SL purchase question...

[Donzo98]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was wondering the motivation for you guys to buy the SL. Like I have stated previously, I just bought a Q and really love it. I am brand new to Leica.

 

Being a DSLR and interchangeable lens guy... I am curious about the SL. Why did YOU chose to buy it?

 

They way I see it... the only real reason to buy it is for people who have invested pretty seriously in Leica glass. It seems manually focusing using the SL is better than on any previous Leica to date. However, if someone is new to Leica, has no other Leica glass, and wants AF, the SL system is lacking badly.

 

It just seems like it's not ready for prime time yet. A Nikon D5 is cheaper, has better AF, HIGH ISO performance and a better selection of AF lenses.

 

So is the ease of use with older Leica glass the main reason most of you bought??

 

Don't get me wrong... I am not saying I don't like the SL. On the contrary... I'm looking for a reason to buy it

[LocalHero1953]

The reasons come from yourself. Just try it. Then decide if you want a Nikon D5 or Leica SL.

[ramarren]

The current SL lens portfolio includes two excellent zooms which cover the range from 24mm to 280mm with performance that matches or exceeds the vast majority of prime and zoom lenses on the market, and include excellent AF and IS as well. In addition to that, you can use nearly any Leica lens in the R and M system with customized lens profiles that ensure they render as they were intended to for their native mounts/cameras. In addition to that, you can use the fully dedicated Leica T system lenses in APS-C mode for full AF as well. In addition to that, you can adapt nearly any OTHER makes lenses to the SL, for some with auto focus as well as Leica Cine and other more specialized lenses. And, of course, there are five more SL dedicated lenses due out over the next year or so (a wide zoom and four primes). 

 

So there's really no shortage of lens options for the SL at all. 

 

But that's not why I bought the SL. I bought the SL because it has all the features and capabilities I wanted in a modern camera, the best control ergonomics I'd found, had a brilliant native 24-90 mm lens (the range I tend to use the most), and worked better with my kit of Leica R lenses from 15mm to 250mm than anything else I tried. The body is slim and fits my hands like my old film SLRs did, unlike any modern DSLR. The image quality seen in the files produced by the SL out does anything I've experimented with short of a medium format Hasselblad digital back. 

 

So, for me, the SL camera hit the numbers right on the head and was immediately the best choice. My Nikon system and Olympus system has been sitting unused since I bought the SL; I sold the Sony kit completely. I used some of the Nikkors on the SL for a while, but generally I prefer the rendering qualities of the Leica R lenses and native SL lens. 

 

Why should you buy it? I don't know. You don't say what kind of photography you like to do or what sort of lenses you want to work with, two bits of information critical to why you might want to buy a particular camera. You only say that you read the spec sheet and don't understand it, but you want one. ??? If you want one, and that's the only reason, then buy it and see what uses you can put it to. 

[earleygallery]

I haven't bought an SL but the people I know who have bought one already have M and R lenses to use with it, plus it gives them the additional option of having an AF camera with the native SL zooms.

 

As a digital back for users with M, R and other lenses it offers a great solution.

 

It has also seemed popular with M users who have started to find the rangefinder difficult to focus with accurately. They can keep using their M lenses on a Leica with a much better EVF than the optional one on the M.

 

However if you are looking to buy into a stand alone FF AF system then surely a Canon or Nikon is better given the vast range of lenses on offer, as well as faster/more reliable AF in some circumstances.

[Donzo98]

The current SL lens portfolio includes two excellent zooms which cover the range from 24mm to 280mm with performance that matches or exceeds the vast majority of prime and zoom lenses on the market, and include excellent AF and IS as well. In addition to that, you can use nearly any Leica lens in the R and M system with customized lens profiles that ensure they render as they were intended to for their native mounts/cameras. In addition to that, you can use the fully dedicated Leica T system lenses in APS-C mode for full AF as well. In addition to that, you can adapt nearly any OTHER makes lenses to the SL, for some with auto focus as well as Leica Cine and other more specialized lenses. And, of course, there are five more SL dedicated lenses due out over the next year or so (a wide zoom and four primes). 

 

So there's really no shortage of lens options for the SL at all. 

 

But that's not why I bought the SL. I bought the SL because it has all the features and capabilities I wanted in a modern camera, the best control ergonomics I'd found, had a brilliant native 24-90 mm lens (the range I tend to use the most), and worked better with my kit of Leica R lenses from 15mm to 250mm than anything else I tried. The body is slim and fits my hands like my old film SLRs did, unlike any modern DSLR. The image quality seen in the files produced by the SL out does anything I've experimented with short of a medium format Hasselblad digital back. 

