Leica SL ...does it fulfill the needs?

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am considering selling my SL +24-90 + 90-280 for some reasons:

1) lens size and lens availability.

It is excellent IQ, but the lenses are big and heavy. I would prefer a 90-200/4.0 in smaller size, and I would like to have some primes available as well. Or a compact 180/2.8 as an addition to the 24-90.

Except the body itself I prefer the T lens line up.

I really think the limited availability of native SL lenses sucks.

And Leica seems slow bringing more lenses.

If I put the new 50/1.4 on the SL the combo is nearly as heavy as a S+70/2.5 ....

 

I dont see a reason to put a manuel M lens on the SL, since I own and prefer a rangefinder for those lenses. Except maybe longer focal lengths or lenses with focus shift.

 

2) C-AF 

I own a M for 35 and 50mm non action, a S for max. IQ and the plan for the SL was to use it for flexibility and fast pace things. But today I wonder if I was not served better with a Nikon D500, D750 or a EM1II for such things.

The SL AF is fine, but C-AF doesnt seem to be as great as Leica promotes.

 

So there are some nice things for sure: a great EVF (even though I am not sure if I still prefer OVF) which allows to use all kind of exotic lenses, very good IQ, very good zooms (2 only though).

 

But paying a premium price for an uncomplete system with average C-AF performance...

 

[anickpick]

I would definitively keep the SL as a second body for your M lenses, especially for those outside the 28mm - 50mm range.

And later the upcoming crons might be something for you if you need AF.  Personally, I am perfectly fine with the M primes.

[ramarren]

I don't use C-AF in any normal operation so I can't really judge its performance, but the SL works beautifully for me for everything I throw at it. I stopped using my Nikon D750 the day the SL arrived and have not seen a reason to pick it up again. 

 

For me, the SL is superbly complete, does everything I need/want, and if I could only have one camera it would do it all. I run its native 24-90 and a passel of Leica R lenses on it, reserving my M lenses for my M-D.

[LD_50]

Your two reasons seem contradictory. That said the SL won't satisfy them even separately at this point.

 

For your needs I don't see the SL ever made sense. If you want small size and weight, you don't buy it. If you want AF tracking and high speed stuff you don't buy ANY CDAF camera system. Seems like you were looking for DSLR capability and chose something else entirely. Olympus may offer the best combination of small size and action capability, though IQ is not up to FF standards.

 

Small primes in any system (including Nikon and Olympus) are not the types of lenses typically used for action with C-AF.

 

The Olympus pro zoom lenses are definitely smaller than FF lenses, but then you're giving up quite a bit in IQ. They are not all that small compared to small FF primes.

 

Nikon's "action" type lenses are large in size and weight. The trinity (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) are not any smaller than the SL zooms. I shot a D4s with those three and the 200 f2 and it was a great setup for action shots, sports, BIF. The size and weight was substantial. The AF was amazing. As an all around kit I don't know if you can beat Nikon's best. I got rid of it though because the PDAF required adjustments not yet possible at different focal lengths, no EVF option looks like it will ever be available, and I wanted a system that would offer high quality and make good use of my M lenses.

[HeinzX]

For your requirements the SL system seems not be the right choice, so sell it. For others, i.e. for me it is just the right thing. I have sold my M 240 plus lenses and my 5 D III. The M 240 because I have problems with my eyes and want to have an autofocus. But I kept some Canon lenses (some very special

ones, which will probably never be available frim Leica) and my 70/200 2.8 IS II USM because I do not

like the very bulky 90/280 from Leica and most of my pictures are made with lenses between 11 and

90 mm. For using the Canon lenses I bought the Novoflex adapter - in case of the 70/200 the AF is

slower than with the 5 D III and AF-c is not possible, but I do not shot sport. . The rendering of the SL is excellent, evenwith the Canon lenses, that is what I like especially. But this all is my own situation and others have other priorities and requirements. In case of the TO I would go for a Canon 5 D

IV or one of the Nikons - there is a wide choice of lenses which are smaller than the Leica ones.

[scott kirkpatrick]

My M240 is sitting unused while its lenses (even the 28, 35 and 50s) are getting outings on the SL.  So if I had to keep only one of them it would definitely be the SL.  I'm even checking out the black Friday deals to see if anyone is about to give away what could be my second SL.  That would give me one with the R-L adapter and one with the M-L adapter.  The second reason that the M240 isn't getting much work is that the Fuji X-Pro 2 provides AF, a better operating UI and nearly equal quality (at a significantly lower cost, if it gets dropped or stolen).

