Jump to content

Leica SL and Wide Angle lenses


BCMielke

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This might be an example of analysis paralysis.

 

I have been looking into purchasing a Leica SL for awhile now.  Sorting through all the reviews and seeing if this might be a good camera for me.  I already own a T and and M and have a good collection of M lenses as well as a couple of R lenses.  I shoot mostly in the 21-50 range and enjoy people as well as landscape photos mostly.  

 

I have been reading the Reid reviews with adapted M lenses and they don't seem to perform as well in the corners as they do on an M camera does.  The odd one is the 28 lux.  Now I am not a pixel peeper and to me it's how the image looks overall that makes my decision.  However the corners look mushy.  Mushy enough that i think I will see it viewing the photo at a viewable distance.

 

I looked over the image thread here in the forum and there are a few examples of Wide angle lenses on the SL, but not many.  In Jono's review I saw that he used the WATE with it and that looked really good to my eyes.  That's what makes me think I may be over thinking this.  

 

So how does the SL do in the 18-50 range with M lenses, R lenses or other.  Any pictures you could share or thoughts that might help me come to a decision?  

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked a fair few lenses ...... here are the results .......

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/252842-m-lens-performance-on-the-sl/page-6?do=findComment&comment=2929734

 

The difference between M & SL for most is not significant in practice...... ie. over 2m and not wide open all the time.....

There is some delusion that M lenses have perfect corner performance on the M ...... not true and certainly not when wide open and close up due to field curvature and other issues. 

 

Nb. read carefully what I have said in the notes ...... and I wouldn't pay much attention to the results wide open at very close distances ....... would you be taking photos of large flat vertical areas at 0.7m with a 21mm lens wide open ...... ? The problem areas are also VERY peripheral .... unlike the smearing seen with M lenses on the Sony A7r etc. where is visible from about 1/3 out from the centre and gets progressively worse towards the edges.

 

I don't have any sub 50mm R lenses ..... but because of the different optical construction it is very unlikely they would cause any issues on the SL ..... which is why no-one has tested them much here ..... no one has reported issues...... I would take what Ramarren has said as the most informed opinion ..... Sean Reid has a very limited and idiosyncratic bunch of lenses he uses to test with and no R lenses at all from what I recall

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thighslapper's tables seem right to me, in predicting where there will be a modest loss of corner resolution in shots focused at infinity.  There are some lenses unusable on modern digital cameras -- my Canon 19 from sometime in the 1950s ( a poor man's super angulon) and the first version of the Voightlaender CV15/4.5 have final glass surfaces nearly touching the imaging chip, just a source of amusement on a full-frame camera, but they could be used with care on the M8. But the Summilux 28-asph doesn't seem mushy in the corners to me.  Here's a shot with a distant point of focus as an example( M240, SX 28):

 

24455413550_5827755521_h.jpgL6004178 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

I have also gotten good results on the SL with the SX28, SE21, SE18 and the Super-Elmarit-R 15.  Godfrey and I both find the 15mm focal length enticing, as long as the lens is fairly telecentric.  You can find some of my other pictures in this forum or on the getdpi forum.  

 

Oh, Sean Reid has published results using 28, 35, and 50 R lenses of various vintages, ranging from 1.4 to 2.8 apertures.  He did some work with the DMR about 10 years ago, and at that time had access to the 15/2.8.  Some DMR users survive, but most seem to use it with telephotos for wildlife shooting.   

 

scott 

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean tested a few R lenses, but none were wide that I recall now.  

 

 

I checked a fair few lenses ...... here are the results .......

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/252842-m-lens-performance-on-the-sl/page-6?do=findComment&comment=2929734

 

The difference between M & SL for most is not significant in practice...... ie. over 2m and not wide open all the time.....

There is some delusion that M lenses have perfect corner performance on the M ...... not true and certainly not when wide open and close up due to field curvature and other issues. 

 

Nb. read carefully what I have said in the notes ...... and I wouldn't pay much attention to the results wide open at very close distances ....... would you be taking photos of large flat vertical areas at 0.7m with a 21mm lens wide open ...... ? The problem areas are also VERY peripheral .... unlike the smearing seen with M lenses on the Sony A7r etc. where is visible from about 1/3 out from the centre and gets progressively worse towards the edges.

 

I don't have any sub 50mm R lenses ..... but because of the different optical construction it is very unlikely they would cause any issues on the SL ..... which is why no-one has tested them much here ..... no one has reported issues...... I would take what Ramarren has said as the most informed opinion ..... Sean Reid has a very limited and idiosyncratic bunch of lenses he uses to test with and no R lenses at all from what I recall

Link to post
Share on other sites

An example of the R 2,8/15 asph @ f=3,5. In the center very sharp and at the corners a bit soft 

 

 

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...... 

