p.4 #1 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
SlowDriver wrote:
FWIW, for portraits (and humans in general) I prefer the rendering of the 24-90mm over the APO Summicrons. No experience with the 50mm f1.4.
And again for portraits I will happily put the Canon 28-70 f2 alongside the Leica 24-90mm. No experience with the 24-105 f2.8 (I do own the f4).
Besides that, the 135 APO came up recently in an interview with somebody from Leica. Don't recall exactly where/when.
Is this the Peter Karbe interview you are referring to? In the end, the author/publisher stated this was a translation error.
"We can not confirm there will be a 135mm lens in the short future" and "We sincerely apologize for this transcription mistake."
p.4 #2 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
SlowDriver wrote:
FWIW, for portraits (and humans in general) I prefer the rendering of the 24-90mm over the APO Summicrons. No experience with the 50mm f1.4.
And again for portraits I will happily put the Canon 28-70 f2 alongside the Leica 24-90mm. No experience with the 24-105 f2.8 (I do own the f4).
Besides that, the 135 APO came up recently in an interview with somebody from Leica. Don't recall exactly where/when.
What you are describing lines up with my preference for the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 for people work over the Zeiss 135mm f/2.8 APO Batis. The Zeiss is the most highly corrected lens I own and, just like the APO SL lenses, it is sometimes simply not the right tool for this kind of subject. It is likely that a future SL 135mm f/2 APO would produce a similar look.
If you like the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Lux ASPH in M mount, you will probably also like the SL version, though many stay away from it purely because of its size for a 50mm prime.
The issue is that these are all modern lenses, and I wish there were AF options for the L mount with more character and less obsession with correction. I tried many the Sigma DG DN lenses and they just do not do it for me.
p.4 #3 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I strongly doubt that, but I'm open to being convinced if I see solid proof.
I do agree on the 50/1.4 Lux SL. One of the best lenses every produced.
Yep, my past experiences having me doubting the comments on the Canon gear but I could be wrong. I say that after shooting Canon for around 15-20 years now. Those SL APO zooms are just so much better than any zoom I've owned since starting this journey over 40 years ago.
I can say I've done a lot of side by side shooting the past few months with my Canon 5DsR and various L lenses with my SL/SL2 using the 24-90 and 90-280. The differences straight out of the camera's is quite apparent to my eye with the SL gear always being the best.
In fact, last night I was just looking at Eagle shots I took yesterday with my SL2. For a little comparison I used my Canon EF L 400/5.6 adapted onto my SL2 and then the 90-280 on the SL2. Same eagle just minutes apart. I was surprised at how much more detail the SL lens captured as I've always loved my Canon 400/5.6.
I know years ago the same Canon L zoom lenses did not compare to the Leica R, CY Zeiss, and other manual focus primes I tested them vigorously against. Maybe the RF lenses are a lot better? I honestly can't say but have my doubts. I'm open to being proven wrong. Especially since I just added a Canon R5 II to my kit.
p.4 #4 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
Fred Miranda wrote:
What you are describing lines up with my preference for the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 for people work over the Zeiss 135mm f/2.8 APO Batis. The Zeiss is the most highly corrected lens I own and, just like the APO SL lenses, it is sometimes simply not the right tool for this kind of subject. It is likely that a future SL 135mm f/2 APO would produce a similar look.
If you like the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Lux ASPH in M mount, you will probably also like the SL version, though many stay away from it purely because of its size for a 50mm prime.
The issue is that these are all modern lenses, and I wish there were AF options for the L mount with more character and less obsession with correction. I tried many the Sigma DG DN lenses and they just do not do it for me....Show more →
Why not modern Leica SL AF character lenses...
I could see Leica designing a few special auto focusing "character" SL lenses or system. Leica does have all those vintage Leica optical formulas that could be replicated in a modern lens design with AF. *In fact, we see a few of those vintage Leica lens formulas/profiles and even a Leica I (Model A) 1925 camera simulation, already offered in their Leica Lux mobile app.
