Buying SL 601 body first or the kit with standard lens 24-90

[Yuhau]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI , I am now ready to pull the trigger on getting  the SL 601.   I will be going for a long trip travelling  half way around the world for two months .

 

Just what is your  thoughts on  getting body only first since I am a M , R , T lens user  already or as a kit , and why ?  I have enough M and R lenses to cover all my needs. 

 

The only reason to buy as a  kit will be slightly cheaper as a set and is AF.  But I am quite concern about the diameter / size  ( 82 mm filter )  and weight of this  kit lens  and worry about getting another permanent resident for  my Drybox  like my  Nikon 70-200 / 2.8 VR  from my Nikon days .  

 

BTW I have the T 11-23. Will  this  be  used in SL for that AF for SL experience  ? 

 

Thanks 

 

[jip]

You can use the 11-23 T lens, but it will be cropped on the SL since it's not a full frame lens.

 

I'd always go for a native kit lens, but thats just me. 

[Advertisement]

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

[DTM]

If you have M and R lenses in the focal lengths you want to use and are comfortable with manual focus then the SL is great. With the EVF and focus magnification focusing with the SL is very good, just a little different than the M rangefinder method. The SL 24-90 is highly rated but is heavier. If you are looking to take just the 24-90 or a bunch of M, R and T lenses then you can do the math on how much it all weighs. Also the M and R lenses need an adapter.

 

AF lenses allows more customization in the camera than M and R lenses. With the T lenses you have to accept the crop factor for the smaller image size. 

[ramarren]

When I first ordered the SL, I had all the R and M lenses I needed (no T). But I decided that it would be a good thing to have one lens specifically designed for the SL that would take advantage of all its capabilities, so I ordered the SL24-90 as well. There was no discount involved in doing so. 

 

I'm not a big zoom lens user and the SL24-90 is indeed large and heavy. But that said, it is an excellent performer and, generally speaking, outperforms the R and M lenses. I've become more accustomed to its size and weight, and have learned to value its versatility. I still use the R prime lenses most of the time, but the SL24-90 is definitely a complement to my shooting kit. 

 

For an extended trip, carrying the SL with the SL24-90, an Elmar-R 180mm f/4, a 2x Extender-R to use with that for the extra-extra reach moments, and the WATE would present a very solid, complete kit in a modest size and weight with the full 24 Mpixel resolution capability of the camera at my disposal. 

[rriley]

When I first ordered the SL, I had all the R and M lenses I needed (no T). But I decided that it would be a good thing to have one lens specifically designed for the SL that would take advantage of all its capabilities, so I ordered the SL24-90 as well. There was no discount involved in doing so. 

 

I'm not a big zoom lens user and the SL24-90 is indeed large and heavy. But that said, it is an excellent performer and, generally speaking, outperforms the R and M lenses. I've become more accustomed to its size and weight, and have learned to value its versatility. I still use the R prime lenses most of the time, but the SL24-90 is definitely a complement to my shooting kit. 

 

For an extended trip, carrying the SL with the SL24-90, an Elmar-R 180mm f/4, a 2x Extender-R to use with that for the extra-extra reach moments, and the WATE would present a very solid, complete kit in a modest size and weight with the full 24 Mpixel resolution capability of the camera at my disposal. 

 

 

I Agree.

 

I bought the zoom along with the SL and then purchased the WATE and am very happy with the result.  The 24-90 is an excellent lens and perfect for travel.  If you need something longer there are lots of choices.

[LocalHero1953]

This comes down to your type of photography and you attitude to carrying kit.

 

Personally I would not use a SL for travel photography: it is too large and heavy, as are the lenses.

 

A 24-90 zoom saves you carrying multiple lenses in that range, but my choice would be to limit my photography rather than carry a telephoto and wide angle as well.

 

For travel, I can't see further than an M and 2-3 lenses (28, 75, and possibly 50 for me). When travelling, I prefer to travel light and, in photographic terms, less obviously.

