Jump to content

Buying the SL for someone, but which lens? Hmm


LostBoyNZ

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm sure she will be delighted ....... but one lens will never be enough ...... and with the price of Leica lenses by the time you have bought 2 (and the adapter) you have just about spent as much as a 24-90 zoom.

 

..... and although using lenses with manual focus on the SL is fine ..... you have taken two steps forward and one step back in terms of the usability of the camera. 

 

There is always used M lenses which are better value ...... but a gift of a new camera plus a second hand lens doesn't really sound that wonderful.

 

The economics of your decision just don't  stack up...... nor will the ultimate satisfaction in the camera and proposed lens choice (whichever M lens you get).

 

The SL + 24-90 is a killer combo ....... and if the result is jettisoning all the old gear on eBay it may turn out to be not that expensive after all.

 

Anyway, there is always pawning or selling a kidney ......

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is no aperture ring on a Nikon lens, then it is often a G lens. And there are adapters for Nikon G lenses. Maybe a third of my Nikon lenses are G lenses.   (Or a E lens if VERY new and most likely a tele lens, E = electronic diaphragm)

G lenses have no aperture ring BUT a mechanical aperture mechanism, that is completed by these G adapters.

Only E lenses have NO mechanical (only electronic) aperture mechanism.

 

As Ken Rockwell writes: In the case of tele lenses like the 200-500mm f/5.6E, this isn't much of a problem because we usually shoot long lenses wide-open, in which case the E lenses are compatible with everything.

 
Most modern E lenses are teles. There are only few E wideangles I think (most new WA are of type G). But the 2.8/24-70 is of type E.
Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

...

As Ken Rockwell writes: In the case of tele lenses like the 200-500mm f/5.6E, this isn't much of a problem because we usually shoot long lenses wide-open, in which case the E lenses are compatible with everything.

...

 

I must say, I find this a very strange comment.

 

Call me old fashioned, but I was brought up to believe - (1) tele lenses have a shallower depth of field (I appreciate that it is more complex than this, but the truism remains accurate), and (2) the best glass is in the middle of the aperture range (too wide, things go soft, too small an aperture, diffraction becomes an issue).  Granted, telephoto lenses tend not to suffer so much from the same issues shooting wide open as wides do, but for me the issue is always achieving an acceptable shutter speed than shooting wide open ...

 

I'm not saying this is wrong, it just looks odd.  Maybe it's just because it comes from Ken Rockwell, who says strange things most of the time, it seems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud your desire to spoil your wife on her birthday. I understand completely :)

 

However...

 

It would be folly to buy her such an expensive and particular camera without her first trying it out!

 

I leant more about which Leica digitals are a fit for me in 15 minutes at a well stocked Leica dealer than in 6 months of reading online.

 

Take her to a dealer and put the cameras in her hand. If she loves how it feels to hold, she will use it more.

 

Good luck!

 

J

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, in some ways even the M9 still appeals (the colors from that CCD sensor) as an option.

 

On the other hand, despite recommended prices being quite different, it appears I can get the SL for the same price as the M 262 online. And I know she'd salivate over the 11 fps vs 3 fps of the SL vs M 262.

 

Agreed though, if I went for an older M body, that'd leave more money for a great lens.

 

hahaha not sure the monochrom would go down so well :p But yeah I still have thinking to do. Maybe with whatever Leica that gets announced next month, that'd bring down the price of the other M bodies too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am puzzled why you have settled on the SL, unless she has already expressed a preference. Two things you have said is that light weight is an attraction for her, and she likes the manual focus experience. To me, this says the M would be a better option. This is an expensive purchase to get wrong on her behalf.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I must say, I find this a very strange comment.

I'm not saying this is wrong, it just looks odd.  Maybe it's just because it comes from Ken Rockwell, who says strange things most of the time, it seems.

 

I quoted him, because I did not want to have to explain it, but to leave this burden to him.

But I understand what he means - and it is much simpler than what you think into it. It is only related to the simple question, can an E lens be used on a non-compatible camera. Yes, surprisingly it can with this restriction.

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to take it seriously? :huh: It's her photography dream to switch to Leica (yes she's used some Leica's before), so I've been putting a bit aside for a long time, along with selling some of my gear, ready for her 30th birthday.

 

She loves the look and color science of Leica photos right out of camera (and really doesn't enjoy post processing), and the light weight lenses solve a big problem she has with her Nikon gear.

 

I know she'll take stunning shots with it, and really enjoy it  :)

 

Which Leica/s has she used before? Why is it her dream to switch to Leica when she uses Nikon gear? And what is the 'look and color science' you refer to?

 

Leica make quite a diverse range of cameras today and they cater for different needs (as well as budgets to a degree).

 

As your wife is used to an optical finder in her Nikon she may not like the EVF of the SL. Also you're paying a lot for an AF body to just use MF lenses with it. If your wife prefers ultra wide and manual focus then the M would be a better choice, although with a new M likely to be announced soon you may want to hold fire on buying a new one just now.

 

Also to rely on jpeg output is not going to get the most out of the camera (any camera really). It's a bit like buying a Ferrari for someone who likes to stick to 30mph roads because they don't like driving fast.

 

Ultimately I agree with the others here that suggest taking your wife to a Leica dealer and letting her try some of the options first, so she ends up with something that's really best for her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish someone secretly planned to buy me a Leica SL.  :rolleyes:

 

Most of the women photographers in my photo group look at my Leica Ms and shrug: "eh, who cares?"

All of them look at the SL, back to their current Nikon or Canon, and then wish they could afford the SL. 