 

scott 

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you for the comments. I have to admit that in one way my "goals" reasonable sized lenses and fast tracking AF might be contradictory in a way because most cameras with very good CAF and fast lenses are not small either. However the available SL lenses are big and expensive, but still do not C-AF as good as promoted from Leica. Ok, I should maybe have known that contrast AF is slower,  but I still was hoping that also contrast C-AF develops and gets up to the level.

Lets just say I did hope that the C-AF difference compared to phase.AF DLSRs was a bit smaller.

 

I did know about the lens size upfront, so my own fault. I still think Leica is on the wrong track with the 50/1.4 SL lens in regards of size and weight.

 

I also realize that its a personal thing, many users seem to like using M primes on the SL, while I still prefer the shorter focal lengths up to 75mm using on the M body. 

 

It would make my decision to keep the SL much easier if the 35 and 75 Summicrons would come sooner, and if there also was a smaller Tele lens available soon.

 

I am probably not still there to sell the SL (also because used price do not seem that great for sellers).

[tom0511]

For your requirements the SL system seems not be the right choice, so sell it. For others, i.e. for me it is just the right thing. I have sold my M 240 plus lenses and my 5 D III. The M 240 because I have problems with my eyes and want to have an autofocus. But I kept some Canon lenses (some very special

ones, which will probably never be available frim Leica) and my 70/200 2.8 IS II USM because I do not

like the very bulky 90/280 from Leica and most of my pictures are made with lenses between 11 and

90 mm. For using the Canon lenses I bought the Novoflex adapter - in case of the 70/200 the AF is

slower than with the 5 D III and AF-c is not possible, but I do not shot sport. . The rendering of the SL is excellent, evenwith the Canon lenses, that is what I like especially. But this all is my own situation and others have other priorities and requirements. In case of the TO I would go for a Canon 5 D

IV or one of the Nikons - there is a wide choice of lenses which are smaller than the Leica ones.

Have you ever missed your 5dIII?

[steppenw0lf]

Maybe you should wait for the next one or two firmware releases. (January with the 1.4/50 ?)

There are rumors that improving AF is one of their targets.

The way I use the 90-280 it is just as fast and precise as my Canon gear. Additionally it is noiseless and better balanced. And IQ is even better. So I cannot complain and have no plans to sell it (not after waiting so long for it.)

But I never relied too much on tracking AF.

 

If I see the 90-280 on my desk I find it big. But as soon as I have started using it, I forget about it, because it is so well balanced with its constant length and internal focus. While I hardly ever forget my 5Ds and 100-400 when I am using it.   

 

Why not try the T lens instead (the Apo 55-135 which is 80-200 equivalent). It's quite small, has apo correction and Leica quality. To me it looks exactly like what you are hoping for. And you can decide any time if lower weight or higher resolution is appropriate for your project.

[thighslapper]

Everything to do with camera equipment is about compromises ...... either dictated by the laws of optics, physics or the cost of manufacture in trying to get round them ......

 

If it doesn't do it for you, sell up and move on.

 

.... though I suspect you will still be having the same conversation in 10 years time looking at a different pile of photo gear ...... 

[tom0511]

Maybe you should wait for the next one or two firmware releases. (January with the 1.4/50 ?)

There are rumors that improving AF is one of their targets.

The way I use the 90-280 it is just as fast and precise as my Canon gear. Additionally it is noiseless and better balanced. And IQ is even better. So I cannot complain and have no plans to sell it (not after waiting so long for it.)

But I never relied too much on tracking AF.

 

If I see the 90-280 on my desk I find it big. But as soon as I have started using it, I forget about it, because it is so well balanced with its constant length and internal focus. While I hardly ever forget my 5Ds and 100-400 when I am using it.   

 

Why not try the T lens instead (the Apo 55-135 which is 80-200 equivalent). It's quite small, has apo correction and Leica quality. To me it looks exactly like what you are hoping for. And you can decide any time if lower weight or higher resolution is appropriate for your project.

 

Yeah, but then I rather use the T lenses with the 16MP of the T. The AF of the T-lenses is by the way not quite a bit slower than the SL-lenses.

