Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted January 13, 2017 Share #21 Posted January 13, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree, the S-adapter is large in itself and adds to the bulk. I like to see my SL as a small (and a little ugly) camera, I much prefer to use the small M lenses on this baby. But for someone who already has the S system, it's a great combination of the bodies ability to share the lenses. +1 I even bought the Nikon adapter so that I can use the Otus 55mm, but even though the IQ is amazing its just too big for a walk about camera Neil Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 Hi Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS, Take a look here Leica SL and Leica S, who's having both for a portrait comparison?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ropo54 Posted June 22, 2018 Share #22 Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) Posted this to revive this thread. Leica SL 601 w S 70. As others have said, while the AF is definitely slower, the end result looks pretty good. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited June 22, 2018 by ropo54 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266698-leica-sl-and-leica-s-whos-having-both-for-a-portrait-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=3541679'>More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted June 23, 2018 Share #23 Posted June 23, 2018 Posted this to revive this thread. Leica SL 601 w S 70. As others have said, while the AF is definitely slower, the end result looks pretty good. Intersetingly there is a 70mm S Summicron in my local store for under £1700/$2250 and it's in mint condition (it's the regular rather than the central shutter version). It seems most other places sell it second hand for closer to £2500/$3100. I guess the field of view on the SL would be about equivalent to 100mm? Even with the adapter it would be less expensive an option than the 90mm SL-Summicron. Do you also have the S Ropo? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanD Posted June 23, 2018 Share #24 Posted June 23, 2018 I guess the field of view on the SL would be about equivalent to 100mm? Even with the adapter it would be less expensive an option than the 90mm SL-Summicron. There is no conversion that is needed. The 70S on the SL will still be a 70mm. You will just be using then center portion of the lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted June 23, 2018 Share #25 Posted June 23, 2018 Yes, I have a newly acquired s006. I tried out the s70 on my slyand the results were excellent , so I’m now thinking to acquire a sly adapter. I’m also in the process of acquiring a s 35 and s 120. I’m not in a position to compare the s glass to the sl options other than to note that the AF is a bit slower. For the price of the s 70 you can acquire at your local shop I would think you d have a fantastic portrait option! Rob 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted June 23, 2018 Share #26 Posted June 23, 2018 Let me add as well: manual focus on the s lenses is superb. As stated the s lens option is a bargain at that price! Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted June 23, 2018 Share #27 Posted June 23, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, I have a newly acquired s006. I tried out the s70 on my slyand the results were excellent , so I’m now thinking to acquire a sly adapter. I’m also in the process of acquiring a s 35 and s 120. I’m not in a position to compare the s glass to the sl options other than to note that the AF is a bit slower. For the price of the s 70 you can acquire at your local shop I would think you d have a fantastic portrait option! Rob Well funny you should mentione the S006 as the same shop has one of those as well. The body and lens were traded in together by of the employees who swapped it out for something else, not sure what. They have been in the shop for about six months now. For the pair they want a fraction under £4300/$5700. Given I know them very well and given they've been sat there for ages I would not be surprised if they would sell them to me for closer to £4k/5k. What puts me off even considering it is the useable ISO range of the S006; 800 seems to be the most you'd ever use and 400 is good. Outside of a studio or without lighting it's ostensibly a film camera I guess. I will be very interested to see your resutls with it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted June 23, 2018 Share #28 Posted June 23, 2018 There is no conversion that is needed. The 70S on the SL will still be a 70mm. You will just be using then center portion of the lens. Sure a 70 is a 70 is a 70, but the crop factor still has an effect on what you see versus where you stand. In order to see the same field of view with the S70 on the SL you'd have to stand a few metres further back with it mounted on the SL no? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanD Posted June 23, 2018 Share #29 Posted June 23, 2018 No. The 70 on the S acts like a 56mm. So the “crop factor” takes it from 56mm back to 70mm on the SL. So when you put the 70S on the SL it stays a 70 in terms of 24x36?FOV. If you the S on the CL (which sadly doesn’t work), it would have been a 105. This is thought the be part of the medium format look. Imagine you are on a bridge and shoot with a 35S. You would need a 28mm to get the same shot on the SL. Imagine you are stopping down a lot to minimize Bokeh and you are printing small enough to ignore diffraction. It is theoretically easier to make a 35mm MF lens with less distortion than a small 28 FF lens. Modern designs have made FF much better not unlike earlier Leica 24x36 designs made it much easier to compare to larger film formats. Even APS-C lenses are good now. