3rd party lens performance on SL

[Ron Weissman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having received my Leica SL to Canon EOS adapter today, I wanted to report on results so far. Tested several native Canon lenses and Canon-mount Sigma lenses.  I have not yet tested the 24mm T/S II since I'm sure it will work just fine as a manual lens. Nor have I tested Canon's 24-70 2.8 IS II as I see no need, given the excellence of the Leica 24-90. I tested most lenses wide open and stopped down to f5.6 or f8. And, of course, turned off stabilization as the adapter doesn't support it. These were not scientific tests nor were they detailed. I simply wanted to get a sense as to which lenses worked well and which did not.

 

I have bolded the best of the bunch.

 

Canon EF 16-35mm  L f4 II

 

Very erratic autofocus, often incorrect. Focuses slowly. Easy to use manually with focus peaking. Probably OK autofocus in good light but not dependable indoors for real estate or other uses. Very surprising given that this is a relatively recent design. Works well on Sony A7RII and on Sony 6300. But not on the SL in autofocus mode. Less focus hunting than the 70-200 (below) but the only lens tested with wildly inaccurate focus.  I'll keep using my WATE in preference to this lens.

 

Sigma 24mm f 1.4

 

Fast, accurate auto focusing. A joy to use. Probably a tiny (hard to notice)  bit slower than on a native Canon body, but not noticeably so. A terrific combo.

 

Sigma 35mm f 1.4

 

Performance similar to the 24mm 1.4, but even faster and as accurate autofocus. No hesitation to use this lens in preference to my Summilux 35 when I need fast autofocus rather than deliberate manual shooting. Like the 24mm 1.4, a terrific combo.

 

Canon EF 50mm f1.2

 

One of Canon's amazing bokeh lenses. Worked reasonably well, but very slow to focus. (But not very fast on native Canon bodies, either.) Focus generally accurate but focus could get confused. One needs to regain focus by focusing manually near the target. A great 50mm with character, the slight pain to use this is worth it, unless you're doing documentary/journalism and need really fast, immediately accurate focus.

 

Sigma 50-100mm f f1.8 (APS-C)

An amazing but really heavy lena (possibly as heavy or heavier than the Leica 90-280)--but shorter. A beast.  Has excellent bokeh, but, as an APS-C lens, heavy vignetting at the wide end, lesser vignetting at the telephoto end.  Focus was not in the same league as the Sigma primes but quite useable and fairly accurate. But weight of lens/adapter is a problem and I had to reattach the lens/adapter several times to get it to work. I think somewhat erratic focus may be due to the weight which might be causing inconsistent contact between lens and adapter.

 

Canon EF 70-200mm f4 IS II.

 

Merely OK, moderately slow focus with lots of focus hunting. Quite useable. I'd use it for a theatrical production but not for action/sports. I will probably use this for some of the many theatrical productions I shoot (when not using a tripod) as its manual focus is fine and it is ***considerably*** lighter than the 90-280. The image quality of the 90-280 is absolutely stellar (and I have used it hand-held) but sometimes one needs to operate with a smaller, lighter lens. (The 90-280 remains my strong preference. It is simply amazingly sharp and its color rendition required zero color adjustment when I last used it for a theatrical event.)

 

Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS

 

This lens was--by far--the standout of the Canon brand lenses I've tried so far.  Fast, accurate, snappy autofocus, almost in the same league as the Sigma 24 and 35. A real pleasure to use. I would have no hesitation using this lens for events or other paid shoots, apart from its limited light gathering (f4-5.6). Should be a GREAT outdoor lens, though, again, I have not compared rendering with Lecia's amazing 90-280.

 

One more note: I used each of these lenses without flash and with the Leica SF64.  The SF64 exposed flawlessly with all of these lenses in TTL mode using the flash in direct mode and, more frequently, in bounce mode.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Ron Weissman

[Ron Weissman]

One more Canon lens tested with the Novoflex Leica/Canon EOS adapter

 

Leica 100mm Macro L IS II

 

This was the worst of the bunch in terms of autofocus. This lens did not autofocus at all. (Its predecessor, apparently, works fine on the adapter.) It is, however, easy to use as a manual lens with focus peaking (and my manual shots were almost all in focus). One often doesn't want/need autofocus when using a macro, so this may not be important, but could bel important for some using this as a portrait lens. My Leica R 60mm macro produces richer colors and is no harder to focus manually and will remain my preferred macro lens on the Sl.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Ron Weissman

[Advertisement]

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

[meerec]

I've made a post here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260878-autofocus-adapter-canon-ef-to-leica-sl-by-novoflex/?p=3112237

In my opinion the Novoflex adapter with the Canon 300mm f/2.8L II (also with the 1.4x and 2x extenders) is not fit for purpose. This combo with the SL, worth together a handsome A$20,0000, is crippled to rubbish. It's not a viable solution for sports or wildlife photography :-(

[ramarren]

...

