50mm summilux SL vs 35mm summilux TL

[Cliff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Notwithstanding the big hit with reduction of resolution from 24mp to 10mp, but appreciating the substantial reduction in size, does anyone have comments regarding the IQ comparison between the 2 lenses?

The 35 summilux TL will result in an equivalent 50mm and I would love to shrink my walk around set to something more discreet.

[geetee1972]

If you want to shrink your walk around set then perhaps the 50mm M Summarit would be a better option? It is considerably smaller than the 35mm TL 'lux, will have a similar maximum aperture once you've factored in the conversion, costs about 15% less new and will use 100% of the sensor you paid over $8k for.

 

About the only reason you would use the 35TL as far as I can see is because you already had one (or you want AF but that couldn't possibly be the reason right. I mean who needs it?)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Cliff S]

I have many M lenses that I use on the now M10. I'm looking for an AF lens for the SL.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Cliff S

[geetee1972]

I have many M lenses that I use on the now M10. I'm looking for an AF lens for the SL.

That's interesting. I pressume you don't have any problem focusing the M10 so I'm curious why you would feel the need for it on the SL, or is it just convenience? I'm coming at this from having had an AF system until very recently and I just don't miss it. Indeed I think my focus is quicker with an M lens on the SL than an AF on my Sony in situations where speed is a priority.

 

Before I traded all my Sony gear in for the SL I had a Techart Pro adapter that provided both an M-Mount for the Sony and AF ability. I've thought Tech Art were also going to make one for the SL but I've not heard anything about it.

[Cliff S]

The M10 restored my faith in RF focussing. I've also had 3 lenses calibrated and focussing through RF or LV or Visoflex are identical. I traded in my M240 for the SL and used it with my M lenses. Especially the noctilux. First time I could nail focus with lens was in the SL. Not even with the EVF on the M240.

 

That's all changed with the M10 and a calibrated noctilux. So, alas, my SL is kept warm in a beautiful Ona bag. Along with the 24-90mm SL lens. I don't enjoy carrying such a huge and heavy combo but I want to use the SL when I'm shooting fast moving scenes that are hard with the M wide open.

 

And the 50mm SL lens is the same size almost as the 24-90. So my thinking is the much smaller 35TL summilux if I don't sacrifice IQ-just lose resolution.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Cliff S

[geetee1972]

What fast moving scenes were you thinking of?

[Cliff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My son playing hockey. NHL hockey games. Cyclists using pan. Portraits in dark places.

 

Thank god i don't have a cat.

[tom0511]

I mainly have used the 35 on the T and the 50 on the SL, without direct comparison.

I like both lenses. And while the 35 is not soft I believe the SL50 to be quite a bit sharper.

AF is considerably slowet than the 24-90 with both lenses.

If I use the 35 I rather use it on the T and then have 16MP.

I see not much benefit to put the 35 on the SL.

[pico]

Notwithstanding the big hit with reduction of resolution from 24mp to 10mp[...]

 

Apparent resolution is called acutance, and acutance can vary according to subject.

Nail down the details and get back to us.

.

Edited March 6, 2017 by pico

[Jared]

As long as the 10 megapixel resolution is enough for your intent, the 35mm TL works great on the SL. So does the standard kit zoom, for that matter, as a walk around lens. I use the 18-56 all the time on the SL.

 

You might ask, then why pay all that money for the SL only to throw away over half the pixels? It depends completely on the intended use. When I'm shooting landscape images that I might turn into larger prints, I definitely want everything my SL can provide in terms of resolution. But for street photography? Or family events? What the heck do I want or need 24 megapixels for? In these situations, resolution beyond a reasonably sharp image has nothing to do with the quality of the photo. The 35mm TL or even the kit zoom (if you don't need depth of field control or low light benefits of the 35mm) really does a fine job. So would lots of other camera/lens combos, of course, but I already own the SL.

 

I don't think I would recommend purchasing an SL if you intended to use it PRIMARILY with TL lenses, but if I already had the SL for other reasons, a TL lens can make the SL much more manageable for a casual day on the shoulder than the 24-90, and it may well be a better match for a given use than an M lens that provides greater technical IQ but lacks autofocus and auto aperture stop down.

 

Personally, I've got plenty of images that just don't benefit at all from having 24 megapixels of resolution. I've also got plenty that do. It depends on the subject and presentation. I think a lot of people would be surprised just how large a print one can make with a 10 megapixel image before you start to notice any softness or issues. We get all wrapped around the axle about resolution and sharpness. There are certainly situations where having all the resolution and sharpness you can afford is important, and so we pay a lot of money to handle those (comparatively) rate cases, but most of the time a clean six megapixel image would really work just as well. And I don't mean NEARLY as well, I mean JUST as well. It's the exceptions that drive the selection, more often than not. That extra stop of aperture for DOF control. That extra stop of ISO for clean shots in low light. This extra megapixels for a big print or for heavy cropping. Well, just as important is that extra speed of operation you can get with a good AF system, or those extra 600g of mass and bulk that determine whether you bring your camera or just your iPhone.