Also the new Leitz Hektor manual focus cine lenses are another example of reviving "character" in modern Cinema lenses:
"Inspired by History
In approaching this new format we decided not to adapt or copy any contemporary lenses from Leitz or Leica. Instead, we looked backward, exploring Leica’s 100-year history of photography optics and finding a great deal of inspiration, especially in some lenses from the 1930s, 50s and 70s. We looked at old lenses from other manufacturers and found wonderful attributes as well. But these old lenses have compromises that can make them challenging for modern production.
In order to create something that speaks directly to the needs and desires of modern artists, we spent the past couple years blending together the best combination of attributes to look gorgeous on digital sensors, fulfill the physical and technical needs of filmmakers today, and balance the character elements to be playfully interesting without shouting over the subject matter.
The HEKTOR lenses are built in the style of the 1980s and 90s, using only spherical elements to create some of the older feeling characteristics. Inspired by classic M lenses from the 1930s and 1950s, as well as Petzval lenses, the look blends together dynamic flares, field curvature, fall off and spherical aberration into something that is wholly unique while feeling familiar. Modern touches include coatings that control veiling glare better than older lenses as well as significantly reduced chromatic aberration."
p.4 #5 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
LBJ2 wrote:
Why not modern Leica SL AF character lenses?
I could see Leica designing a few special auto focusing "character" SL lenses or system. Leica does have all those vintage Leica optical formulas that could be replicated in a modern lens design with AF. *In fact, we see a few of those vintage Leica lens formulas/profiles and even a Leica I (Model A) 1925 camera simulation, already offered in their Leica Lux mobile app.
Also the new Leitz Hektor manual focus cine lenses are another example of reviving "character" in modern Cinema lenses:
"Inspired by History
In approaching this new format we decided not to adapt or copy any contemporary lenses from Leitz or Leica. Instead, we looked backward, exploring Leica’s 100-year history of photography optics and finding a great deal of inspiration, especially in some lenses from the 1930s, 50s and 70s. We looked at old lenses from other manufacturers and found wonderful attributes as well. But these old lenses have compromises that can make them challenging for modern production.
In order to create something that speaks directly to the needs and desires of modern artists, we spent the past couple years blending together the best combination of attributes to look gorgeous on digital sensors, fulfill the physical and technical needs of filmmakers today, and balance the character elements to be playfully interesting without shouting over the subject matter.
The HEKTOR lenses are built in the style of the 1980s and 90s, using only spherical elements to create some of the older feeling characteristics. Inspired by classic M lenses from the 1930s and 1950s, as well as Petzval lenses, the look blends together dynamic flares, field curvature, fall off and spherical aberration into something that is wholly unique while feeling familiar. Modern touches include coatings that control veiling glare better than older lenses as well as significantly reduced chromatic aberration."
I would love it if Leica went down that route. Including other brands, most modern AF lenses are designed with size and price as the main priorities, with aberration correction (spherical and chromatic) coming second but still a main goal.
For the SL, the only way to get that kind of character right now seems to be using older AF lenses adapted to L‑mount. I’m exploring Canon EF lenses with the MC-11 AF adapter for that reason.
Some Leica S lenses like the Summarit-S 35 f/2.5 ASPH. render more to my taste than the latest SL lenses.
p.4 #6 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
LBJ2 wrote:
Why not modern Leica SL AF character lenses...
I could see Leica designing a few special auto focusing "character" SL lenses or system. Leica does have all those vintage Leica optical formulas that could be replicated in a modern lens design with AF. *In fact, we see a few of those vintage Leica lens formulas/profiles and even a Leica I (Model A) 1925 camera simulation, already offered in their Leica Lux mobile app.
Also the new Leitz Hektor manual focus cine lenses are another example of reviving "character" in modern Cinema lenses:
"Inspired by History
In approaching this new format we decided not to adapt or copy any contemporary lenses from Leitz or Leica. Instead, we looked backward, exploring Leica’s 100-year history of photography optics and finding a great deal of inspiration, especially in some lenses from the 1930s, 50s and 70s. We looked at old lenses from other manufacturers and found wonderful attributes as well. But these old lenses have compromises that can make them challenging for modern production.
In order to create something that speaks directly to the needs and desires of modern artists, we spent the past couple years blending together the best combination of attributes to look gorgeous on digital sensors, fulfill the physical and technical needs of filmmakers today, and balance the character elements to be playfully interesting without shouting over the subject matter.