In my opinion the Novoflex adapter with the Canon 300mm f/2.8L II (also with the 1.4x and 2x extenders) is not fit for purpose. This combo with the SL, worth together a handsome A$20,0000, is crippled to rubbish. It's not a viable solution for sports or wildlife photography :-(

Well, if buying new, that's about the price of an SL plus SL90-280 zoom in the USA ... A far better solution for fast AF and image stabilization. I would only see the value of the Novoflex adapter as giving me (somewhat) limited and variable use of Canon lenses I already had. Some will work well, others not so much so. Such it is ... :-\

[meerec]

Well, if buying new, that's about the price of an SL plus SL90-280 zoom in the USA ... A far better solution for fast AF and image stabilization. I would only see the value of the Novoflex adapter as giving me (somewhat) limited and variable use of Canon lenses I already had. Some will work well, others not so much so. Such it is ... :-\

 

 

My main point was about getting reach for wildlife photography on SL with a third party lenses like the top notch Canon super telephotos in absence of a native SL lens to help. With the 2x extender the 300mm lens is fantastic on 1-series Canon bodies – I own 1D4 and was hoping to eliminate it by the SL I also own. I have the VE 90-280 but the 280mm is not a focal length for any serious wildlife photography. 

[ramarren]

My main point was about getting reach for wildlife photography on SL with a third party lenses like the top notch Canon super telephotos in absence of a native SL lens to help. With the 2x extender the 300mm lens is fantastic on 1-series Canon bodies – I own 1D4 and was hoping to eliminate it by the SL I also own. I have the VE 90-280 but the 280mm is not a focal length for any serious wildlife photography. 

 

 

I don't know about that ... It's too short for some kinds of wildlife work for sure, but just fine for others. Not all wildlife are dangerous creatures or savannah/veldt dwellers/birds that need to be photographed with super-tele lenses. 

 

It sound to me that, for your purposes, you should just keep that Canon around for this kind of work until Leica announces the 600mm super tele in SL mount.

[Reds]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm using the Novoflex Nikon adapter for my Otus glass & the 100/2 macro planar. Absolutely loving the SL with these lenses. None of them can be focused accurately and consistently enough (by me anyway) on my Nikons without using live view on a tripod, which is often not ideal.

 

Portrait work on the 85 & 55 gives outstanding images and I've been shooting canapes at events with the macro lens. All handheld, so I can travel light sans tripod.

 

The only PITA is when it's a dark room, typically when using lighting - but I can live with it. i.e. Screen going dark when shooting. I just compose with the EVF and take the shot.

[amoebahydra]

Leica SL with Carl Zeiss Mirotar 4.5/500 for Contarex camera ..........................

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[amoebahydra]

Photo taken with Leica SL Type 601 and Carl Zeiss Mirotar 4.5/500 for Contarex camera ......................

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I'm using the Novoflex Nikon adapter for my Otus glass & the 100/2 macro planar. Absolutely loving the SL with these lenses. None of them can be focused accurately and consistently enough (by me anyway) on my Nikons without using live view on a tripod, which is often not ideal.

 

Portrait work on the 85 & 55 gives outstanding images and I've been shooting canapes at events with the macro lens. All handheld, so I can travel light sans tripod.

 

The only PITA is when it's a dark room, typically when using lighting - but I can live with it. i.e. Screen going dark when shooting. I just compose with the EVF and take the shot.

 

Have a play with the live exposure preview settings. I have no issues in wedding receptions with the SL viewfinder. And if you shoot in Manual mode you can use the exposure compensation to boost the viewfinder without affecting the exposure. At least until Leica get off their buts and allow us to adjust the EVF manually.

 

Gordon

[chris_tribble]

Canon 300 f4 FD L New.  Just been playing with this (Fotodiox FD to M + M to T adapters).

These were shot off a monopod.  Nothing special in terms of photos, but I'm impressed with the lens' capacity to resolve. The objects on the horizon (about four miles away) would have benefited from a heavy tripod etc, but I'd never normally try for a shot like this.  The closer chimney (with rain falling) is more representative. Super easy to focus and handle on the SL.  I look forward to doing more serious things with it.