 

- Jared

Edited March 7, 2017 by Jared

[38wadcutter]

Jared, I agree with you 1000% I have every TL lens and use them all on my SL with great results. I'm honestly very surprised that more SL owners don't use them, they are very sharp and small and light, AND AF!!!

[Cliff S]

As long as the 10 megapixel resolution is enough for your intent, the 35mm TL works great on the SL. So does the standard kit zoom, for that matter, as a walk around lens. I use the 18-56 all the time on the SL.

 

You might ask, then why pay all that money for the SL only to throw away over half the pixels? It depends completely on the intended use. When I'm shooting landscape images that I might turn into larger prints, I definitely want everything my SL can provide in terms of resolution. But for street photography? Or family events? What the heck do I want or need 24 megapixels for? In these situations, resolution beyond a reasonably sharp image has nothing to do with the quality of the photo. The 35mm TL or even the kit zoom (if you don't need depth of field control or low light benefits of the 35mm) really does a fine job. So would lots of other camera/lens combos, of course, but I already own the SL.

 

I don't think I would recommend purchasing an SL if you intended to use it PRIMARILY with TL lenses, but if I already had the SL for other reasons, a TL lens can make the SL much more manageable for a casual day on the shoulder than the 24-90, and it may well be a better match for a given use than an M lens that provides greater technical IQ but lacks autofocus and auto aperture stop down.

 

Personally, I've got plenty of images that just don't benefit at all from having 24 megapixels of resolution. I've also got plenty that do. It depends on the subject and presentation. I think a lot of people would be surprised just how large a print one can make with a 10 megapixel image before you start to notice any softness or issues. We get all wrapped around the axle about resolution and sharpness. There are certainly situations where having all the resolution and sharpness you can afford is important, and so we pay a lot of money to handle those (comparatively) rate cases, but most of the time a clean six megapixel image would really work just as well. And I don't mean NEARLY as well, I mean JUST as well. It's the exceptions that drive the selection, more often than not. That extra stop of aperture for DOF control. That extra stop of ISO for clean shots in low light. This extra megapixels for a big print or for heavy cropping. Well, just as important is that extra speed of operation you can get with a good AF system, or those extra 600g of mass and bulk that determine whether you bring your camera or just your iPhone.

 

- Jared

Thanks Jared. Well said. And much appreciated

[stephan_w]

just a question, is there a way to use the TL lenses uncropped on the SL? I mean FF (with vignetting of course)?

[geetee1972]

just a question, is there a way to use the TL lenses uncropped on the SL? I mean FF (with vignetting of course)?

I imagine connecting it to the SL with a dumb (i.e. one that does not pass through the lens data) adapter would do that. Why would you want to though?

[scott kirkpatrick]

Since the T lenses have the same mount as the SL, the SL will know what is mounted.  No adapter is involved.  If you are looking for an Emmet Gowin effect of using a lens with insufficient coverage to get a circular image fading and smearing to black in the outer parts of the frame, that will take a firmware hack, which I wouldn't try.  How about getting a Fuji 35/2.0 and seeing if there is some Novoflex dumb adapter that will attach it to an SL as a purely manual lens?  Or an even greater mismatch would be a micro 4/3 lens.  The problem is that such adapters are certainly not products, so some engineering work would be required.

 

scott

[scott kirkpatrick]

incidentally, noone has mentioned that the T lenses are the perfect way to shoot 4K video on the SL, since the image that is used is taken from about 8 MPx in the center of the frame, an area slightly smaller than the APS-C region that the T uses.  

[Budfox]

I use the 23 T on the SL from time to time. It's quite small and I found the AF is the same speed as the original T (probably a little quicker).

 

The T zooms with smaller apertures can sometimes cause a bit of EVF lag and seem to have slower AF on the SL. However, they still work fine within those limitations.

 

I ultimately sold my T camera and all lenses - except the 23mm to use on the SL as a compact option.

[caissa]

Instead of the SL 50mm or TL 35mm lens I use a EOS AF 50mm lens from Canon. It is a small reduction in IQ (mainly wide open), but then it gives me the same speed with AF and a very small lens at a relatively inexpensive price.

The Novoflex AF adapter is more expensive than the lens, but I do not care, as long as the results are what I need.

 

With the TL lens I loose more IQ than with an adapted lens - so for me this is the better compromise.

[AlexP]

Instead of the SL 50mm or TL 35mm lens I use a EOS AF 50mm lens from Canon. It is a small reduction in IQ (mainly wide open), but then it gives me the same speed with AF and a very small lens at a relatively inexpensive price.

The Novoflex AF adapter is more expensive than the lens, but I do not care, as long as the results are what I need.

 

With the TL lens I loose more IQ than with an adapted lens - so for me this is the better compromise.

+1. Spend money for adapter one time and it open out so much more choice with canon/sigma Art at fraction of the cost while still maintain good IQ / AF

 

I replaced the 50SL with this and couldn't be happier.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[meerec]

+1. Spend money for adapter one time and it open out so much more choice with canon/sigma Art at fraction of the cost while still maintain good IQ / AF

 

I replaced the 50SL with this and couldn't be happier.

 

 

 

 

Looks pure ugly. It's only my opinion though.