Should I get the SL?

[turbonetics]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi friends from different parts of the world with same interest.

Iam actually very new to Leica and just bought my first Leica Q a week ago.

Bought it out twice to shoot and love the way the camera/lens renders the images especially the colours and smooth bokeh and also the touch AF feature.

Iam thinking of getting the SL too but need further advices from gurus to help me out.

 

Should I get the SL pair with the 24-90mm while keeping my Q?

How is the performance of this lens considering its does not has constant aperture which seems to not getting my attention much but I would like to use the AF on SL?

 

or Should I get the SL pair with the 35 Summilux FLE while ditching my Q considering the FL are very close?

Do u guys think getting the SL but not able to use the AF felt like not maximising the SL potential?

 

Iam looking to shoot some portraits and street.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Arai]

Money aside? Yes you should get it. It has different purpose than Q so keep the Q for occasional use, light traveling or go to everyday. SL zoom quite heavy but it's the best zoom I've ever handle. If you think AF is important for your shot, get it, otherwise mounting an M lenses on SL also very rewarding..

[dkCambridgeshire]

If you mean formal head and shoulders portraiture a 35mm lens is not suitable. 

 

dunk

[ramarren]

Whether you should buy an SL or not I can't answer. But some thoughts on your points:

 

• The SL24-90 lens is a superb performer, it outclasses most other primes and nearly all other zooms. It's also large and heavy, pricey, but well worth it. The "f/2.8 to f/4" max aperture range is irrelevant.
   
• If you're looking to shoot street and you're not already practiced at doing that with a large and bulky camera (SL + 24-90 zoom), keep your Q for that. Street, to me, means unintrusive (small and light helps) and it takes a while to learn how to be unintrusive with a large heavy camera. You can put a 35mm M or R lens on the SL and reduce the bulk considerably, of course, but I don't know that it will be any better than the Q already is for that and you already have the Q—you'll lose a good bit of money trading or selling it. 
   
• I shoot generally with Leica R lenses because they fit the SL very ergonomically and I tend to prefer manual focusing 90% of the time anyway. I find Leica M lenses on the SL are too small, most of the time, and the controls are not best arranged for the way I hold and shoot with the SL body (they work great on the M-P). There's very little to do with "maximizing the SL potential" that I link to auto focus, so that's of no concern to me. AF is a wonderful convenience and can help with certain shooting situations, both casual and "for pay" as it were, but I've never considered it a necessity. 
   
• While portraits can be made with any focal length, for the SL you'll want the SL24-90 and will likely use 50-90 mm for portraiture much more than 24 to 35mm. 

[steppenw0lf]

Without knowing your likes and dislikes it is difficult to give you an advice.

The SL is a fascinating camera and it closes a gap for owners of Leica R- and M-lenses.

 

It is much heavier than the Q, also of higher quality. It gives you a good grip with large zooms or long teles.

It is extremely flexible, so you can do almost anything with it, while the Q is mainly for "easy shooting".

 

The main question is, do you want to use only the new AF lenses ? Currently the choice is very limited (only 2 zooms, nothing else). Unfortunately both zooms are very big, so this is for more serious photography than the Q.

 

Or do you enjoy using "vintage" glass without AF ? Then this is the optimal camera, for Leica R-lenses, Leica M-lenses, or almost any other high quality (non-AF) lens. E.g. I like to use Contax lenses additionally to my collection of R- and M-lenses. And in this case you can use the widest possible selection of lenses. (virtually hundreds)

 

So describe your interests, and maybe from that it becomes clear if the SL is the right camera for you.

 

Your description is so vague that I do not know if you practice photography since years or if you are a complete beginner. To a beginner I would suggest to start with a smaller and less costly camera to gain some experience and find out what is interesting you primarily.

[turbonetics]

Thanks for the replies.

I was shooting Canon systems for the past 7 years and was using the pro and semi pro bodies so the weight is not a big issue to me as iam more particular about the image quality.

I had never use the "Vintage" glasses before and that was also one of the reasons iam considering the 35mm Summilux FLE to try it out.

On contrary, the Q wasn't an ideal street camera being the FL too wide and I have to shoot closer to achieve the nice bokeh background. I was considering 24-90mm as street because I thought I could shoot further away, no?

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Classic street photography for me is the domain of the Leica M. And of course you can also use the SL with M lenses, e.g. the FLE .

I sounds as if you can buy it any time, no limited budget etc.

But in this case I would suggest that you try to rent a few different combinations.

I would suggest    the  M240 plus FLE,  or maybe the  MM246  plus  FLE if you prefer  black and white.

And rent a SL with the 24-90, but do also buy some adapters so that you can add M-lenses, Canon lenses, maybe also Leica R-lenses (my favourites), etc.

 

Interesting are also older Canon lenses like the FD Teles, they are usually very cheap but the same high quality as the new Canon Teles. But I am more into photography with tele lenses, you maybe not.

 

For street photography I actually prefer to use the Leica R 35-70 zoom lens, or the easy to find Contax 28-85. Both are manual focus lenses, but smaller than the SL 24-90. I am actually not fond of the 24-90 and have no plan to buy it, despite its high quality.