 

So, for me, the SL camera hit the numbers right on the head and was immediately the best choice. My Nikon system and Olympus system has been sitting unused since I bought the SL; I sold the Sony kit completely. I used some of the Nikkors on the SL for a while, but generally I prefer the rendering qualities of the Leica R lenses and native SL lens. 

 

Why should you buy it? I don't know. You don't say what kind of photography you like to do or what sort of lenses you want to work with, two bits of information critical to why you might want to buy a particular camera. You only say that you read the spec sheet and don't understand it, but you want one. ??? If you want one, and that's the only reason, then buy it and see what uses you can put it to. 

 

Thanks for the well thought out response. I shoot landscape. portraits and street stuff. No sports or serious action... other than once in a while. I do like to shoot available light so HIGH ISO performance is important for sure.

 

I come from a Nikon background... with a ton of Nikon glass. I buy and sell plenty... and I am definitely a gear guy Love buying/selling... trying etc.

 

After using the Q for a while... I sold my D810 and kept the D5. The D5 lives with a 24-70 attached. I love the D5 IQ and build... but hate the size. I even sold the 70-200 a few times... because I never used it. I have the new 300 F4 and the 105 F1.4 which are smaller and stellar.

 

I am intrigued by the SL... and would likely get the 24-90 to use on it... It's smaller than the D5 which I like... and I love the EVF for sure. Seeing the size of even the new 50 SL... it's damn big. Lenses are not like to get smaller any time soon.

 

Decisions, decisions...

 

Problem is... even to try the SL for a while is crazy expensive. I have been sort of looking for one... but would need the 24-90 to use on it too. Quite the outlay of cash.

[Donzo98]

I haven't bought an SL but the people I know who have bought one already have M and R lenses to use with it, plus it gives them the additional option of having an AF camera with the native SL zooms.

 

As a digital back for users with M, R and other lenses it offers a great solution.

 

It has also seemed popular with M users who have started to find the rangefinder difficult to focus with accurately. They can keep using their M lenses on a Leica with a much better EVF than the optional one on the M.

 

However if you are looking to buy into a stand alone FF AF system then surely a Canon or Nikon is better given the vast range of lenses on offer, as well as faster/more reliable AF in some circumstances.

 

Exactly my thoughts... just confirming. I am also not likely to start buying MF Leica glass to use on it either. Pretty happy with AF at this point in my life.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Problem is... even to try the SL for a while is crazy expensive. I have been sort of looking for one... but would need the 24-90 to use on it too. Quite the outlay of cash.

 

Can't you visit a Leica dealer? I'm sure they'd let you stick a memory card in and play with the combo for a while.

[Donzo98]

Can't you visit a Leica dealer? I'm sure they'd let you stick a memory card in and play with the combo for a while.

 

Yup... next stop for sure. I think Leica in NYC will be getting a visit.

[dancook]

I have a Leica Q, I bought a Leica SL and sold my Nikon D750.

 

For events and weddings I was using the Leica Q alongside the Nikon D750 with 85mm 1.8g, this was working great.

 

The Leica Q I love for travel and street photography, however I never found any love for the D750 outside of work, it just didn't inspire me to use it for fun.

 

I started looking for a ~50mm FL for something a bit different the Q to capture clean lines without distortion, something portable and pleasurable to use. It became a toss up between the SL and X1D.

 

In the end I bought the SL with a 90-280mm lens and 50mm 1.4 Lux Leica-M.

I got the 90-280mm mainly so I could sell the Nikon happily knowing I can still cover weddings, and I could join my wife with her 55-210 on the A6000

I would quite like the 50mm noctilux, but I have no money now.. and I will have to save again. I will also pay attention to see how the 50mm 1.4 SL turns out.

[LocalHero1953]

AF seems to be a divisive issue with the SL, for both reviewers and members here.

If that is critical to you, then you just have to try it yourself - no amount of advice here or spec sheets will tell you what you need to know.

As far as I am concerned and what I use it for, the SL's AF does exactly what it says on the tin, fast. And I am happy with the AF in low light as well. Others disagree - so try it!

[LD_50]

I owned a D4 and D4s prior to the SL. I also tested the D5.

 

Both of those cameras (and the D5) are better for high ISO, high speed, tracking AF, and challenging AF situations.

 

The SL is smaller, includes wifi and GPS without expensive dongles, is MUCH better for manual and critical focus (EVF), and is for me much more enjoyable to shoot. The build quality is fantastic. It also allows use of tiny high quality lenses (M). Higher resolution is a plus. SL 24-90 is better in my opinion than the various Nikon zooms I've owned (17-35, 24-70G, 18-55 APSC).

 

If Nikon were to have produced a hybrid OVF/EVF I would likely still have a large assortment of Nikon gear. I may in that case also shoot an M and SL.

