture transparency. The Canon's tend to show more aberration in the Bokeh, a sort of hybrid look. Both are pleasing for different reasons. My panasonic lenses, show a similar transparency to the Leica, but with a more conventional Bokeh when wide open.
Andrew Gough wrote:
Interestingly, my RF glass is very good, but not in the same league as the Leica's - when it comes to this high aperture transparency. The Canon's tend to show more aberration in the Bokeh, a sort of hybrid look. Both are pleasing for different reasons.
I also have both SL and RF glass. They render differently but all in all the differences are IMHO rather minimal I find and for me personally after post processing even more minimal.
But there is a significant difference in cost and AF performance and Leica has no lighter (native) travel or carry everywhere lenses available.
With Leica you will be lucky if you get the WA lenses (21, 24 and 28) which were announced 3 years ago within the next 2 years...
I don't mean to be negative here but after shooting the SL for 5 years I am not sure whether the quality of the Leica glass and the small edge it might have outweighs all the rest...
SlowDriver wrote:
If you want one there are at least 3 for sale on this forum right now...
This must be the era of record-breaking 35mm lenses. Too many superlatives, too little time and money, I'd like to try them all !
-The Leica SL 35/2 APO "undisputed" champ so far. The street image test photo posted by Andrew Gough above might be my favorite test image of all times.
-Voigtlander 35/2 APO another big accomplishment for Voigtlander and its followers.
-The latest member of the Leica M family, maybe the most expensive 35mm ever ? The new 35/2 APO M lens' MTF compared to the SL 35/2 APO MTF is an emotional experience.
SlowDriver wrote:
I also have both SL and RF glass. They render differently but all in all the differences are IMHO rather minimal I find and for me personally after post processing even more minimal.
But there is a significant difference in cost and AF performance and Leica has no lighter (native) travel or carry everywhere lenses available.
With Leica you will be lucky if you get the WA lenses (21, 24 and 28) which were announced 3 years ago within the next 2 years...
I don't mean to be negative here but after shooting the SL for 5 years I am not sure whether the quality of the Leica glass and the small edge it might have outweighs all the rest......Show more →
It's getting harder and harder to draw a line, pick a system and stick with it. FF mirrorless camera technology and high tech optics and quality is in full swing at all price levels. 2021 is already shaping up to be a watershed year for FF mirrorless new product offerings. No matter which system we've selected, temptation from others systems is only going to get worse IMO as these FF camera manufacturers compete for our money, hearts and minds with enticements we probably haven't even thought of yet.
Looks like Canon is getting ready to Release the Kracken once again... so there's that too
philip_pj wrote:
Forgot to add: the specialty issue Otus 28mm is technically not so wonderful. It's terrific in the central zone at f4 (presumed peak) but the outer frames are far from ideal there. It's another wide open design, but with trad MTF, lowish detail for portraits - the exact opposite of the new SL APO 28/2.
At 1350g for the one with an aperture ring (!), it also weighs in at double the SL APO lenses. It's now five years old, plus the design phase can be long for such a lens. You see them on sale for much less than RRP.
A lot has happened in optics these past 5-6 years - fabrication methods, tolerance control, glass formulations, glass affordability, asph machining and more. It's why we see such excellent performance in lower cost lenses from everyone....Show more →
My experience with Zeiss Milvus lenses is that there is a jump in acuity (especially with specular highlights) between f/4 and f/5.6, much more than I expected. I don't know if that is the case for Otus, too, but it may be that these lenses are not optimized for f/4.