A much lighter package to carry around than the 300 EF f2.8 L + Canon 5D3!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 30, 2016 by chris_tribble

[steppenw0lf]

The IQ is nice, but the size can even be improved: The Nikon 4/300E PF is even smaller and lighter.

So I hope that Novoflex will soon make their SL to Nikon E AF adapter available.  

By the way, what do you mean by "new" ? Is Canon still selling the 4/300L FD lens ? Or you probably mean the latest version ?!

Edited September 30, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[chris_tribble]

Yes - here NEW designates the last version that Canon made: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/300mm.htm + see screen shot below.

 

Regarding the Nikon lens, isn't this a modern auto focus lens?  One of the things that I like about the old FD is that the MF is a delight to work with.  Although I'm tempted by the Canon to SL converter that's been discussed elswhere, I'm not convinced that AF will work so well.  I'll be interested to see what experience people have.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 30, 2016 by chris_tribble

[steppenw0lf]

Yes, it could be problematic that it is AF. AF with adapted tele lenses is usually not great. In the case of Canon the reason is probably that there are special AF/IS programs for these lenses (with the 6 use cases). But Nikons seem to be simpler and I think they do not have these six cases (but I do not have the latest cameras, so there could be a surprise).

So the simpler the AF programs, the more likely it is that an adapter can cope with the lenses.

But I am mostly interested in the PF (the Fresnel technology) which makes it extremely small and light with a length of only 15cm. And I would also use it manually in the worst case (as now, but with automatic diaphragm.)   (And the shortest distance is 1.4 m, even closer than the 90-280.)

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 30, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[kikouyou]

Yes, it could be problematic that it is AF. AF with adapted tele lenses is usually not great. In the case of Canon the reason is probably that there are special AF/IS programs for these lenses (with the 6 use cases). But Nikons seem to be simpler and I think they do not have these six cases (but I do not have the latest cameras, so there could be a surprise).

So the simpler the AF programs, the more likely it is that an adapter can cope with the lenses.

But I am mostly interested in the PF (the Fresnel technology) which makes it extremely small and light with a length of only 15cm. And I would also use it manually in the worst case (as now, but with automatic diaphragm.) (And the shortest distance is 1.4 m, even closer than the 90-280.)

 

Nikon 300 PF small I_0E66F856-3614-40D8-810E-AAC9BB9E3E62.jpg

[kikouyou]

Very interesting lens

I am also interested in the results!

 

Yes, it could be problematic that it is AF. AF with adapted tele lenses is usually not great. In the case of Canon the reason is probably that there are special AF/IS programs for these lenses (with the 6 use cases). But Nikons seem to be simpler and I think they do not have these six cases (but I do not have the latest cameras, so there could be a surprise).

So the simpler the AF programs, the more likely it is that an adapter can cope with the lenses.

But I am mostly interested in the PF (the Fresnel technology) which makes it extremely small and light with a length of only 15cm. And I would also use it manually in the worst case (as now, but with automatic diaphragm.) (And the shortest distance is 1.4 m, even closer than the 90-280.)

 

Nikon 300 PF small I_0E66F856-3614-40D8-810E-AAC9BB9E3E62.jpg

[chris_tribble]

Interesting options.  That for me is the great advantage of the SL - it has the potential to be an almost universal platform for a huge range of good glass.

[Sandokan]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

Not a show of my photographic abilities. 

 

The Nikon 105/1.4 in a dark church (800ISO with 1/45 @ 1.4). And yes I know focus is on his sideburn not his eye (he was in animated conversation). I do love the fact that it is sharp but the background blurs out softly. I do not like the shape of the lights and their elongated shape. 

 

 

[Sandokan]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

These were with my Nikon 58/1.4G. Currently one of my favourite lenses ... at least until my Zeiss Sonnar for Contax from 1936 comes back. 

 

In comparison with the 105, it is much lighter. I wish I could say it has the same optical behaviour, but I would need a lot more evidence than the few shots I made with the 105. 

 

The best thing I can say about the 105? It makes the 24-90 SL lens an option for me to buy as it no longer seemed heavy

 

PS (edit). I used the Novoflex Nikon G to SL/T adaptor with the blue ring to stop down the lens, but you cannot tell what aperture you are using - only fully open, fully closed and somewhere in between. It works well. The AF Novoflex adaptor only works with the E series of lenses and mine is a G. 

Edited October 9, 2016 by Sandokan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ZHNL]

To be honest, Those New Nikon glass looks really great. Thanks for sharing.