SL or not SL with M lenses ?

[vladik]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am currently using M 240 with several Leica M lenses 28, 35, 50, 75 and a Leica R 80-200. SL is tempting, but I reed reports that the M lenses do not perform on SL as well as on M (perhaps not suppressing) especially in corners. I could afford the 24-90 zoom after selling M lenses, but the whole setup would be too big and I do not want that. My question to SL users using M lenses: what is your experience using M lenses on SL body. I am mainly photographing nature and landscape. Thanks for your comments in advance.

[Advertisement]

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

[meerec]

Mate, just search this forum. That is what search is for. There are hundreds of posts that discuss it already, there is no need to start again.

 

I am currently using M 240 with several Leica M lenses 28, 35, 50, 75 and a Leica R 80-200. SL is tempting, but I reed reports that the M lenses do not perform on SL as well as on M (perhaps not suppressing) especially in corners. I could afford the 24-90 zoom after selling M lenses, but the whole setup would be too big and I do not want that. My question to SL users using M lenses: what is your experience using M lenses on SL body. I am mainly photographing nature and landscape. Thanks for your comments in advance.

[steppenw0lf]

I find they work great on the SL and focusing is easier (with 10x enlargement and/or focus peaking). Especially if focus point is not in center.

See the Reid Reviews website for more technical details and example photos. It's not free but well worth the money.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Except for the 28 they all perform the samme or better on the SL. That's part of why we have new 28's recently. They are further optimised for the digital sensors.

 

I have already sold one of my Ms and will be parting with th eother as well. Now I have the SL I just don't use them.

 

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

It really depends on what the lenses are. The 28 Summilux performs better on the SL (see Sean Reid's review), there are no problems with the 35 Summilux FLE, the Noctilux performs better on the SL (Kristian Dowling), the 50 Summilux ASPH is fine and I've had no trouble with the 75 Summilux on the SL - I imagine the 75 Summicron is fine. The 90 Summicron is certainly fine on the SL.

 

Problem lenses would be the 28 Summicron ASPH (previous version) - I seem to recall that both Sean & Jono Slack commented that likely problem lenses are those where the rear element protrudes out of the rear of the lens at infinity - they you might have a problem with extreme corners ... at inifinity.

 

In other words, no - unlike the Sony A7 series, the SL generally doesn't have problems with M lenses, unless they problematic lenses. Almost all current Leica lenses are fine. Best you just check yours, and see if they are a problem - then you have a choice of upgrading them, or switching to the zoom. Just remember, size is an issue ...

[richherzog]

When I purchased the SL (body only), I also had the M-P 240 and the 50mm Lux and 28mm Cron. After using both bodies side by side with my 2 lenses, I sold the M-P and haven't looked back. The SL is equal to, or surpasses the M-P in many aspects. 

[vladik]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am currently using M 240 with several Leica M lenses 28, 35, 50, 75 and a Leica R 80-200. SL is tempting, but I reed reports that the M lenses do not perform on SL as well as on M (perhaps not suppressing) especially in corners. I could afford the 24-90 zoom after selling M lenses, but the whole setup would be too big and I do not want that. My question to SL users using M lenses: what is your experience using M lenses on SL body. I am mainly photographing nature and landscape. Thanks for your comments in advance.

 

P.S.  I should have specified type of lenses that I have in my original post as this might be relevant, they are: Elmarit-M 1:2.8/28 ASPH., Summicron-M 1:2/35 ASPH., Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 ASPH., APO-Summicron-M 1:2/75 ASPH.

[thighslapper]

The lenses you have should work perfectly well..... or at least comparable to the M 

 

The issues mentioned concerning the few wide angle lenses that don't work as well as on the M are confined to the extreme corners ........ which in most cases will either be mostly featureless sky and OOF close foreground.

 

Unless you are intent on photographing walls and buildings any deficiencies will be un-noticed in all but the most critical applications.

 

I did a lot of tests here ......  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/252842-m-lens-performance-on-the-sl/page-6?do=findComment&comment=2929734

 

and others have posted similar here and there .....

[chris_tribble]

My experience so far is that I'm much happier with an M240 for the range 28-75. I am able to focus and meter more quickly and greatly prefer the RF experience in complex lighting situations.  I got the SL to use mainly with 21 SEM and focal lengths at 75 and above.  I currently use the SL with 75 / 90 / 135 + R lenses 35-70 f4 ROM and 80-200 ROM.  These all work beautifully, though I do have problems with the VF in bright outdoor light and some back lit situations.  As reported by others, the original 28 cron asph (a bread and butter lens for me) is horrible on the SL for some bizarre reason.

My 2 cents would be that if you're happy with the M experience, DON'T go for the SL.  If, however, you want to get maximum use out of your R 80-200 the SL might be worth considering.  On the other hand, a used Canon 5D3 + an L series 70-200 f4 lens (if weight is an issue - otherwise go for the f2.8) would cost you a fraction of the money you'd have to sink into the new camera, and, IMHO, when it came to the print, the Canon would give just as good results + the added value of IS and AF.

As with all things, it's a question of which tool for which job. At the moment I'm not sure if the SL really fits into my tool kit.

Hope this helps.

[steppenw0lf]

What a drama.

The Elmarit-M 28 Asph V1 is a tiny bit weaker than the new Elmarit-M 28 Asph V2 in the corners, mainly when taking photos at or near infinity.

Sean Reid has tested it thouroughly. Without these tests nobody here would have noted a difference. And both lenses are some of the best 28mm available from any supplier.

Do not believe everything you hear - especially not if people do not know the difference between V1 and V2 (or are too lazy to write it down correctly).

 

So believe the personal experiences, but for technical details see the original test websites (Sean Reid or others).   

[thighslapper]

 

 

I am currently using M 240 with several Leica M lenses 28, 35, 50, 75 and a Leica R 80-200. SL is tempting, but I reed reports that the M lenses do not perform on SL as well as on M (perhaps not suppressing) especially in corners. I could afford the 24-90 zoom after selling M lenses, but the whole setup would be too big and I do not want that. My question to SL users using M lenses: what is your experience using M lenses on SL body. I am mainly photographing nature and landscape. Thanks for your comments in advance.

 

As Chris says ...... you need to question your motivation for changing to SL.

 

You will not fully exploit this camera without the dedicated AF lenses. 

 

SL + 24-90 plus an add-on Marumi lens for macro would be perfect for nature/landscape. If you want something longer there are plenty of good 280mm+ manual lenses you could get quite cheaply. 

 

An SL with 24-90 is no heavier than the body with 2 or 3 M series lenses in a bag, and much more versatile and easy to use. 

 

Without wishing to disparage the choices of others on this forum, getting an SL body just to use with M lenses instead of an M strikes me as rather pointless ...... as well as, or as an interim measure till you can afford an SL lens, I can understand. 

[Guest VVJ]

I sold the SEM 21mm, Summicron 28mm and Summicron 35mm to fund the 24-90mm zoom lens.

 

From an optical quality point of view I am not missing anything... the zoom lens is excellent.

 

But the lack of small convenient walkaround lenses is an issue for the SL IMO and a hurdle towards wider acceptance of the SL.

 

It sounds like Leica realized this and the next wave of Summicron lenses will be smaller (although not really small yet...).

 

I keep on using the Leica Q for those purposes but I would love to have an ELmarit-M 28mm/f2.8 like lens for the SL...

 

Please also take into account that the 35mm is only scheduled for beginning of 2018 (1.5 years from now) and no 28mm has been scheduled yet...

 

 

[LocalHero1953]

You say you like nature and landscape. If that means walking significant distances, then I would not think of the SL. You are likely to need a tripod as well, which means a sturdier tripod than for the M and one of its lenses.

 

IMO, anyone thinking of the SL for M lenses, and without particular eyesight problems, would gain little from the SL over the M, and would lose portability. The SL sensor is better, but, for me, it doesn't outweigh its size and weight disadvantages. And a new M with a better sensor than the SL will be along soon.

 

If you can't handle the rangefinder, then the SL is the obvious alternative for M lenses.

 

As others have said, the SL comes into its own with its native lenses. I use it for portraits, musical events, dance and occasional macro. As I don't walk far with it, the weight of the kit is not an issue. The AF, EVF and exposure management options are massive advantages over the M for this usage.

 

Did someone ask about the last time someone on the forum said "horses for courses"? Horses for courses.

[steppenw0lf]

The SL has the advantage that both R and M lenses work really well. On the M240 you can also use both, but ...     it is no pleasure to use R lenses.

So you can buy the SL to use BOTH lens types and many more (Contax, Nikon, Canon, etc.), AND finally the SL AF lenses (when they finally arrive, and if there is enough money to pay for them).

The SL is very flexible, so hardly anybody restricts him/herself for all times only to M lenses.

 

If you are going to use only M lenses (if you can predict the future) and you have good eyes and you know how to cope with focus shift with M lenses, and you don't mind getting your photo equipment serviced/calibrated from time to time, then definitely use only M cameras.

By the way, I have a SL and a M246 (and M4-P and M6, and R4 and R6) - so do NOT believe them, if people try to tell you, you have to sell your M or other older gear, if you buy an SL.   

[MRJohn]

I am currently using M 240 with several Leica M lenses 28, 35, 50, 75 and a Leica R 80-200. SL is tempting, but I reed reports that the M lenses do not perform on SL as well as on M (perhaps not suppressing) especially in corners. I could afford the 24-90 zoom after selling M lenses, but the whole setup would be too big and I do not want that. My question to SL users using M lenses: what is your experience using M lenses on SL body. I am mainly photographing nature and landscape. Thanks for your comments in advance.

 

For nature and landscape I probably don't notice any difference (I switched from the MP240 to the SL and had kept them alongside for 6 months). So whatever your motivation is to switch to the SL, the M lenses will be fine for the purposes you describe, if they were before.

[Lynx]

For me the SL is perfect for nature and extended hiking in remote areas, where I carry the 24-90 and a summilux m fle. Portability is no issue, more important for me is weather sealing and flexibility. Picture quality from the 24-90 is stellar and the system is quick, responsive and fun to shoot.

 

At home, I use the SL mostly with R-primes and sometimes my M-primes. The R lenses work very nice for walking around the streets. In the streets, weather sealing is not that crucial, there are workarounds.

 

My M240 is still the camera I have in my pocket when I leave for work, and also my second body when I travel to urban areas.

 

The M is also great fun to use, but the SL get more time from me simply because It's so versatile.

 

//Johan