 

All that said, why does anyone care why anyone else chooses to buy one piece of gear over another? Test them out if you're serious about buying and decide what you like. Don't worry what anyone else thinks.

[CYBORA]

 

I'm looking for a reason to buy it

 

You can have the similar colors, rendering and crispness of your Q while you can interchange lenses. I am not talking professionally but when my friends see a photo from my Q, it gives them a WOW factor, but a Nikon file does not make the same impression, this is just my experience.

 

Of course the lack of prime lenses is bad, there is not even a wide fast lens scheduled yet. You will be only able to get some F/2.0 lenses in 2 years, maybe at least 3 years waiting time till the fast wide primes.

[Chaemono]

 

Of course the lack of prime lenses is bad, there is not even a wide fast lens scheduled yet. You will be only able to get some F/2.0 lenses in 2 years, maybe at least 3 years waiting time till the fast wide primes.

If one can afford it and deal with the weight the 50 Summilux-SL makes waiting a pleasure.

[Donzo98]

You can have the similar colors, rendering and crispness of your Q while you can interchange lenses. I am not talking professionally but when my friends see a photo from my Q, it gives them a WOW factor, but a Nikon file does not make the same impression, this is just my experience.

 

Of course the lack of prime lenses is bad, there is not even a wide fast lens scheduled yet. You will be only able to get some F/2.0 lenses in 2 years, maybe at least 3 years waiting time till the fast wide primes.

 

Not to mention that the overall package SL plus any of the AF lenses is HUGE compared to the Q.

 

The size of the Q is one of the main reasons I like it so much...

[steve_lee]

If one can afford it and deal with the weight the 50 Summilux-SL makes waiting a pleasure.

I tried the 50 Lux yesterday and it made the 24-90 seem so light. It really is a beast of a lens. Try the M 50 Lux on the SL. Manual focus but sublime.

[Chaemono]

I tried the 50 Lux yesterday and it made the 24-90 seem so light. It really is a beast of a lens. Try the M 50 Lux on the SL. Manual focus but sublime.

Yes, yes, I don't disagree. I don't own the M 50 Lux. If I owned it I wouldn't have gotten the Summilux-SL.

 

Just on the weight of the lens, for what it's worth, when I held it in the store it felt very heavy. When I got home it still felt very heavy and I almost had buyers remorse. But when I was out shooting it for the first time I forgot about the weight. Now, I want to go out and shoot it. I can't get enough of this lens. By the way, the reason why I didn't get the M 50 Lux instead besides that I wanted AF as an option and weather sealing is I'm not 100 percent happy with the results I get from my other M primes on the SL. I always preferred using the 24-90 with the SL.

[MT0227]

I had purchased an M-P 240 a few months prior to the SL release, I wanted a compact digital rangefinder I could carry every day.   I also acquired 3 M lenses along the way:  21SEM, 35FLE and Noctilux f/1.   Unfortunately over time, the .68 view finder of the M-P was getting harder to focus as my eyes got older; plus I wear glasses which didn't help.  I had the EVF2 for the M-P, but it was just too slow and laggy for me, especially compared to the SL.   From a retail price perspective the SL= M-P + EVF2...if you shoot M lenses you will pay a $500 premium to acquire the M-SL lens adapter.  

 

I figured it was time to sell the M-P + EVF2 before I lost more cash on depreciation, using the proceeds toward the purchase of the SL+adapter.  Bottom line... I can shoot my M lenses more effectively and creatively with the SL compared to the M-P, with just a small increase in footprint size of the camera body.  I use my SL only with M lenses from 21, 35 and 50mm.  I may add the 90 APO now which was not an option with M-P; was just too hard to achieve consistent critical focus.  I have my D4 for sports photography and for shots at 80mm-400mm where AF may be needed (80-200 f/2.8 VRII; 200 f/2.0G VRII; 2x tele converter).  The SL and D4 are my digital kits.

[LocalHero1953]

A different look at the weight.

Yes, the SL is heavy, and the SL lenses are large and heavy. As a trial, I took the SL and 24-90 on a trip to Bologna and spent a couple of days walking around the city with the camera in a hand strap (too heavy/bulky for a neck strap IMO). I found it OK, but just OK: it wouldn't be my choice as a carry around camera. But as a camera to shoot with, it is well balanced, and the weight is not a concern: my muscles are tensed for shooting and the weight gets taken in its stride. I find the 90-280 equally acceptable in a shooting session, but I do find myself limbering up to swing the longer lens up into position.

 

So if you want a camera to carry around looking for shots, then IMO it is too heavy for long periods (I stick to the M). As an active shooting camera, the weight is just not an issue.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I bought the SL because it's the best 24MP mirrorless camera on the market. Canon and Nikon refuse to take mirrorless seriously so there is nothing they make that interests me in the slightest. The EVF and it's advantages have become an integral part of my shooting workflow. To me, cameras like the 1Dx2 and D5 are huge, complex and crippled. The last thing I want is to spend an hour setting up my AF parameters and guessing exposure through an OVF.