The HEKTOR lenses are built in the style of the 1980s and 90s, using only spherical elements to create some of the older feeling characteristics. Inspired by classic M lenses from the 1930s and 1950s, as well as Petzval lenses, the look blends together dynamic flares, field curvature, fall off and spherical aberration into something that is wholly unique while feeling familiar. Modern touches include coatings that control veiling glare better than older lenses as well as significantly reduced chromatic aberration."
p.4 #7 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I strongly doubt that, but I'm open to being convinced if I see solid proof.
I do agree on the 50/1.4 Lux SL. One of the best lenses every produced.
I am talking about the Canon 24-105mm F2.8 L VCM lens, not the F4. It is, without a doubt, the sharpest midrange zoom that Canon has ever made.
p.4 #8 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
Planetwide wrote:
I am talking about the Canon 24-105mm F2.8 L VCM lens, not the F4. It is, without a doubt, the sharpest midrange zoom that Canon has ever made.
It's always interesting to hear comparisons, and seeing 100% crops can be really helpful to understand differences. Sharpness is important, but it's not the only factor. The Leica 24‑90 SL has qualities that other zooms don't. For example, it's very consistent across the full range from 24 to 90 mm. CA correction and, especially, rendering are also worth considering.
Many Canon, Sony, and Nikon zooms have a very modern rendering style with transitions that are extremely smooth, almost too perfect for my taste, almost abstract. I realize this is subjective, but I prefer lenses with a bit more personality or structure in the rendering, and the SL 24‑90 definitely offers that. By the way, when I say "zoom", I mean the 24‑90, not the Leica 24‑70 SL, which is essentially a Sigma design. That lens also delivers strong resolution, especially at the wider end, but it does not have the kind of rendering I am referring to.
p.4 #9 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's always interesting to hear comparisons, and seeing 100% crops can be really helpful to understand differences. Sharpness is important, but it's not the only factor. The Leica 24‑90 SL has qualities that other zooms don't. For example, it's very consistent across the full range from 24 to 90 mm. CA correction and, especially, rendering are also worth considering.
Many Canon, Sony, and Nikon zooms have a very modern rendering style with transitions that are extremely smooth, almost too perfect for my taste, almost abstract. I realize this is subjective, but I prefer lenses with a bit more personality or structure in the rendering, and the SL 24‑90 definitely offers that. By the way, when I say "zoom", I mean the 24‑90, not the Leica 24‑70 SL, which is essentially a Sigma design. That lens also delivers strong resolution, especially at the wider end, but it does not have the kind of rendering I am referring to....Show more →
Agreed. I like sharpness as much as anyone but it's not everything.
There are plenty of standard zooms as sharp as the 24-90. But few with character. Most lenses lean towards clinical nowadays. The two main exceptions would be Canon and Sony's 28-70. The Canon is lovely but not super sharp and it's massive. The Sony is magnificent. It's sharp through the range and draws beautifully. I think it's the closet in overall feel to the SL 24-90. The 24-90 being near APO controls aberrations a tiny bit better and the Sony is faster, lighter and cheaper. If you have a Sony body, it's definitely worth a try.
I have thought about setting up some form of standardised testing for rendering. I have charts for sharpness and alignment. But I find that these things only give a single data point. Lenses do different stuff at different distances and different conditions. It takes a while for me to get the feel of a lens that I think is accurate. And it's only accurate for the lens in my hand. I choose not to show chart shots because I don't have the time/energy to be scientific enough that I'd consider them empirical data. And really, I'm only doing it for myself.
Personally, I'd rather be photographing than testing, so I rarely have side by side example except maybe from the first few days of a new lens and no one need to see photos of my back fence.
p.4 #10 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
flash wrote:
Agreed. I like sharpness as much as anyone but it's not everything.
There are plenty of standard zooms as sharp as the 24-90. But few with character. Most lenses lean towards clinical nowadays. The two main exceptions would be Canon and Sony's 28-70. The Canon is lovely but not super sharp and it's massive. The Sony is magnificent. It's sharp through the range and draws beautifully. I think it's the closet in overall feel to the SL 24-90. The 24-90 being near APO controls aberrations a tiny bit better and the Sony is faster, lighter and cheaper. If you have a Sony body, it's definitely worth a try.