 

 

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really pretty good for 15mm and wide open!!

 

I was more concerned about smearing.  When I had an X-Pro 1 it was unusable with M lenses because of the smearing.  The above I really couldn't tell the difference in the web version.  Sadly that's how I view most of my images now.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 15/2.8 sharpens up at 5.6 as does the SE21, which I have used a lot on M9 and M240.  So I'll post an example of the 15/2.8 used at f/5.6 on the SL in good light:

 

23956056946_2091c9cc29_h.jpgL1000882 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

Soft corners with this lens are usually depth of field issues (maybe field curvature as well), as it it tempting to include stuff from about 6 inches out to infinity in a single frame.

 

scott

 

Edit:  Sean Reid's articles have covered 28, 35, and 50, and he seems to have results on the 60 macro and a 90 SC-R still to write up.  Nothing wider, and since he has sent his SL back to Leica, I guess that is all for now.  I find his studio comparisons useful (altho not very much fun to look at).

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Scott and ranarren,

 

I really don't see any smearing only a slight softness on the very outer edge.  That's pretty normal at that focal length.  The leaves on the 19 R lens all show detail at viewing.  When I look up close I see how that detail breaks down.  These have all been extremely helpful  

 

I have the 18 SEM.  Can anyone point to any photos using the SL and that combination?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Scott and ranarren,

 

I really don't see any smearing only a slight softness on the very outer edge.  That's pretty normal at that focal length.  The leaves on the 19 R lens all show detail at viewing.  When I look up close I see how that detail breaks down.  These have all been extremely helpful  

 

I have the 18 SEM.  Can anyone point to any photos using the SL and that combination?  

 

 

 

SL with 18SEM @ f=4,0

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man!  Nobody is making this easy on me.  I wanted technical reasons not to like this camera...not what to sell reasons.  

 

 

Frankly, the SL despite some flash issues and a few other minor firmware niggles, is the best digital camera of any type that I've used. It has pretty much eclipsed any need for any other camera, although I still love shooting with the M-P too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have a GXR and love how the focus peaking works on that camera compared to any others.  I tried the Q in the store and liked that a close 2nd.  I don't like the T version of focus peaking.  For the T the nice add-on viewfinder, I didn't know if I would have needed it.

 

Of the above, which version does the SL closely mimic?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In use it is more Q like for speed, EVF and image quality ...... but taken up a notch or three.....

 

There really isn't a close comparison to anything ... it has the best elements of a lot of what various Leica cameras offer and then some ....

 

You have to hold and try ..... you will either love or loathe.

 

If the first 5 minutes don't put you off you will buy one ...... with use you will appreciate it more and certainly are very unlikely to be disappointed. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have a GXR and love how the focus peaking works on that camera compared to any others.  I tried the Q in the store and liked that a close 2nd.  I don't like the T version of focus peaking.  For the T the nice add-on viewfinder, I didn't know if I would have needed it.

 

Of the above, which version does the SL closely mimic?

 

 

I used a GXR for a couple of years. Amazing camera for its price. 

 

Focus peaking on the GXR is unique, particularly the mode that grayed the whole scene and let you see just the edges. I didn't use the other GXR focus peaking modes very often. The SL's focus peaking is precise like that that but less obvious, and more dependent upon specific lenses' behavior. I've not played with either T or Q focus peaking. 

 

The good news is that the SL's viewfinder quality is so good that you rarely really need focus peaking. Between the excellent resolution of the viewfinder and the one-touch magnification button (firmware 1.2), it's very rare I find myself turning on focus peaking for that extra little bit of focus indication. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I took exactly the same image with the SL and M240 and 18mm SEM. Somewhat to my surprise, the SL was a marginally better performer both wide open and at f5.6. There was noticeable softening at the edges wide open with both cameras but easily sorted by increasing detail on the DNG's with Capture One. Both cameras showed some purple fringing on bare branches against a bright sky but again, the M240 was fractionally worse. I did not test at very close distances, as I just don't use a super wide in that way.

 

My 28 ASPH Summicron did not seem to behave as badly as Thighslapper's did and although maybe not quite as good on the SL as on the M240, was perfectly acceptable. Again I did not test at closer than 2 metres. Given how good the 24-90 is on the SL, this is not of any great concern to me and I would not envisage using my 28 Summicron much on my SL. 

 

The 15mm Voigtlander is pretty awful on the SL but then it's not good on the M240 either. A surprisingly good performer on the SL is my 16mm/f2.8 M mount Zenitar fish-eye. 

 

Wilson

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...