Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/06/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Leica SL lens question
From: rgacpa at gmail.com (Bob Adler)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:01:51 -0700
References: <DM3PR10MB0924C1EEC79EF179920F04D9B8CE0@DM3PR10MB0924.namprd10.prod.outlook.com> <CAE3QcF7Xxd2wNPtZTSEJYZHJJ8Ogpz5V79f6Gy8W=jUQUfzOVg@mail.gmail.com>

My M adapter has contacts.  Also, the lens information on coded M lenses is 
passed through to become part of the EXIF information. 

Relative to Aram's question, there are a couple of things that I like about 
SL lenses vs third party lenses:
1.  SL lenses have OIS. I find this is very helpful in keeping the ISO lower 
and the shutter speed higher by a couple of stops. 
2.  The autofocus is pretty impressive, but I'm not shooting sports or 
moving animals, jus grandsons...
3. Have you added the weight of the SL/R or whatever adapter to your calcs?
4. The SL 24-90 isn't really that large. The hood and small body make it 
appear that way. My bride thinks it looks, overall, smaller than most N & C 
cameras she sees. YMMV
Good luck,
Bob

Bob Adler
www.robertadlerphotography.com

> On Jun 8, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Aram you might like to research the exact functionality and cost for the R
> adaptor as part of your considerations? Doug may be able to comment there?
> I have the M adaptor but that has no linkages or contacts at all of course
> 
>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 at 2:21 pm, Aram <leica_r8 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi.  I was wondering about an alternative lens for the SL.  My biggest
>> gripe (aside from price) is the weight of the system and had a thought of 
>> a
>> way to perhaps lighten the load a bit.  I have the 35-70/4 but I have
>> always thought I could use a bit more range.  So, how about the Leica 
>> 28-90
>> ASPH?  I hear it is a pretty darn good lens, weighs about 50% less than 
>> the
>> new 24-90 for the SL and can be had for a lot less money.  Does anybody
>> know how it would compare optically with the 24-90?  I found some MTF
>> curves for each, and it looks like the new SL lens is better, but that 
>> does
>> not tell me much about real life situations.  True, you give up AF, but I
>> do that now anyway using my 35-70 on my Nikon.  And I played around with 
>> an
>> SL a bit last time I was in Seattle and I was able to focus it accurately
>> with a much higher success rate than with my Nikon D750.  I was at one 
>> time
>> tempted to get the 28-90 until I found out that Leitax does not adapt that
>> lens to a Nikon mount.
>> 
>> Aram
>> 
>> 
>> Aram Langhans
>> (Semi) Retired Science Teacher
>> & Unemployed photographer
>> 
>> ?The Human Genome Project has proved Darwin more right than Darwin himself
>> would ever have dared dream.? James D. Watson
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from hopsternew at gmail.com (hopsternew at gmail.com) ([Leica] Leica SL lens question)
In reply to: Message from leica_r8 at hotmail.com (Aram) ([Leica] Leica SL lens question)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] Leica SL lens question)