Jump to content

Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 on SL or get the 24-90?


Ivar B

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just had a very good offer on a one month old SL and could not resist. Like the saying goes, I can resist everyting but temptation.

 

I have owned M bodies for many years and now I have an M (240) which I will sell.

 

I have a few M lenses and need to decide on which to keep and which to sell. I thought that my first SL lens could be the 24-90, but I already own a mint MATE Version II With E 49 filters and keeping both probably is a bit too extravagant.

 

Have anyone got any experience with using the MATE on the SL? I know it is a very good lens on the M but the 24-90 is reportedly superb as well.

 

The 24 - 90 could surely also replace the M 3.8/24?

 

Keeping a fixed 50mm is something I see being recommended. I own the APO 2/50.

Edited by Ivar B
Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason why the MATE shouldn't work as well if not better than on the M ...... although 28mm has always been regarded as its weak point.

 

Selling M lenses is always difficult as you will inevitably someday regret it......

 

I also have a mint V2 MATE but have never really used it much...... even on the M as walking back or forwards a few metres gets virtually the same results and f4 on the M was a bit limiting. No incentive to use it as I have both SL zooms. 

 

Difficult decisions ...... the 24-90 is pretty well faultless and you will miss fast AF and the benefits of auto aperture control if you stay M lens based  ....... but you will save money and weight. 

 

Depends on whether you see the SL as an adjunct to an M system or a replacement.

 

Personally I would get a 24-90 and see how it goes ...... then liquidate any M lenses you think you can part with ...... and still have the option of selling the 24-90 at a modest loss in the unlikely event it proves not to your liking. 

 

Getting an SL body only is a bit like buying a fast auto sports car and then only driving using the manual gearbox paddles and never more than 50kph .....  :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wider M lenses don't perform well on SL. The tri-elmar don't even perform that well on digital M bodies. Unlike film , sensors just do not forgive, but the 50 mm setting on the tri-elmar should give acceptable results on the SL, in theory. If you like the SL and want to go wider than 50mm ,using SL lenses will be the only solution to make Leica quality images. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wider M lenses don't perform well on SL. The tri-elmar don't even perform that well on digital M bodies. Unlike film , sensors just do not forgive, but the 50 mm setting on the tri-elmar should give acceptable results on the SL, in theory. If you like the SL and want to go wider than 50mm ,using SL lenses will be the only solution to make Leica quality images. 

This is not my experience with the SL at all.   Wide lenses, including the WATE 16-18-21 and 28mm Elmarit and 35mm Summilux work on the SL quite well.   Images from 35mm Summilux are as good as the Vario set at 35.  I have no way of comparing with the WATE becuase there is no SL lens that wide, but it produces very good images for me.  I recognize this is not a scientific test, but neither is a flat statement that wider M lenses don't perform well on SL.  IMHO Leica quality images can be made with the SL with a large number of M lenses including wide angles.   

 

BTW, I had great results with the older MATE 28-35-50 on M9 and M240, so I do not agree with the statement about that lens either.  In fact, having sold that lens, I now regret it, and I am a M240 and SL user.

 

p.s. M lenses on a SL are way more portable than the native lenses.   Obviously no autofocus, but sometimes cutting down on weight/size trumps AF.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wider M lenses don't perform well on SL. The tri-elmar don't even perform that well on digital M bodies. Unlike film , sensors just do not forgive, but the 50 mm setting on the tri-elmar should give acceptable results on the SL, in theory. If you like the SL and want to go wider than 50mm ,using SL lenses will be the only solution to make Leica quality images. 

 

 

Not my experience with WATE, Elmar-M 24, or Summilux 35 v2. 

 

Certainly not my experience with Super-Elmar-R 15, Elmarit-R 19, Elmarit-R 24, or Summicron-R 35. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi my old friend backwards Ravi ;)

 

If you are comfortable with the combined weight and size of SL with 24-90, then gp ahead and replace the M lenses. However, i use the M lenses as they are still excellent on the SL (although I am still plying with my 50's on it) and apart from the MS 24/4 triplet, I havemt tried any wides (and that is just as interesting on the SL as on the M240).

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... Getting an SL body only is a bit like buying a fast auto sports car and then only driving using the manual gearbox paddles and never more than 50kph .....  :rolleyes:

Well that's one view but not necessarily relevant if you're using it with a Noctilux, say. B)

 

I might (playfully! and tongue-in-cheek!) suggest that using a 24-90 with the SL is like buying a Ferrari and having it chauffeur driven*. :D

 

Pete.

 

*Please don't take this as a slight on the 24-90, which looks to be an excellent lens.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wider M lenses don't perform well on SL. The tri-elmar don't even perform that well on digital M bodies. Unlike film , sensors just do not forgive, but the 50 mm setting on the tri-elmar should give acceptable results on the SL, in theory. If you like the SL and want to go wider than 50mm ,using SL lenses will be the only solution to make Leica quality images. 

