Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leica S2 30mm  (Read 13785 times)
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 488


« Reply #40 on: November 11, 2011, 03:19:58 PM »
ReplyReply

........I'm mostly interested in long lenses (350mm+), which neither system has yet.  The long Pentax lenses seem to be among the weakest of the legacy models,.........

Hi Doug:
I don’t know why you have that impression concerning longer lenses.  Another of the Pentax lenses Lloyd found outstanding was the 645 400mm ED(IF) autofocus.   I have that lens and my experience concurs with his.  I have also used the 67 300mm ED on the 645D with excellent results. The 645 300mm ED f/4 or f/5.6  and 67 400mm f/4 ED are reported to be excellent as well.   A 645 600mm A* f/5.6 (another reportedly outstanding lens) just sold on ebay for $3700. Here’s an example with the 400mm and using the AF to track a Common Merganser (handheld).
Tom

takeoff by tsjanik47, on Flickr
Logged
smhoer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 11, 2011, 03:38:51 PM »
ReplyReply

"........I'm mostly interested in long lenses (350mm+), which neither system has yet.  The long Pentax lenses seem to be among the weakest of the legacy models,........."

Not sure where that comes from as my understanding is Pentax is known for their long glass.  I have been very impressed with the 200, 300 and 400 FA.  Would love to get my hands on one of their longer lenses but don't think the handcart I would need would do well on trails.  The variability in the shorter lenses (except the macro) is a given.
Logged

Scott H.
North Carolina
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 11, 2011, 11:37:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's a little perspective.

Leica S2 lenses are expensive to make - fact. They are hand-made to extremely high standards of image quality (check the MTF charts) and reliability, also a fact.

In the usual scheme of things such items would be hard to sell because people will always look for a price comparison with something that is cheaper and, on paper, similar. The trouble with that line of thought is that there is nothing 'similar' to any of the S2 lenses, so all comparisons are pointless - they cost what they cost.

Furthermore, given that Leica sells every single lens they make, and indeed have a waiting list, it's a bit harsh to accuse them of 'overpricing' their product because its quite likely they would still sell at even higher prices.

Did you see the price of those new Canon T1.3 cinema primes - $6700. A lot of money for a lot of lens but can you say they are overpriced?
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6910


WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 12, 2011, 01:44:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Another way to see it is that the correct price is the highest one customers are willing to pay.  The 25/4 for the Pentax 645D is priced at 5000 USD just to set it into perspective.

I'm not so positive on the reliability issue. Both Lloyd Chambers and Mark Dubovoy had problems with failing apertures on one of their lenses, that is a significant portion of a small sample. It's probably a design issue, but Leica should have discovered it in their own testing.

Best regards
Erik



Here's a little perspective.

Leica S2 lenses are expensive to make - fact. They are hand-made to extremely high standards of image quality (check the MTF charts) and reliability, also a fact.

In the usual scheme of things such items would be hard to sell because people will always look for a price comparison with something that is cheaper and, on paper, similar. The trouble with that line of thought is that there is nothing 'similar' to any of the S2 lenses, so all comparisons are pointless - they cost what they cost.

Furthermore, given that Leica sells every single lens they make, and indeed have a waiting list, it's a bit harsh to accuse them of 'overpricing' their product because its quite likely they would still sell at even higher prices.

Did you see the price of those new Canon T1.3 cinema primes - $6700. A lot of money for a lot of lens but can you say they are overpriced?
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3635



WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 12, 2011, 05:28:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I dislike the fact that good optics are used to lock people into hopeless systems which soon disappear. Maybe it's time for an open MF mount.

Edmund

Hi,

Another way to see it is that the correct price is the highest one customers are willing to pay.  The 25/4 for the Pentax 645D is priced at 5000 USD just to set it into perspective.

I'm not so positive on the reliability issue. Both Lloyd Chambers and Mark Dubovoy had problems with failing apertures on one of their lenses, that is a significant portion of a small sample. It's probably a design issue, but Leica should have discovered it in their own testing.