 

I think buying one for someone who is comfortable using an SLR is a no-brainer. It's an SLR with a better viewfinder and a larger range of lenses that can be used with it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for all the comments :)

 

steppenw0lf that's very interesting about the adapters, I'll have to look more into those.

 

Sorry this is such a short reply (very busy week), but I have read them all and will still keep an M camera in the options :) And, haha, totally agree on RAW vs JPEG. Even when it comes to dynamic range, you lose a lot of what the sensor actually captured just going with JPEG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, I find this a very strange comment.

 

Call me old fashioned, but I was brought up to believe - (1) tele lenses have a shallower depth of field (I appreciate that it is more complex than this, but the truism remains accurate), and (2) the best glass is in the middle of the aperture range (too wide, things go soft, too small an aperture, diffraction becomes an issue).  Granted, telephoto lenses tend not to suffer so much from the same issues shooting wide open as wides do, but for me the issue is always achieving an acceptable shutter speed than shooting wide open ...

 

I'm not saying this is wrong, it just looks odd.  Maybe it's just because it comes from Ken Rockwell, who says strange things most of the time, it seems.

It is not that odd, on long lenses avoiding motion blur is the #1 priority, so unless one is working from a tripod, they are normally used wide open or closed down one stop. Lens designers take that into account and that is the reason long lenses are often better at wider apertures compared to shorter ones. As an extreme example, the Apo Telyt R 280/4.0 has its optimum aperture at 4.0 and is diffraction limited.

 

About the DOF, n this case it is not so much determined by the focal length but mostly by subject distance and crop (of course the distance of the subject  and crop determine the focal length choice) and as long lens subjects are often far away, thus getting closer to hyperfocal distance and angles of view are small, you'll find that the increase of DOF on stopping down is often not as much as one would expect.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

 

DOF vs. focal length for a given magnification, DOF is essentially independent of focal length. Stated otherwise, for the same subject magnification and the same f-number, all focal lengths for a given image format give approximately the same DOF.

 

This statement only holds true at or close to hyperfocal distance, which is the way long lenses are often used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, I find this a very strange comment.

 

Call me old fashioned, but I was brought up to believe - (1) tele lenses have a shallower depth of field (I appreciate that it is more complex than this, but the truism remains accurate), and (2) the best glass is in the middle of the aperture range (too wide, things go soft, too small an aperture, diffraction becomes an issue).  Granted, telephoto lenses tend not to suffer so much from the same issues shooting wide open as wides do, but for me the issue is always achieving an acceptable shutter speed than shooting wide open ...

 

I'm not saying this is wrong, it just looks odd.  Maybe it's just because it comes from Ken Rockwell, who says strange things most of the time, it seems.

 

 

Diffraction also depends on focal length. Some of the finest planetary/lunar telescope designs with e.g. focal lengths of 1200mm to 2500mm have relatively small focal ratios e.g. f15 to f22; they exhibit nil CA and diffraction is not an issue. They are used for astro photography too (guided long-ish exposures) as well as regular astro observing. 

 

dunk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Diffraction also depends on focal length. Some of the finest planetary/lunar telescope designs with e.g. focal lengths of 1200mm to 2500mm have relatively small focal ratios e.g. f15 to f22; they exhibit nil CA and diffraction is not an issue. They are used for astro photography too (guided long-ish exposures) as well as regular astro observing.

 

dunk

Dunk, how do binoculars compare with photographic lenses in this respect?

 

(Sorry, rather off-topic.).

Edited by Peter H
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunk, how do binoculars compare with photographic lenses in this respect?

 

(Sorry, rather off-topic.).

 

 

 

Regular binoculars, including regular observation binoculars (i.e. observation binoculars designed for 15x to 40x (ish) magnifications) , and which are essentially a pair of 'folded telescopes', do not have the very long focal length objectives used in diffraction free planetary / lunar refractor telescopes. Binoculars are designed to gather as much light as is needed for comfortable observing. With binoculars, for any given ocular (eyepiece) focal length, the wider the diameter of the matched focal length binocular objective, the brighter the image. Binoculars' (and telescopes' ) magnifications' are determined by objective focal length divided by ocular (eyepiece) focal length - thus medium focal length objectives can be matched to short focal length eyepieces to give a high magnification. Regular and observation binoculars are thus prone to the same aberrations as photographic lenses.  Diffraction is not usually an issue because binoculars do not usually have iris diaphragms. However, some astro observing enthusiasts build their own binoculars by using two telescopes side by side (or via an over & under configuration) … thus some planetary / lunar observing specialists would be happy to use two very long focal length small aperture planetary 'scopes as a binocular - but purely for lunar and planetary observing - the moon and planets being relatively bright, night sky objects. But such a binocular (unwieldy and heavy but they do exist)  would not be so good for regular terrestrial observing, or for deep sky observing. Also bear in mind that astronomers are happy to wait  30 to 40 minutes for their eyes' night vision to adjust to darkness - enabling the use of small aperture telescopes. Night sky observing is very different to daytime observing. 

 

​But also bear in mind that binoculars' and telescopes' acceptable distortion and flatness of field (when used for for visual observing)  would be unacceptable in a photographic lens. Photographic lenses are more highly corrected in these respects. Photography via astro telescopes usually requires use of a supplementary field flattener lens for optimum results - unless the telescope is designed as an 'astrograph' - used primarily for astrophotography. 

 

At the recent Birdfair 2016, I looked through several high end binoculars costing in excess of £1500 - they all showed pin cushion distortion at the edges of the image field when observing vertical poles and distant buildings … but I doubt that most observers would notice as they concentrate on the centre of the image. In a photograph the distortion would likely be immediately noticed. 

 

Best wishes

 

 

dunk 

Edited by dkCambridgeshire
  • 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...