[HeinzX]

No, I did not miss the 5 D III. But I mainly shoot table tops, architecture,macros and lenscape. All things which need no fast AF if any. Along with the 24/90

from Leica I use mainly the Canon 11/24 (AF nearly as good as with the 5 D III), the MP-E 65 special lens - has no AF even with the Canons, the macro 100 mm

(the AF is not even great with the Canons in macro distance and often not used in this situation) and the Canon 180 mm macro - AF does work a little bit slower

than with the Canons).

[ramarren]

Thank you for the comments. I have to admit that in one way my "goals" reasonable sized lenses and fast tracking AF might be contradictory in a way because most cameras with very good CAF and fast lenses are not small either. However the available SL lenses are big and expensive, but still do not C-AF as good as promoted from Leica. Ok, I should maybe have known that contrast AF is slower,  but I still was hoping that also contrast C-AF develops and gets up to the level.

Lets just say I did hope that the C-AF difference compared to phase.AF DLSRs was a bit smaller.

 

I did know about the lens size upfront, so my own fault. I still think Leica is on the wrong track with the 50/1.4 SL lens in regards of size and weight.

 

I also realize that its a personal thing, many users seem to like using M primes on the SL, while I still prefer the shorter focal lengths up to 75mm using on the M body. 

 

It would make my decision to keep the SL much easier if the 35 and 75 Summicrons would come sooner, and if there also was a smaller Tele lens available soon.

 

I am probably not still there to sell the SL (also because used price do not seem that great for sellers).

 

 

I much prefer using M lenses on an M, and I like the M lenses I have, which is why I have (and use!) the M-D quite a lot in addition to the SL. 

 

The SL body shape, viewfinder location, and control ergonomics all together work best for me with its dedicated lenses and with Leica R lenses. The SL dedicated lenses are not so different in size compared to Leica R lenses, which is really the system that the SL replaces rather than the M system. Looking for "small" on the order of the average M lens with the SL seems, to me, just unrealistic. The new Summicron primes should be a nice step more compact than the SL24-90, SL90-280, and Summilux-SL 50/1.4, but I don't think that "small" is really in the mix given the size of the lens mount and proper ergonomics of the body-lens package. (One of the funniest things I fool with occasionally is fitting my M-mount Skink Pinhole to the SL ... it is unbalanced that way, feels like I'm shooting with a body cap...)

 

I've not really used C-AF much with any camera, despite having had it with Canons, Nikons, Pentaxes, Olympuses, etc for many years now. I'm old-school, I guess: I tend to shoot fast moving subjects (racing cars, motorcycles, boats, ball sports, etc) by picking my focus zone, setting focus manually, and tracking the action into my focus zone before making an exposure. That said, when I've use it with any of the above cameras, it doesn't seem to perform any differently to me than using it with the SL: I get about the same 'miss rate'. Which is most of the time, which is why I continue to switch to manual focus and work the traditional way without relying upon the machine to do the job for me. 

 

 

The SL90-280 is appealing in that it hits the two tele settings I find myself wanting (180mm and near-300mm) while providing image stabilization and AF when desirable. It is bulky but not so much bulkier than the fast pro zooms I've used on both Nikon and Canon; and it's surely a better built and performing lens than any of the Nikon/Canon zooms in the range I've used. But I've not bought one yet; I don't use such long focal lengths often enough to warrant spending that money. What would tickle me specifically would be a compact 180mm f/4 with AF and IS, and a reasonably compact 300mm f/4 with AF and IS. A pair of lenses like that, each priced in the $3000 range, would be more sensible for me—along with a matched 2x Extender-SL. That would open up the range to more choices. 

 

It's still early days in the SL line, the camera has been shipping now for just over one year. They've made good progress with three firmware updates (each of which added significantly to its capabilities), the 90-280, the R Adapter SL, the battery grip, and now (soon) the Summilux 50mm. This camera is for the long haul, for me, so advancing on the system in measured steps and not too quickly, allowing for plenty of incremental development, suits my needs well. 

[tom0511]

I didnt expect M-like primes but I also didnt expect them to be as big as S-like primes. Something in between would be nice for my needs.

I do have to admit that the 24-90 is very flexible though.

Well, in the end I guess I will keep it and see what comes. Video is also one area where the SL works quite well.