Best regards
Erik



Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #45 on: November 12, 2011, 09:01:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I dislike the fact that good optics are used to lock people into hopeless systems which soon disappear. Maybe it's time for an open MF mount.

Edmund


Hi,

my biggest critique is that the Leica S2-System doesn't allow to use film when needed. All other camera professional camera systems offer that option.

Best,
Johannes
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2011, 05:48:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

my biggest critique is that the Leica S2-System doesn't allow to use film when needed. All other camera professional camera systems offer that option.

Best,
Johannes

If that's the biggest criticism then Leica obviously got it pretty much right. If film is such a critical need then no doubt an older MF camera could be found without too much trouble, or cost. I still have an RZ outfit that i paid $20000 for in 1996 (about $30000 in 2011 values) in case such a need eventuates.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 05:54:09 AM by Nick Rains » Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
Geoffreyg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2011, 11:57:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Leica chose to give that up as:

a) its not used that much anymore - people tend to go one way or the other.
b) there are other systems for that - they wanted a smaller camera.
c) any changing in the guts of the camera can throw off alignment, a key factor for sharpness.

This is likely due to their experience with the DMR, where they tried to do both, and found (probably) it wasn't worth the hassle. The S2 isn't a full fledged modular system. Its a compact MF system, with a very specific set of goals. It reaches those well, but not the others.

Its the 2x3 format that is less than ideal.
Logged

Geoff
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2011, 12:28:14 PM »
ReplyReply

If that's the biggest criticism then Leica obviously got it pretty much right. If film is such a critical need then no doubt an older MF camera could be found without too much trouble, or cost. I still have an RZ outfit that i paid $20000 for in 1996 (about $30000 in 2011 values) in case such a need eventuates.

OK. But it is a missing feature in the system, isn't it?

You would need two complete systems including the lenses. With the Leica M9, Mamiya 645, Canon, Nikon or Hasselblad H4X you just have to carry an additional body or a film magazine. For someone who has to earn the money for the equipment with his photographs it is a big difference if he has to buy one or two camera systems.

You might laugh because I still do some work on film. But I do and it is a big thing to have two systems ready.

Best,
Johannes
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2011, 04:38:12 PM »
ReplyReply


You might laugh because I still do some work on film. But I do and it is a big thing to have two systems ready.

Best,
Johannes

Not laughing really - if you need to shoot film then that's fair enough.

No camera system suits everyone, and since so few people genuinely need film backs these days I can understand why Leica chose to move on. For me, the advantages of a locked down sensor mount outweighs the loss of the film option, for you it's a deal breaker.

Geoffreyg: why do you think the 2:3 format is less than ideal?
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
Geoffreyg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2011, 08:22:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Nick -

re: 2:3 format - I wish I had a good answer for you. Have shot for many years with an M2, and loved it. Then moved to 6x6, with some affection for 4x5, and worked composition harder for a long time. Both of these are elegant proportions. Along these lines, 4:3  is acceptable, but the 2:3 less so. Theres something forced in 2:3, the long side is always driving the other side, and not necessarily gently either. Is this a subjective opinion? Absolutely, no doubt about it.

For some shots, its fine, and can even work nicely. But for compositional excellence, it just doesn't feel right. There. Said it, flames to begin. 

Geoff
Logged

Geoff
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6910


WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2011, 10:32:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Each subject requires a different crop and I guess that we need to live with cropped images. A formats in Europe are 2:2.828. HDTV is 16x9, that is 2:3.555. I'd expect that presentation will be affected by HDTV, as all modern motion is HD and most computer screens are also HD. So the way the images are used mostly is pretty close to 2:3.