 

Maybe your opinion is different, so rent it to find out.

 

For a different type of "street" photography (not the classic one) I like to use the SL with the WATE or another small UWA lens (e.g. Voigtlaender), that I use as a fix-focus camera. Usually everything is in focus and at home you can select the snippets that you like best. This is very relaxing - and the results are unpredictable (in the best sense). (But this is definitely not a bargain fix-focus camera.)

 

Bokeh alone is probably not a good reason to choose a lens, but if this is of high importance for you, then consider also the noctilux or the Summilux-M 1.4/50mm Asph, or the 75 and 90 mm M lenses. Or the Leica Summilux-R 80 mm - my favourite for bokeh. You will need those anyway for portraits.

The 24-90 is a zoom with relatively small aperture, so not the best candidate for interesting bokeh.

[Jeff S]

Why did you buy the Q?

 

Jeff

[turbonetics]

Steppenwolf, actually I was considering between M240 and SL so I went to the shop to try out both camera and had been using AF all along. And the SL EVF was really good that helps a lot in my poor MF skills compare to M240.

 

Jeff S, I happened to saw a Q for sale at a reasonable price so I thought of picking it up to check out how the Leica performs..iam actually not a fan of compact or rather fixed lens but the Q is really good at an affordable price for the brand Leica if one can live with the fixed FL. After using the Q, I believe that the M lenses should perform pretty close to the Q or maybe better?

[turbonetics]

Steppenwolf, iam into bokeh but that is not the only thing I look for in a lens. I do not really like the Noc softness but if iam in the budget to get the Noc, I think I would choose the 50 APO. I chose 35mm because iam more used to the FL from my precious Canon system.

I agree on the zoom bokeh which was what holding me back and my heart seems to tell me I should at least have the Zoom to at least know and make full use of the SL AF.

[steppenw0lf]

Again try to rent and test it for a week - and remember there is no single best lens for all occasions (even if marketing keeps telling you so).

Believe only your own eyes.

About the AF, do you like to use AF, then do so. If you like manual focus just do it, without any further thought about not fully using the potential of the camera. Concentrate on what you want to achieve with the camera (compared to the gear that you use right now).

[turbonetics]

Agree with u that there is no single best lens for all purpose. Thanks

[Rick]

Perhaps.

[neilgandhi]

Here are some photos I took with the SL recently, that Leica published on their blog. It is an excellent camera and I highly recommend it. I started out with the M lenses using the adapter and I just got the 24-90, which is a beast. Good luck!

 

http://blog.leica-camera.com/2016/04/10/capturing-movement-yoga-leica-sl-21-pictures/

 

Cheers, 

 

Neil

[Darcy]

Here are some photos I took with the SL recently, that Leica published on their blog. It is an excellent camera and I highly recommend it. I started out with the M lenses using the adapter and I just got the 24-90, which is a beast. Good luck!

 

http://blog.leica-camera.com/2016/04/10/capturing-movement-yoga-leica-sl-21-pictures/

 

Cheers, 

 

Neil

 

Those are excellent photos!  Very well conceived and executed.

[thighslapper]

Apart from the superb EVF and excellent optics of the 2 available zoom lenses there is nothing that you cannot get with high end Nikon or Canon (an Sony to a lesser extent) at a lower price. 

 

You are primarily buying into a premium brand with some marginal benefits .... and the potential to spend a LOT more money.

 

If you were coming from a Leica background with a pile of M and R series lenses then the SL is a no-brainer as you can exploit the full potential of existing lenses.... and then some .....

 

As a mirrorless medium sized camera with 2 zooms taking you from 24-280mm it is excellent but comes at a price. 

 

The Q is a completely different beast ...... packs a real punch in a small package that is a delight to use ...... whatever you do, don't sell it, it is destined to be a classic ...... just look at the volume of quality images on the Q part of the forum and you will see just how versatile the little camera is. 

[Leicaiste]

Another plus of the SL over the M240 is the fact the sensor was clean out of the box and stays mainly clean.

[ramarren]

I pulled out the M-P and fitted the EVF for the first time in a long while last evening to test out the WATE. 

 

I've gotten much too used to the SL's EVF! 

 

The M-P works beautifully with the WATE in the rangefinder-coupled range using my 21mm optical finder as a "guesstimate" framing device. For TTL viewing and precise framing, I'll stick with the SL. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[sdw]

I pulled out the M-P and fitted the EVF for the first time in a long while last evening to test out the WATE. 

 

I've gotten much too used to the SL's EVF! 

 

The M-P works beautifully with the WATE in the rangefinder-coupled range using my 21mm optical finder as a "guesstimate" framing device. For TTL viewing and precise framing, I'll stick with the SL. 

 

 

Yeah, there really isn't any going back after the SL. I loathe my A7R2's now. 

[Jeff S]

Another plus of the SL over the M240 is the fact the sensor was clean out of the box and stays mainly clean.

 

I haven't needed to wet clean my M240 at all since bought new two and half years ago.  And the M8.2 before that required two cleanings in 5 years.

 

Jeff