I have thought about setting up some form of standardised testing for rendering. I have charts for sharpness and alignment. But I find that these things only give a single data point. Lenses do different stuff at different distances and different conditions. It takes a while for me to get the feel of a lens that I think is accurate. And it's only accurate for the lens in my hand. I choose not to show chart shots because I don't have the time/energy to be scientific enough that I'd consider them empirical data. And really, I'm only doing it for myself.
Personally, I'd rather be photographing than testing, so I rarely have side by side example except maybe from the first few days of a new lens and no one need to see photos of my back fence.
I'm with you Gordon. Taking pictures is what lenses are for, but the only real way to understand how a lens performs compared to others is through side by side comparisons using the same lighting, framing, and exposure. It can be surprising how much our opinions change once we actually see the results.
I've been hearing a lot of praise for the new Sony FE 28-70 f/2, and I'm sure it's an impressive lens. The range is a bit limited, but the f/2 aperture does help compensate for that. I would still be curious to see how the rendering looks, since I haven't really connected with the latest Sony lenses. As I mentioned before, they tend to be too perfect and smooth for my taste, even though that's exactly what most reviewers seem to love.
p.4 #11 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
Just my personal and very subjective take, and I know many people will really like the Sony FE 28-70 f/2. I'd still take the SL 24-90 over this zoom any day. After watching Dustin Abbott's review and looking at his sample images, the rendering simply isn't for me. As I mentioned earlier, it feels very modern, very smooth, and lacking the kind of personality I look for.
Ironically, the one aspect I did enjoy was the flare aesthetic, which also happens to be the main negative Dustin pointed out in his review.
p.4 #12 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
I don't expect to find much character from Karbe for the native SL mount ... it's just not his jam (imo). Technical perfection is his legacy vs. Mandler, et al. In his (crude paraphrase) words, the SL optics are for the best possible (assuming he meant technically), and the M lenses are for other things (notably size, but also affording the legacy of character options).
To that end, I'd not look for anything with more "character" out of L mount glass anytime soon. The good news ... the SL is very well suited to adapting all the M glass your heart desires, including the more "artistic" rendering lenses.
If I want the look of denim, I don't buy silk. Imo, Karbe has his legacy entrenched in the level of corrections of APO, not historical emotive aesthetics ... particularly as it pertains to native L mount glass. His position is that the L mount targets one way, the M mount another ... covering the bases for all (of sorts) in the combined offering.
p.4 #13 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
RustyBug wrote:
I don't expect to find much character from Karbe for the native SL mount ... it's just not his jam (imo). Technical perfection is his legacy vs. Mandler, et al. In his (crude paraphrase) words, the SL optics are for the best possible (assuming he meant technically), and the M lenses are for other things (notably size, but also affording the legacy of character options).
To that end, I'd not look for anything with more "character" out of L mount glass anytime soon. The good news ... the SL is very well suited to adapting all the M glass your heart desires, including the more "artistic" rendering lenses.
If I want the look of denim, I don't buy silk. Imo, Karbe has his legacy entrenched in the level of corrections of APO, not historical emotive aesthetics ... particularly as it pertains to native L mount glass. His position is that the L mount targets one way, the M mount another ... covering the bases for all (of sorts) in the combined offering.
Peter Karbe has absolutely cemented his legacy. His focus on correction, especially with the SL APO lenses where the goal is full correction wide open, is clearly intentional. There is nothing wrong with that at all, and it is one of the major reasons the SL system is so appealing..
That said, who decided that all AF lenses must be hyper corrected? I think, in many ways, we as consumers did. If you look at reviews, the most praised qualities are creamy, almost abstract bokeh with no outlining, zero coma, no spherical aberration, and extremely high contrast and resolution. It is no surprise that this is exactly what Sony, Sigma, Nikon, Canon, and even Leica have been delivering lately.
