@@TimothyGordon I have the 35, 50-110, and 300. Among these 3, start with the 35 and see what you think. They are very very good and perform well with reflective surfaces like a car with nice paint. The 300 makes perfect circles of light during evening shots. I would think that any of them would be a strong addition to your 007.
I did get a 30-90 zoom and 70 mm and used it on a SL3. The sharpness is out of the world. I am yet to try the APO lenses like the 120mm and 180mm. Most of these lenses are sold at throw away prices in eBay and elsewhere. I am looking for the 24mm lens which is one of the best for Landscape work. I seldom use autofocus and hence it was not an issue for me. If you are a full autofocus person then you may not like this lens since the autofocus is quite slow and the motor is pretty much noisy.
Thanks. I have tried various macro lenses (on Nikon, the 105 mm F/2.8 & on an SL2, the 105 mm F/2.8 DG DN) but neither are as good as this lens as a macro. As you say, higher apertures are essential. The results from this S lens are spectacular and of course it can also serve as a portrait lens. This is a bit out of scope perhaps but it would be interesting to see a comparison of how well various lenses handled portraits including this lens, the 24-90 VE, the 90-280 VE, and the 90mm F/2 SL prime. The focussing of this lens is so slow. I had no idea. Given the results, who cares. It can take its own sweet time.
If only we could use the CS shutter on the SL2. For higher flash sync. I own the S system so I'm fine, that's why I bought it. But sometimes I wish I could use the SL2 as a back-up with the CS shutter. The adapter for the Hasselblad lenses to fit on the fuji has a button which allows the user to select the central shutter. Wish Leica had done that.
This video provides a good data point for the Leica SL value proposition being about competition with high resolution medium format systems - not competing on equal terms with other 35mm small frame systems. Hence Leica can afford to market an expensive, large, heavy and bulky 35mm Kleinbild system that in comparison to other modern 35mm format systems does not make sense. In a way this is the inverse Oskar Barnack philosophy. The pioneer of small, portable but high quality cameras now is doubling down on large, bulky, heavy and high resolution with the SL line.
How would compare this lens option compared to the Sigma 105mm ? Looking mostly a image quality, I would guess that this is the best option. I love to have your take, having used both. Thank you in advance.
I think you made a mistake calculating the 35mm equivalence. Basically, the situation is quite the same as when using a made-for-leica-format lens on a APS-C-sized camera - a 50/1.4 lens behaves as a lens equivalent to 75/2 lens. First thing to note is 120mm is 120mm (or 50 is 50 or whatever the FL ...) and that focal lengths are always numerically related to 35mm or leica format. So ANY of the 35mm lenses equals 35mm in leica format terms, no matter if it's 35mm made for 6x6 medium format camera or 1-inch sized camera like Nikon 1 cameras for instance. So 35mm is always 35mm it just gives you a different-sized image because of a different sized image circles that various image formats offer/require. Second, lenses NEVER change their properties, cameras do. One does not calculate a "crop factor" for a lens, but for a camera instead. So this lens does not have a crop factor of 0.8, but Leica SL/SL2/SL2-S cameras "have" a crop factor of 1.25 when using S lenses on them. You can calculate the crop factor by dividing 45x30 sensor diagonal (54 mm) with 36x24 sensor diagonal (43 mm). What you did wrong is you stated this lens on SL2 gives you a 100/2, which is simply incorrect. Twice incorrect! First because even if your math would not be based on false understanding, you would get a 100/2.2 equivalence, not 100/2 - the difference is third of a stop, not simply 20%. Then because you "calculated" the crop factor in a wrong direction - a 120/2.5 S lens on a leica format camera gives you a lens that behaves much like 144/2.8, not 100/2. What is true, though, is the 120/2.5 SUMMARIT-S on a S camera gives you a visual result similar to what would you get from using a 100/2 lens on a SL camera. You can compare this with using a Zeiss Makro-Planar T* (or a Milvus) 100/2 an a SL camera and you'll see I'm right ;)
@10:44 in my video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_rlE855-iQ4.html you find exactly the statement you agree with according to your own words, namely, "What is true, though, is the 120/2.5 SUMMARIT-S on a S camera gives you a visual result similar to what would you get from using a 100/2 lens on an SL camera"". So I think we are kind of in line although you seem to have misunderstood part of the content :) If you want to learn about crop factor w.r.t. the S-system and S-lenses, I recommend the following tutorial: www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/04/the-definitive-guide-to-leica-s-lenses/ Here you will find all the information which will help you to sort out the confusion ... Hope this is helpful. And thanks for taking the time to write such a long comment, I am really happy about viewers who take the time for details and also formulate them in a comment like you did, many thanks for that. By the way, in the spec sheet from Leica you find the 35mm equivalence parameters which are exactly the same as I presented in the video. So either Leica is wrong too or Leica and me are right at the same time since our calculations lead to the same results :)
Lovely images, rich in colour and form. Macro lighting is a subject in itself. Leica excels at recording natural light. Often macro shots can look overly ‘scientific’ because the lighting is flat and harsh.
thank you for this video ☺️ is there a real gain?, between the summarit 120mm & the summicron R 100mm Apo? I had the impression that the rendering and the definition were more impressive. in the video of the 100mm summicron
I have asked this before, but I think I can ask it again: if you have a chance, I would love to see how an SL lens performs on a Hasselblad X1D. I have a feeling that SL lenses have an image circle wider than advertised.
Correct- and that's what I am saying in the video. In the video I compare the 120 on the S3 with the same 120 on the SL2 and in order to get a comparable Field of View you need to apply the crop factor as pointed out in the video. But if you forget about the S3 and its bigger sensor, the 120 is a 120 on the SL2, spot on. A crop factor only makes sense if you compare two camera sensors as I said in the video.
Clear - and your comment makes perfectly sense. I am currently testing the Fuji GF 35-70mm, a kind of kit lens for the GFX 100s. I looked into the images this morning, absolutely amazing what Fuji delivers here for an absolutely acceptable price tag. Video will be uploaded next weeks.
@@mathphotographer I am also waiting for Hasselblad X2D camera. I would like to buy it next to my GFX100 if they can improve autofocus and sensor technology.
I’ve been shooting an S007 and an SL and now SL2-S for years. I routinely use S glass on my SL2-S. I’ve got a 24, 45, 70, and 100, but the 45 is my favorite. I mostly use manual focus. Results have a bit more dimensionality as opposed to SL glass. I list equipment used @coasttocoastphotoatl.