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted June 23, 2018 Share #30 Posted June 23, 2018 (edited) Well funny you should mentione the S006 as the same shop has one of those as well. The body and lens were traded in together by of the employees who swapped it out for something else, not sure what. They have been in the shop for about six months now. For the pair they want a fraction under £4300/$5700. Given I know them very well and given they've been sat there for ages I would not be surprised if they would sell them to me for closer to £4k/5k. What puts me off even considering it is the useable ISO range of the S006; 800 seems to be the most you'd ever use and 400 is good. Outside of a studio or without lighting it's ostensibly a film camera I guess. I will be very interested to see your resutls with it. Greg, You are spot on with respect to the iso limitations. Notwithstanding, however, I think in good lighting, the S 006 shines. (If you get to the point of considering one, first ask about the sensor and what happens if the one you are considering corrodes, as it is a $5K replacement . . . so best you find one where the sensor has been addressed). At the price point for the 006 it is worthy of consideration; there is very little downside regarding the price moving forward. I am still looking for a well-priced 007, but am now wanting to see how the S lenses do on the SL. In my limited effort so far, I was quite happy. Once my 35 and 120 arrive I will give it another try. Rob Edited June 23, 2018 by ropo54 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted June 27, 2018 Share #31 Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) Having the SL (my main system, all zooms but only the 75Cron-SL prime) and S006 w/24, 35, 70 and 120mm (purcased used), and after looking at quite SL and S image tanken with prime, my understanding is that the optically characteristics of the SL-prime(s) and the S-primes are quite similar - and outstandingly fine. Where the S006 beat the SL is at low ISO, with better headroom in both shadows and highligts pluss, as staten above, somewhat different oof rendering. It takles a litte time to get used to S006 when coming from the SL, BUT now I love my S, and I use it as much and as ofte as I can. Highly recommmended! Edited June 27, 2018 by helged 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted June 27, 2018 Share #32 Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) Having the SL (my main system, all zooms but only the 75Cron-SL prime) and S006 w/24, 35, 70 and 120mm (purcased used), and after looking at quite SL and S image tanken with prime, my understanding is that the optically characteristics of the SL-prime(s) and the S-primes are quite similar - and outstandingly fine. Where the S006 beat the SL is at low ISO, with better headroom in both shadows and highligts pluss, as staten above, somewhat different oof rendering. It takles a litte time to get used to S006 when coming from the SL, BUT now I love my S, and I use it as much and as ofte as I can. Highly recommmended! Helged: Have you tried the S lenses on the SL body with the S adapter? I know the autofocus with the S lenses is slower, but do you have any impressions from that combination? Rob Edited June 27, 2018 by ropo54 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted June 27, 2018 Share #33 Posted June 27, 2018 Helged: Have you tried the S lenses on the SL body with the S adapter? I know the autofocus with the S lenses is slower, but do you have any impressions from that combination? Rob Sorry - I have only limited experience with the S-lenses on the SL. Of the SL-zooms, I am very impressed with the SL 16-35, particularly with it's sharpness across the frame, strongly controlled chromatic aberrations and resistance to flare, so I doubt the (otherwise) excellent 24mm-S (or 35mm-S, for that sake) will add much/anything to the new SL zoom. And for sure, the S-lenses are more prone to flare than the 16-35 SL. But the 120mm-S could be an outstanding lens on the SL - but I simply haven't used this combo enough to conclude. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted June 27, 2018 Share #34 Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) I posted some photos with the 120 S on my SL a few months back. It gives lovely images. Not as easy to use as the CL with its 60 macro, though. Here's an 120 example: S1010153 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr and an album with several different approaches to macro: https://www.flickr.com/gp/133969392@N05/Vb13mg Edited June 27, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted June 27, 2018 Share #35 Posted June 27, 2018 Much as I like the idea of an S with 70S Summarit, when the SL and 50SL produces results as sublime as this I am not sure the extra cost is justified! And yes, I know there's nothing more boorish than zelous convert! Brighton Beach, Sunrise Sunday by Greg Turner, on Flickr 13 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted June 27, 2018 Share #36 Posted June 27, 2018 Terrific! Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 2, 2018 Share #37 Posted July 2, 2018 Cracking portrait ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.