Best regards
Erik

Nick -

re: 2:3 format - I wish I had a good answer for you. Have shot for many years with an M2, and loved it. Then moved to 6x6, with some affection for 4x5, and worked composition harder for a long time. Both of these are elegant proportions. Along these lines, 4:3  is acceptable, but the 2:3 less so. Theres something forced in 2:3, the long side is always driving the other side, and not necessarily gently either. Is this a subjective opinion? Absolutely, no doubt about it.

For some shots, its fine, and can even work nicely. But for compositional excellence, it just doesn't feel right. There. Said it, flames to begin. 

Geoff
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3635



WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 14, 2011, 01:39:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I still think it would be nice if there was a "PL mount" for MF, a mount for which we could buy superb glass, and then change bodies and at least be able to use MF, auto diaphragm, maybe even use AF and leaf shutters.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 14, 2011, 02:26:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I still think it would be nice if there was a "PL mount" for MF, a mount for which we could buy superb glass, and then change bodies and at least be able to use MF, auto diaphragm, maybe even use AF and leaf shutters.

Edmund

+1 - I'd love to put the S2 lenses on an IQ180. That would sing.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 14, 2011, 02:31:10 AM »
ReplyReply

+1 - I'd love to put the S2 lenses on an IQ180. That would sing.

Does their image circle cover the size of the IQ180 sensor?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #55 on: November 14, 2011, 02:40:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Does their image circle cover the size of the IQ180 sensor?

Cheers,
Bernard


Good point! Don't know, probably not.

 Undecided
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
paratom
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178


« Reply #56 on: November 14, 2011, 07:38:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bernhard,
the only problem is that the Nikon 24/1,4 doesnt work on MF and that the Nikon bodies do not produce the same IQ as a MF camera like the S2.
So if you are after the last little bit of IQ it gets expensive, and we all know that the last 1% IQ gain will increase the price much more than 1%.
I am quite happy with the S2 IQ that I even use it a lot for "shooting" my kids instead of using the D700 with a much faster AF and lower weight/size. Ihave used a Sinar 22MP back on a Hy6 and a  D3x side by side for some time and same here - Personally I found that I prefered the IQ from the MF back.
How much comes from the sensor and how much from the lenses I am not sure. And how much money it is worth?Huh Everybody must answer his own.
IMO the IQ from the Nikon is excellent, and the one from the MF is even a slightly little bit better.




« Last Edit: November 14, 2011, 07:56:09 AM by paratom » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3635



WWW
« Reply #57 on: November 14, 2011, 07:55:34 AM »
ReplyReply


Other than that Leica at least has the advantage that the value of lenses is pretty stable these days.



Owners of the R system have written off their lens investment.
Owners of the M system can see the Photokina 2012 cliff approach.
Bertrand Russell's turkey got fed every day, and concluded it would get fed every day. The farmer's wife had thanksgiving marked on her diary. Actually I think Russell talked about a chicken, but who cares, it might have been an S system buyer  Grin

Edmund

PS. My pictures haven't got much better since I got my first batch of expensive gear. My advice to newbies would be to get something that is considered a universal "pro" camera (Nikon, Canon), and then just use it until it literally falls apart.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2011, 08:08:42 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
paratom
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178


« Reply #58 on: November 14, 2011, 08:01:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Owners of the R system have written off their lens investment.
Owners of the M system can see the Photokina 2012 cliff approach.
Bertrand Russell's turkey got fed every day, and concluded it would get fed every day. The farmer's wife had thanksgiving marked on her diary. Actually I think Russell talked about a chicken, but who cares, it might have been an S system buyer  Grin

Edmund

Ha, I guess you are totally right with the R system lenses (could change though).
But dont we all know these kind of discussions are just for fun anyways since we all buy what we want to buy and one can find arguements for each and any theory/decission.
I once bought a Noctilux before the r-d1 and M8 were announced for 900 Euro Wink
Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


« Reply #59 on: November 14, 2011, 08:08:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Owners of the R system have written off their lens investment.

How do you figure that?  I'd double the money spent if I were foolish enough to sell my R lenses.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad