SL - Leica Primes or Autofocus?

[elwyn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I came to the SL (which I really like) from M9/M240 and brought with me a couple of v.good lenses - 50mm cron asph/apo, and the 35mm Lux asph/fle. I'm now being offered a very good price for a 24mm lux. however, I cant afford it unless I sell the 24-90 that I bought when I got the camera. The zoom is a really great lens but I'm finding that, for me, the weight means that I'm leaving it at home too much. Should I forsake the convenience of the 24-90, and its compatibility with the SL, and to go back to 100% Leica primes or stick with the zoom?  

[darylgo]

The 24 Summilux is an outstanding lens, I'm sure you won't be disappointed.  I use the 24/f3.8 Elmar M on my T with superb results, it is cheap (for Leica), tiny and optically without peer.  

[meerec]

The 24 Summilux is an outstanding lens, I'm sure you won't be disappointed.  I use the 24/f3.8 Elmar M on my T with superb results, it is cheap (for Leica), tiny and optically without peer.

 

I use the same elmar 24/3.8 on my SL ... it is a fantastic piece of glass.

[meerec]

I came to the SL (which I really like) from M9/M240 and brought with me a couple of v.good lenses - 50mm cron asph/apo, and the 35mm Lux asph/fle. I'm now being offered a very good price for a 24mm lux. however, I cant afford it unless I sell the 24-90 that I bought when I got the camera. The zoom is a really great lens but I'm finding that, for me, the weight means that I'm leaving it at home too much. Should I forsake the convenience of the 24-90, and its compatibility with the SL, and to go back to 100% Leica primes or stick with the zoom?

 

If I were in your shoes, I'd sell 24-90 and buy the 24 lux without even blinking. Then would wait till June 2017 to buy the SL native 75 or 90 summicron !! It's pretty much my path, although besides the M primes I've bought the 90-280 zoom for longer FL. I'm happy with my selection of M glass and can't wait till 75 summicron is out next year.

[caissa]

If the Summilux 24 is very important for your work or creativity, then of course do the exchange.

If it is not so crucial, why not simply wait some time. It will look different in a month or two.

Or try to pay it piece by piece or take a small credit/loan. 

If it is really such a special occasion, then you can afford to pay the interest rates for a loan.

[Jeff S]

How important is robust weather sealing to you?  The native SL lenses.....zooms and primes....are the best in this regard (besides offering AF).  But the native primes are also big, so carrying several of them would be a haul....and expensive.  

 

For me, nothing beats an M for using M lenses (28-90, and no 'specialty' lenses like the Noctilux); I would only consider an SL for its other benefits.  YMMV.

 

Jeff

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I only use my SL with M primes plus a few from other manufacturers. No plans for a 24-90 yet, if ever.

[LocalHero1953]

Unless you tell us more about your photography subjects and style of shooting, any advice you get here is going to be fairly random!

 

Do you still have an M?

Professional or amateur?

Weddings and events? Sports? Portraits? Landscapes? Macro? 

 

Any of these might demand different lenses or cameras.

[MT0227]

If you are leaving the 24-90 at home, I think you have answered your question.  A few other things to consider: a) how much shooting have you done beyond 50mm where you need the reach? Can you give up AF at the prime focal lengths?

 

I think a 24,35,50 is a nice prime set; you can carry the 24/50 or just go with the 35 to lighten things up;

 

I just sold my M-P 240 and acquired an SL...I have a 21SEM, 35FLE and Notci f/1....I generally carry any combination of the 3; sometimes all 3 with no problem. 

 

 

the weight means that I'm leaving it at home too much. 

[thighslapper]

I find the logic behind all these arguments rather puzzling.

 

The trio of lenses mentioned in the first and last post clock in at approx. the same weight as the 24-90 ...... the only difference is that 2 are in a bag and you have the inconvenience of having to change them and miss out on 75 and 90mm. 

 

Since I changed permanently to a handstrap/grip for the SL instead of dangling it round my neck the 'weight' issues have vanished. I have tramped around all day with it and although it could not be described as  'unnoticed' it has never been a problem. 

[appleman]

I find the logic behind all these arguments rather puzzling.

 

The trio of lenses mentioned in the first and last post clock in at approx. the same weight as the 24-90 ...... the only difference is that 2 are in a bag and you have the inconvenience of having to change them and miss out on 75 and 90mm. 

 

Since I changed permanently to a handstrap/grip for the SL instead of dangling it round my neck the 'weight' issues have vanished. I have tramped around all day with it and although it could not be described as  'unnoticed' it has never been a problem. 

My view as well.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

If you can afford it and still feed your family then do what you want. You can always swap back later if it doesn't work out.

 

Photography should be enjoyed. So just do that.

 

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

When I was in the US back in September, I carried the SL and 24-90 zoom with the Tie Her Up strap rolled around my wrist (lens cap off).  It was comfortable, quick and easy to use, and not at all tiring.  The 24-90 zoom is such a good lens, I find I'm not using my M lenses with the SL as much as I thought I would.

 

The only toss up I have is whether to take an M body or the SL and zoom - the SL with 24-90 is still a big camera.  Not as imposing as one of the big Nikon or Canon SLRs, but still bigger and more imposing than an M and prime.  I'm finding I have developed a strong aversion to changing lenses in the wild (despite my preference for primes) - fiddling around with camera gear when I'm out wandering just pisses me off.

[ramarren]

When I was in the US back in September, I carried the SL and 24-90 zoom with the Tie Her Up strap rolled around my wrist (lens cap off).  It was comfortable, quick and easy to use, and not at all tiring.  The 24-90 zoom is such a good lens, I find I'm not using my M lenses with the SL as much as I thought I would.

 

The only toss up I have is whether to take an M body or the SL and zoom - the SL with 24-90 is still a big camera.  Not as imposing as one of the big Nikon or Canon SLRs, but still bigger and more imposing than an M and prime.  I'm finding I have developed a strong aversion to changing lenses in the wild (despite my preference for primes) - fiddling around with camera gear when I'm out wandering just pisses me off.

 

 

I don't have any real aversion to changing lenses, I just tend to carry two primes and shoot with one of them for an extended period of time. Lately, I've taken to carrying the M-D with only the Color Skopar 50mm lens ... And I've been carrying the SL with only the Super-Elmar-R 15mm lens. 

 

It is what's been working for me. 

[appleman]

When I was in the US back in September, I carried the SL and 24-90 zoom with the Tie Her Up strap rolled around my wrist (lens cap off).  It was comfortable, quick and easy to use, and not at all tiring.  The 24-90 zoom is such a good lens, I find I'm not using my M lenses with the SL as much as I thought I would.

 

The only toss up I have is whether to take an M body or the SL and zoom - the SL with 24-90 is still a big camera.  Not as imposing as one of the big Nikon or Canon SLRs, but still bigger and more imposing than an M and prime.  I'm finding I have developed a strong aversion to changing lenses in the wild (despite my preference for primes) - fiddling around with camera gear when I'm out wandering just pisses me off.

 

Yes, I use a wrist strap which I find better than a shoulder strap with my SL and 90/280 lens. Having just bought the SL kit and as it has impressed me so much I am pondering selling my spare M9-P with 50mm Summicron lens and putting towards the 24/90 SL lens. My SL set up with M 240 camera and lenses should cover most of my needs.

[jrp]

I tend to use the AF zooms when the light is good and faster M lenses for indoor / poorer light shooting, or when I need shallow depth of field, for whatever reason.  Horses for courses, etc.

[MT0227]

Well....for one, the OP said he was leaving the 24-90 at home given its weight...that is about all you really need to know.   Seems like the OP may be more comfortable with primes.  Worst case, he'd be carrying the same weight across serval lenses; but only one is in hand which makes for a lighter shoot in hand.  Plus, he still has flexibility of going lightweight and more compact.  Also, it was not known how much shooting the OP does at 75-90, he may not be missing anything.  I'm also going by what else the OP has, assuming the M240 and M9 are still in his bag, the 24lux can be used across all 3 bodies...the 24-90 only 1.

 

I have an M6, and quite happy and comfortable using it with with my M primes (21sem/35lux/50f/1).  I sold my M-P240 before it depreciated to a point of having to keep it.  The SL gives me much more of a tool to use with my Noctilux f/1 and 21sem compared to the M-P240 + EVF and why I made the decision to re-invest. 

 

So...some of the decision has to consider what you have and what you do with it.   AF + Zoom beyond 50mm may not necessary be such a need or added convience for some.  The ability to use lighter lenses one already has, ones you are already use to focusing manually, are also that much easier to focus on the SL.  For some, this is all the added convenience they need.  

 

 

I find the logic behind all these arguments rather puzzling.

 

The trio of lenses mentioned in the first and last post clock in at approx. the same weight as the 24-90 ...... the only difference is that 2 are in a bag and you have the inconvenience of having to change them and miss out on 75 and 90mm. 

 

Since I changed permanently to a handstrap/grip for the SL instead of dangling it round my neck the 'weight' issues have vanished. I have tramped around all day with it and although it could not be described as  'unnoticed' it has never been a problem. 

[leica1215]

The SL gives me much more of a tool to use with my Noctilux f/1 and 21sem compared to the M-P240 + EVF and why I made the decision to re-invest.

Can you please tell a bit more about which part of SL is actually better than the M-P ? Besides the EVf which I have awared , what about focus peaking? Is it also better than M-P? And elsewhere? I was buying the SL to give a try of " new and different , mainly because of the AF , but so far haven't feel this AF is that great ... so still learning and try to find something special about the SL

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steppenw0lf]

It's all about expectations. The SL with 90-280 is for me just as good (fast and precise) as my Canon gear. So my expectations are 100% fulfilled. But Canon AFc and SL "tracking focus" are not working in the same way - but I never expected this.

I have never used the M-P. But I have a M246 and I know exactly when to use each camera. There never is an overlap.

But it is not simply one element that is "better" than another. It is a different approach. (Each camera has its own approach).

 

Regarding focus peaking. This is mainly for manual use. I do often use manual lenses (had no SL lenses the first 6 months). It is not very different (M246 vs SL), only that the SL EVF is more responsive and gives me much more details and is more user friendly (I am wearing glasses).

More important than FP is 10x enlargement or zoom. I use it all the time with manual lenses and it is the best I know for macro usage. (On the SL with high-res finder).

 

Maybe you could also say the difference is WYSIWYG. Very nice for a demanding lens like the Noctilux. Generally very good if you like total control of your image. (Polaroid on steroids). 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LD_50]

Can you please tell a bit more about which part of SL is actually better than the M-P ? Besides the EVf which I have awared , what about focus peaking? Is it also better than M-P? And elsewhere? I was buying the SL to give a try of " new and different , mainly because of the AF , but so far haven't feel this AF is that great ... so still learning and try to find something special about the SL

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I shoot the SL and M-P.

 

SL is better built, has weather sealing, better handling with larger lenses with a better grip, better DR and noise at higher ISO, better focus peaking, better with wide lenses due to the high quality EVF, better buffer, better with long exposures, allows access to the SD cards and battery without removing a bottom plate, shoots dual cards, has AF, allows joystick control of manual focus zoom with M lenses, has built in GPS, etc etc.

 

The only advantages the M-P offers for me are the smaller size with M lenses, the discreet appearance, auto zoom with manual focus lenses in LV, and the rangefinder shooting experience.