 

That's not my experience at all either. My 21 SEM and the latest version 2 of the 28 Elmarit-M Asph, for example, perform brilliantly on the SL. Every bit as well as they did, and do, on any of the FF digital M bodies I have. 

Edited by jcraf
Link to post
Share on other sites

The MATE works OK on the SL. The 24-90 is a better lens in every way except size and cost and it has nearly double the reach. I used my MATE on the SL for a bit before purchasing the zoom. I do not regret grading to the 24-90 one bit. It's up there with the best standatd zooms on the market today.

 

I still use and enjoy my MATE on my M.

 

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a very good offer on a one month old SL and could not resist. Like the saying goes, I can resist everyting but temptation.

 

I have owned M bodies for many years and now I have an M (240) which I will sell.

 

I have a few M lenses and need to decide on which to keep and which to sell. I thought that my first SL lens could be the 24-90, but I already own a mint MATE Version II With E 49 filters and keeping both probably is a bit too extravagant.

 

Have anyone got any experience with using the MATE on the SL? I know it is a very good lens on the M but the 24-90 is reportedly superb as well.

 

The 24 - 90 could surely also replace the M 3.8/24?

 

Keeping a fixed 50mm is something I see being recommended. I own the APO 2/50.

Hi,

 

that´s a difficult question to answer. I have both, the MATE and the 24-90, or i should better say, i had both of them. Optically the zoom at least matches the MATE and there is also the benefit of having other focal lengths up to 90 mm.

 

If something happens, the MATE can probably never be repaired and additionally you have AF with the zoom if need be. I  think the only reason to keep the MATE is due to its smaller size and if you have a 90mm M lens too.

 

So i sold my MATE a couple of months ago and have never looked back.

 

 

Gerhard

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy you are all pleased with the M lens performance on the SL. Leica lenses are the best when it comes to edge to edge performance, especially the apo series are famous for this. In order to keep this up with their digital series they built dedicated sensors on their M cameras. These sensors receved the light differently at the edges in order to record it straight on, as apposed to an angle. Otherwise it would have caused a shaky almost doubling effect at the corners and four sdes of the image. Most cameras avoid this by using smaller sensors ,pretty much cropping the actual image entering inside the camera. M series lenses or equivalents like zeiss or voights are the worst lenses to use on the SL, because the lens is too close to the sensor the angle of light coming in and hitting the edges of the sensor will be at the narrowest possible. This will not be a problem with normal to long lenses but for wide lenses forget it, shaky looking edges every time. If you are willing to cop a little than great , you will have a good image. You guys being happy with the results will not change these facts, and also this does not make the SL or M lenses inferior in any way. they are simply not a good match that's all. The R series lenses on the Sl should perform much better because they are further from the lens.

Looking at the size of the SL lenses makes me wonder how much light gets into the camera. I think the combination of the SL camera and the SL lenses is more like M8 and M lenses as opposed to M9 and M lenses. It is an easier way tho fix the shaky edges by cropping the image inside the camera. Film on the other hand welcomes the light at any angle. This is why even superwide lens will give you better edge to edge performance on an analog M as opposed to digital M. Why settle for mediocre image quality? Espcially with a leica. Practicality?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy you are all pleased with the M lens performance on the SL. Leica lenses are the best when it comes to edge to edge performance, especially the apo series are famous for this. In order to keep this up with their digital series they built dedicated sensors on their M cameras. These sensors receved the light differently at the edges in order to record it straight on, as apposed to an angle. Otherwise it would have caused a shaky almost doubling effect at the corners and four sdes of the image. Most cameras avoid this by using smaller sensors ,pretty much cropping the actual image entering inside the camera. M series lenses or equivalents like zeiss or voights are the worst lenses to use on the SL, because the lens is too close to the sensor the angle of light coming in and hitting the edges of the sensor will be at the narrowest possible. This will not be a problem with normal to long lenses but for wide lenses forget it, shaky looking edges every time. If you are willing to cop a little than great , you will have a good image. You guys being happy with the results will not change these facts, and also this does not make the SL or M lenses inferior in any way. they are simply not a good match that's all. The R series lenses on the Sl should perform much better because they are further from the lens.

Looking at the size of the SL lenses makes me wonder how much light gets into the camera. I think the combination of the SL camera and the SL lenses is more like M8 and M lenses as opposed to M9 and M lenses. It is an easier way tho fix the shaky edges by cropping the image inside the camera. Film on the other hand welcomes the light at any angle. This is why even superwide lens will give you better edge to edge performance on an analog M as opposed to digital M. Why settle for mediocre image quality? Espcially with a leica. Practicality?