But there is room to ask a different question. Why not allow a bit of imperfection again, even in AF lenses? The fact that some of us are looking back at Canon EF autofocus lenses from the 2000s to get that look says something. There is clearly an appetite for character, not just perfection. In theory, we could have both, not only in MF M-lenses lenses but in AF as well. I even wish I could adapt some of the Minolta A-mount lenses to the SL.
p.4 #14 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Peter Karbe has absolutely cemented his legacy. His focus on correction, especially with the SL APO lenses where the goal is full correction wide open, is clearly intentional. There is nothing wrong with that at all, and it is one of the major reasons the SL system is so appealing..
That said, who decided that all AF lenses must be hyper corrected? I think, in many ways, we as consumers did. If you look at reviews, the most praised qualities are creamy, almost abstract bokeh with no outlining, zero coma, no spherical aberration, and extremely high contrast and resolution. It is no surprise that this is exactly what Sony, Sigma, Nikon, Canon, and even Leica have been delivering lately.
But there is room to ask a different question. Why not allow a bit of imperfection again, even in AF lenses? The fact that some of us are looking back at Canon EF autofocus lenses from the 2000s to get that look says something. There is clearly an appetite for character, not just perfection. In theory, we could have both, not only in MF M-lenses lenses but in AF as well. I even wish I could adapt some of the Minolta A-mount lenses to the SL. ...Show more →
I hear ya ... I reckon the Sigma Contemporary line is about as close as it gets right now (native SL that is acceptably under-corrected). That, or some of the older HSM Sigma glass designs.
Thank you. If it's manual focus, I'd stick with M lenses. What I had in mind was an adapter with AF, and as far as I know the only real option there is Canon EF to L mount (For character lenses like the EF 24/1.4L, EF 35/1.4L and EF 50/1.2L). Specifically, the Sigma MC-21 adapter seems to be the best of the bunch but here are others.
p.4 #17 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thank you. If it's manual focus, I'd stick with M lenses. What I had in mind was an adapter with AF, and as far as I know the only real option there is Canon EF to L mount (For character lenses like the EF 24/1.4L, EF 35/1.4L and EF 50/1.2L). Specifically, the Sigma MC-21 adapter seems to be the best of the bunch but here are others.
My Canon EF 50mm 1.2L and EF 85mm 1.2L are prized possessions that work extremely well on Sony bodies with the Sigma adapters.
What is your opinion of the differences between the versions I and II of the EF 24/1.4L and the EF 35/1.4L? My recollection is that the versions II were more corrected and less interesting in the sense of having character. Does my recollection match your views of those lenses?
p.4 #18 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
I tried the 50mm 1.2/1.8 with SL2 with Sigma af adapter, af might be better with SL3/3S... Commlite adapter is the only one works with CL and best caf Canon lenses are ones with nano usm af...
TTArtisan AF 40mm f/2 or Sigma 45mm are L-mount options for a character lens...
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thank you. If it's manual focus, I'd stick with M lenses. What I had in mind was an adapter with AF, and as far as I know the only real option there is Canon EF to L mount (For character lenses like the EF 24/1.4L, EF 35/1.4L and EF 50/1.2L). Specifically, the Sigma MC-21 adapter seems to be the best of the bunch but here are others.
p.4 #19 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
chiron wrote:
My Canon EF 50mm 1.2L and EF 85mm 1.2L are prized possessions that work extremely well on Sony bodies with the Sigma adapters.
What is your opinion of the differences between the versions I and II of the EF 24/1.4L and the EF 35/1.4L? My recollection is that the versions II were more corrected and less interesting in the sense of having character. Does my recollection match your views of those lenses?
The first versions of the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 are the ones to go for. With version 2, Canon updated the optics and, unfortunately, a lot of the unique character in the rendering got "corrected". Not the case with the 85/1.2L which version 2 just make focus slightly faster.
p.4 #20 · Do You Still Use the Leica SL System? (Poll)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The first versions of the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 are the ones to go for. With version 2, Canon updated the optics and, unfortunately, a lot of the unique character in the rendering got "corrected". Not the case with the 85/1.2L which version 2 just make focus slightly faster.
Good, and glad to hear your take on the 85L. My 85L is version II and I love the rendering. I'm thinking about looking for a 24L version I. That would give me a nice set -- 24-50-85.