 

There are no right answers, just different ways of how your equipment fits into your photographic life. FTAOD, these are not the same thing. 

 

Edit: I realise I have not addressed your particular question about the SL lens. IF I took the SL body for travel, I would definitely get the 24-90 as well - as others have suggested, it seems a pity not to be able to take advantage of the SL's full capabilities. And if it was me, I wouldn't take any other lens, to keep the weight down and to avoid changing lenses. I would limit the scope of my photography to match my equipment - not that you are that limited with 24-90. I might also take one of the close-up filters (e.g. Marumi) for those flowers that my wife wants me to photograph.

Edited July 24, 2016 by LocalHero1953

[HeinzX]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use the SL together with the 24/90 as well. For me the AF was the main reason to change from my M 240 with M lenses to the SL. And the quality of the 24/90 is excellent. So I only kept most of my Canon EF lenses to use it together with the SL wiith the Novoflex adapter, which supports AF (but not the IS).

The SL, the 24/90 and the outstanding  11/24 Canon UWW with the Novoflex adapter is an excellent choice if no more tele is needed.

Only disadvantage is the considerable weight.

Edited July 24, 2016 by HeinzX

[steppenw0lf]

I would buy the camera only. Then you can first make some experiences with using M and R lenses on the SL body. Then you will see what more you need and can then decide for the best AF lens for you.

For example after several months now my typical gear combination is:

WATE (M) for wideangle, tiny M 28 (see icon), normal R Summicron 50, and the SL 90-280 zoom for the rest. I do not need AF in the wideangles, and like the Summicron R 50 better than the expensive alternatives (it is often higher quality).

I also do often macro, so I also use several different R, Nikon or Contax macro lenses.

 

Others will have completely different usage patterns.

 

And one thing that always made me wonder: The 90-280 has the typical "round" shade. But the 24-90 has this very strange rectangular shade. I have the impression that this is mainly a show - the lens opening is round and the different shade shape is not doing anything useful (it is very wide). So I wonder if a round shape would not be a cleverer solution ?!

My M 28 also has a rectangular shade, and I also have the impression it is not doing anything useful (well, maybe protecting the lens from touch).

 

Stephan

Edited July 24, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Yuhau]

Thank you , all of you . Your comments are invaluable and greatly appreciated .  I do enjoy travelling light being a retiree ( over 65). I  do mostly  landscape as well as street photography. The equipment being discreet will be important  and also  i have to bring along a  backup camera either M240 or a T, with one common set of lenses if possible . Hence, I now have to really look at the camera bag size  and do some math on the total weight  .

 

In the mean time,  I hope I can negotiate  with the dealer to buy the camera now with option to honour the kit deal within  a week or so. In the mean time, I shall seek the opportunity  to  try out the 24/90 .     

[DTM]

Thank you , all of you . Your comments are invaluable and greatly appreciated .  I do enjoy travelling light being a retiree ( over 65). I  do mostly  landscape as well as street photography. The equipment being discreet will be important  and also  i have to bring along a  backup camera either M240 or a T, with one common set of lenses if possible . Hence, I now have to really look at the camera bag size  and do some math on the total weight  .

 

In the mean time,  I hope I can negotiate  with the dealer to buy the camera now with option to honour the kit deal within  a week or so. In the mean time, I shall seek the opportunity  to  try out the 24/90 .     

 

 

Sounds like a good choice. I am in a similar position and decided not to get the SL-24-90 because of the weight and my preference to not rely on zoom lenses. I hope to buy the SL-50mm once it comes out to provide the AF option when needed. Enjoy your trip!

[tom0511]

If you get the SL I would also get the zoom. The flexibility, speed and IQ is great.

 

If you wanted to just use M and R primes you dont need a SL, you can just bring your M tyype 240.

 

Using T lenses on the SL will crop them to 10MP, so I rather use them on the T.