 

I suggest you look at the test images that some of us have produced at great cost to our time and sanity before you make these sweeping generalisations and generic and ill founded statements. 

 

Have you actually used an SL with a wide range of sub 50mm lenses ? 

 

If not you are in no position to lecture others on the various merits of M and R series lenses on the SL. It is results that matter, not assumptions based on conjecture. The SL sensor was designed to give excellent results with almost all M series lenses. 

 

Yes ...... I am politely saying you are talking rubbish .....  :mellow:

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a very good offer on a one month old SL and could not resist. Like the saying goes, I can resist everyting but temptation.

 

Why don't you buy the lens, use it for a year and then decide what you want to keep or sell.

Or rent it for a month if you want to keep costs lower.

This is a personal decision, nobody could do it for you.

For me the 24-90 is too big. I wait for another more manageable lens.

 

Stephan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wider M lenses don't perform well on SL. The tri-elmar don't even perform that well on digital M bodies. Unlike film , sensors just do not forgive, but the 50 mm setting on the tri-elmar should give acceptable results on the SL, in theory. If you like the SL and want to go wider than 50mm ,using SL lenses will be the only solution to make Leica quality images. 

 

 

Make an effort and check Reid Reviews to find out how completely wrong you are. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Patrick, 

 

Your diatribe sounds like the words of an armchair camera theoretician with no experience using the equipment you are discussing at all. The vast majority of us know all the theory you have offered, but those of us who actually bought and use the SL, with M and R and SL lenses, speak from experience. 

 

Rent an SL, put your favorite wide-angle M lenses on it, and get some first-hand experience using the camera. Then you'll understand much better why those of us who use it say what we do. 

 

Oh yes, full-frame examples of the WATE on the SL are here: 

 

21mm: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1449/26491758256_1e2b4792fa_o_d.jpg

16mm https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1491/25914831853_a3e0efe5f0_o_d.jpg

 

Comparing the WATE on the SL against its performance on the M-P, if any thing, it performs slightly better on the SL than on the M-P. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy you are all pleased with the M lens performance on the SL. Leica lenses are the best when it comes to edge to edge performance, especially the apo series are famous for this. In order to keep this up with their digital series they built dedicated sensors on their M cameras. These sensors receved the light differently at the edges in order to record it straight on, as apposed to an angle. Otherwise it would have caused a shaky almost doubling effect at the corners and four sdes of the image. Most cameras avoid this by using smaller sensors ,pretty much cropping the actual image entering inside the camera. M series lenses or equivalents like zeiss or voights are the worst lenses to use on the SL, because the lens is too close to the sensor the angle of light coming in and hitting the edges of the sensor will be at the narrowest possible. This will not be a problem with normal to long lenses but for wide lenses forget it, shaky looking edges every time. If you are willing to cop a little than great , you will have a good image. You guys being happy with the results will not change these facts, and also this does not make the SL or M lenses inferior in any way. they are simply not a good match that's all. The R series lenses on the Sl should perform much better because they are further from the lens.

Looking at the size of the SL lenses makes me wonder how much light gets into the camera. I think the combination of the SL camera and the SL lenses is more like M8 and M lenses as opposed to M9 and M lenses. It is an easier way tho fix the shaky edges by cropping the image inside the camera. Film on the other hand welcomes the light at any angle. This is why even superwide lens will give you better edge to edge performance on an analog M as opposed to digital M. Why settle for mediocre image quality? Espcially with a leica. Practicality?

Dear Patrick, do you actually have an SL or have you ever used one?  Just answer with a simple yes or no.   If yes, please provide evidence of the performance you describe.

The theory you propound is simply not supported by the experiences of many of use here as well as other testers.  If the theory holds up under sound testing evidence, I will be happy to concede error.  If it doesn't hold up, will you do the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it depends on the use. My experience is that the 24-90 is a great lens, and you will also have the benefits of image stabilisation. However, it's not a lens which you put up in the face of strangers, it is not exactly discreet. So, if you are going to shoot in the streets, I would use a less massive lens. If you mainly shoot people who are used to you waving around with a camera, I would go for the 24-90 over the tri-Elmar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks to all for good advice. I am very pleased with the MATE on my M (240), so what I will do is test it out on the SL and then decide. I will in any case get the 24-90.

 

With a grandchild moving around at the speed of light autofocus is an asset. Invariably, I miss focus a few times with the M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it depends on the use. My experience is that the 24-90 is a great lens, and you will also have the benefits of image stabilisation. However, it's not a lens which you put up in the face of strangers, it is not exactly discreet. So, if you are going to shoot in the streets, I would use a less massive lens. If you mainly shoot people who are used to you waving around with a camera, I would go for the 24-90 over the tri-Elmar.

 

Arne, have you tested the 105-280 on the SL?

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...