 

All of the Canikon lenses that interest me (T/S and specialty lenses) can be used on the SL with no limitations. The two SL zooms are exactly what I would have requested as I find the 24-70 to short for me. Since much of my shooting either revolves around specialty lenses or a set of zooms a fast 50 and a short tele when Leica made the SL announcement they also announced all three of the lenses I wanted. I have a 100mm Makro Planar until an AF short tele becomes available. Unlike some, I actually was aware from the brochure that the lenses would be larger. I went in completely aware of how big the system would be. The 50 looks to be exactly what I had hoped for. It's big but again, I don't think it's as huge as some feel it is. It's trying to be close to an AF Otus. And it's no bigger than the Otus, Sigma Art or Sony GM. It's bizarre seeing people complain about the size of the 50 when there's been a picture of it in the brochure for a year.

 

So with the current SL lenses and my adapted lenses I have a 10-12 lens system that works exactly how I want it to and with no compromises.

 

I have cameras from all the major mirrorless players. I could have expanded my Sony setup but the cameras are too complex and fiddly for their own good. and the best lenses are the same size as the SL lenses. The SL build and usability are superior. I could have expanded my Fuji setup. But the lack of T/S lenses is an issue. I *need* the 17mm TSE. Same for m43.

 

I'm not constantly worried about what the SL doesn't have. It's my 80% camera. The camera that's ideal 80% of the time. For the other 20% I use something else. The Pen F and PanaLeica 100-400 is an excellent wildlife shooting combination. In decent light it's not that far behind the SL in IQ. If I were going on Safari I wouldn't take one camera. So the SL with zooms and a fast 50 plus a Pen F and 12-100 plus 100-400 (800mm equivalent) seems ideal to me. Someone else might have an 80D and 100-400 Canon. The Fujifilm XT2 has excellent noise control and a fabulous 100-400mm. I don't feel dirty if I shoot another brand as well as Leica. And I don't get frustrated by what it can't do. I enjoy what it does better than everybody else, which just happens to suit the vast majority of my photography.

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Donzo98]

I bought the SL because it's the best 24MP mirrorless camera on the market. Canon and Nikon refuse to take mirrorless seriously so there is nothing they make that interests me in the slightest. The EVF and it's advantages have become an integral part of my shooting workflow. To me, cameras like the 1Dx2 and D5 are huge, complex and crippled. The last thing I want is to spend an hour setting up my AF parameters and guessing exposure through an OVF.

 

All of the Canikon lenses that interest me (T/S and specialty lenses) can be used on the SL with no limitations. The two SL zooms are exactly what I would have requested as I find the 24-70 to short for me. Since much of my shooting either revolves around specialty lenses or a set of zooms a fast 50 and a short tele when Leica made the SL announcement they also announced all three of the lenses I wanted. I have a 100mm Makro Planar until an AF short tele becomes available. Unlike some, I actually was aware from the brochure that the lenses would be larger. I went in completely aware of how big the system would be. The 50 looks to be exactly what I had hoped for. It's big but again, I don't think it's as huge as some feel it is. It's trying to be close to an AF Otus. And it's no bigger than the Otus, Sigma Art or Sony GM. It's bizarre seeing people complain about the size of the 50 when there's been a picture of it in the brochure for a year.

 

So with the current SL lenses and my adapted lenses I have a 10-12 lens system that works exactly how I want it to and with no compromises.

 

I have cameras from all the major mirrorless players. I could have expanded my Sony setup but the cameras are too complex and fiddly for their own good. and the best lenses are the same size as the SL lenses. The SL build and usability are superior. I could have expanded my Fuji setup. But the lack of T/S lenses is an issue. I *need* the 17mm TSE. Same for m43.

 

I'm not constantly worried about what the SL doesn't have. It's my 80% camera. The camera that's ideal 80% of the time. For the other 20% I use something else. The Pen F and PanaLeica 100-400 is an excellent wildlife shooting combination. In decent light it's not that far behind the SL in IQ. If I were going on Safari I wouldn't take one camera. So the SL with zooms and a fast 50 plus a Pen F and 12-100 plus 100-400 (800mm equivalent) seems ideal to me. Someone else might have an 80D and 100-400 Canon. The Fujifilm XT2 has excellent noise control and a fabulous 100-400mm. I don't feel dirty if I shoot another brand as well as Leica. And I don't get frustrated by what it can't do. I enjoy what it does better than everybody else, which just happens to suit the vast majority of my photography.

 

Gordon

 

 

Thanks for the response. Much appreciated.