 

I believe a SL+24-90 + a fast M prime (35/1.4) for the evening and a 180 or 80-200 R are a great combo.

Bring a T or M as backup.

[Yuhau]

Sounds like a good choice. I am in a similar position and decided not to get the SL-24-90 because of the weight and my preference to not rely on zoom lenses. I hope to buy the SL-50mm once it comes out to provide the AF option when needed. Enjoy your trip!

Thanks... Will be busy getting use to this new toy in the next few days   

[Yuhau]

If you get the SL I would also get the zoom. The flexibility, speed and IQ is great.

 

If you wanted to just use M and R primes you dont need a SL, you can just bring your M tyype 240.

 

Using T lenses on the SL will crop them to 10MP, so I rather use them on the T.

 

I believe a SL+24-90 + a fast M prime (35/1.4) for the evening and a 180 or 80-200 R are a great combo.

Bring a T or M as backup.

 

 

Thanks , actually the SL is my solution to my  diminishing eyesight . My strategy has been to focus with range finder for as long as I can .... M240 is great  (with some assist  from a so.. so.. EVF), Then the SL will give me the ability to manually focus having a great  EVF with better focus  peaking and magnification . When that fails or  becomes more difficult for me , AF lenses come in .

[earleygallery]

The SL body is large but not massively so. The 24-90 is a beast though, so I would suggest that you visit a dealer and see for yourself. I certainly wouldn't want to carry that combo around all day for casual photography. 

[Yuhau]

The SL body is large but not massively so. The 24-90 is a beast though, so I would suggest that you visit a dealer and see for yourself. I certainly wouldn't want to carry that combo around all day for casual photography. 

agree ... That's one of worries I have .

[LocalHero1953]

The SL body is large but not massively so. The 24-90 is a beast though, so I would suggest that you visit a dealer and see for yourself. I certainly wouldn't want to carry that combo around all day for casual photography. 

Clearly you need the 90-280SL. After that the 24-90 feels small.

[thighslapper]

For a long trip as you describe the SL + 24-90 would be perfect and all you need. 

 

No heavier than a body and selection of M lenses and far more convenient. 

 

From my experience you will not miss <24mm or >90mm focal lengths except on very rare occasions. 

 

Take a small bag just big enough for the camera + lens and use a hand strap rather than the neck- strap ...... much more comfortable to carry. 

[DTM]

Thanks , actually the SL is my solution to my  diminishing eyesight . My strategy has been to focus with range finder for as long as I can .... M240 is great  (with some assist  from a so.. so.. EVF), Then the SL will give me the ability to manually focus having a great  EVF with better focus  peaking and magnification . When that fails or  becomes more difficult for me , AF lenses come in .

 

 

Exactly why I purchased the SL. 

 

Don't sweat the set up. There is a lot to set and customize. Customize the buttons the way you like then go out and shoot. You'll quickly find out what works and what doesn't. Manual focus lenses makes the setup simpler since many of the settings are for AF.

[jaapv]

Why not go for the T? Nothing wrong  with camera and a lot more compact.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[David Dennis]

Thanks , actually the SL is my solution to my  diminishing eyesight . My strategy has been to focus with range finder for as long as I can .... M240 is great  (with some assist  from a so.. so.. EVF), Then the SL will give me the ability to manually focus having a great  EVF with better focus  peaking and magnification . When that fails or  becomes more difficult for me , AF lenses come in .

 

 

Tragically, we all have to deal with diminishing eyesight, and in that case I would definitely buy the zoom.  High ISO performance with the SL is very good up to about ISO 12,800.  

 

Of course if you really want to deal with radically lowering size and weight, consider the Q.  That has excellent autofocus, and as you probably know word of mouth on the camera could hardly be better.

 

If you don't mind me asking, what kind of discount were they offering to bundle the SL and the zoom?  I would really love a SL, but the combined staggering price of the body + lens is a huge impediment, alas.