Some SL questions for a newbie

[phovsho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all

 

It's been along time since I was on this forum. Trying to get my photography mojo back. Have an idea for project so pulled out the M Monos (version 1) and realised my eye sight is now such that I can't focus at f0.95 and 1.4. So I pulled the trigger on a secondhand SL with 24-90. A lot of anxiousness before it arrives - will it be in many ways the antithesis of my M shooting head set.

 

Anyways I was hoping some folks could answer a few questions for me:

 

1. The SL-50 - does anyone know the closest focus distance? Also I read somewhere that the upcoming summicrons with have depth of field at f2 close to 1.4 on traditional lens. Did I read this right - it was an interview with the head of Leica lens design? If so, is this also true of the SL-50? How does the dof for the Sl-50 compare with the Nocti and the M 50/1.4? I'm torn on the SL-50 - I have a 50/.95 but wonder if the SL-50 or the M 50 apo might be a nice addition.

 

2. Does anyone have direct experience with the M21/1.4 on the SL? Interested in focusing at 1.4 on the SL and the quality of images.

 

3. Does anyone use early M lens on the SL? I'm talking say 50mm collapsible or rigid? I got into these on the monochrom and was wondering if they are a good match with the SL. More generally, how are folks finding the SL as a B&W Camera?

 

4. How are folks finding the eye tracking on AF lenses for tight DOF portraits? Seems like a nice feature say on the SL-50.

 

5. Interesting to me how many people have taken to the 24/90 zoom - given initial reservations coming from M. Is that interest holding up with time. I see it as a good all purpose general lens, but unlikely to be my first choice for specialist assignments. Safe assumption? BTW my core M lens on an m body have been Wate, 21/1.4, 35/1.4, nocti, 50 rigid, 75/1.4, 90/2 APO.

 

Apologise for the random questions. Pre-arrival excitement. I apologise for the indulgence

 

Best

 

Murray

[Advertisement]

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

[thighslapper]

1. On mine the camera registers 0.6m at the closest focus point. You can add a Marumi or similar macro lenses to get down to 10cm if you want to get much closer though. Leica claims a steeper focus drop-off on this lens which accentuates the shallow DOF. No idea if this optical change will be extended to the other primes. The SL 50 has very good '3D' rendering wide open being a bit more contrasty (or less soft) than the 0.95 or 1.4. I doubt you would notice it in practice though unless doing critical side by side comparisons. The ONLY real advantage of the SL 50 is AF ..... and it is a lot extra to pay for the privilege. If you have a Nocti already you will not be missing much. The Nocti handles nicely on the SL and is a pleasure to use. Save your money for something else. 

 

2. No, but as you can focus the 50/0.95 manually on the SL even without enlarging the image or peaking it should be a doddle. All the modern design wide angles perform excellently on the SL

 

3. Yes. But you cannot make a silk purse out a sows ear. Anything that works on the M will be as good, and occasionally better on the SL. B&W conversions are fine ..... but not up to Monochrom standards at much higher ISO. But there again the MM still remains the gold standard for B&W work when compared to almost any other digital camera.

 

4. Never used it, never needed it and probably never will. I have my doubts as to its effectiveness on the SL 50 ..... AF is done wide open and there are heavier lens elements that move further than in the zooms ..... so it is slower and more prone to hunting in low contrast settings. I am doing a portrait day in 2 weeks and will give it a try then .......

 

5. Spent 4 days recently in Malta ..... took a selection of gear ...... 95% of images were taken with the 24-90, 4% with the WATE and 1% with the SL 50. I bet you will end up using it 90% of the time ..... with OIS on (I would leave it on permanently) there is not much you cannot do .... and image quality is universally superb. The Nocti and WATE will get a look in but I doubt you will ever pick up the other lenses again. Sorry, but that's how good the 24-90 is.

 

ps. carrying this thing around is the only downside ...... I suggest you look at my post here before you get irritated .... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267283-hows-the-sl-stock-carry-strap/page-2?do=findComment&comment=3202180 andhttp://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/267283-hows-the-sl-stock-carry-strap/page-2?do=findComment&comment=3205843

[stephan_w]

1) The SL50 is terrific, and has AF. It's a no-brainer against any other lens in this range. Even the Apo-Summicron. But it's huge. if size matters to you, don't take it

 

2) I have the Summilux 24 (which is almost the same lens) and it is easy to focus.

 

3) The SL isn't a b&w camera like the monochrome, but as it handles high ISO very well you have all possibilities

 

4) Not so convinced yet, I systematcally get the focus on the wrong eye. I wouldn't shoot wide open with this option actually. (btw it is called face-detection)

 

5) The zoom is amazing, and with IS you can do almost everything with it. But it's hughe, the nocti is a tiny lens compared. But of course it doesn't replace a portrait lens like the Summicron 90

[tom0511]

I only answer for #5:
​The 24-90 is exceptional in regards of flexibility. And I have no reservations in regards of IQ. The only time I switch to primes is if I need/want faster aparture, because of low light or shallow DOF.

But then the 24-90 is IS, what I dont have in my M/T/S cameras. It can be quite usefull as long as I dont shoot action.

The keeper rate I get with the SL is quite high now, focus is right on most of the times, and exposure with the EVF I nail also for a very high percentage.

[jedi996sps]

I think you will be very pleasantly surprised with the performance of the standard zoom at 50mm, as I was... which I was comparing hand held on the SL to a tripod mounted 50APO on the M240.

[ramarren]

3. Does anyone use early M lens on the SL? I'm talking say 50mm collapsible or rigid? I got into these on the monochrom and was wondering if they are a good match with the SL. More generally, how are folks finding the SL as a B&W Camera?

 

5. Interesting to me how many people have taken to the 24/90 zoom - given initial reservations coming from M. Is that interest holding up with time. I see it as a good all purpose general lens, but unlikely to be my first choice for specialist assignments. Safe assumption? BTW my core M lens on an m body have been Wate, 21/1.4, 35/1.4, nocti, 50 rigid, 75/1.4, 90/2 APO.

 

3- I've mostly used R lenses and the SL24-90 with my SL since I bought it (Nov 2015), but I've tested all my Leica M-mount lenses and Voigtländer M-mount lenses as well. That includes the following:

 

Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH (WATE) :: excellent

Color Skopar 28mm f/3.5 :: good for B&W, a bit of color shifting

Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 :: fine

Summilux 35mm f/1.4 (v2, 1972 vintage) :: fine to excellent

Nokton 40mm f/1.4 :: fine

M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 :: fine

Nokton 50mm f/1.5 ASPH :: fine

Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5 :: fine to excellent

Summitar-M 75mm f/2.4 :: excellent

M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 :: fine to excellent

Hektor 135mm f/4.5 (1960 vintage) :: fine

 

The SL's in-camera B&W rendering (JPEG files) is good, but it's not as flexible as the M-P240 in that regard (no color filter options). The SL raw files render to monochrome very nicely, on par with the M-P240 and M-D262 files, and on par with the MM246 up to about ISO 3200. From that point on, the MM246 produces cleaner work up to its high ISO limit. 

 

5- The SL24-90 only downside is its bulk and weight. Despite that I have used mostly excellent Leica R lenses in my time using the SL since it was new, every time I use the SL24-90 and look at the results it clearly demonstrates that it out-performs the R lenses. They're all very good lenses, the major reason to like one over the other are for nuances of their rendering, or a preference for a zoom or a prime, or a need for image stabilization, etc. I've slowly been using the SL24-90 more and more. The WATE is a superb performer on the SL and is out of the range of the SL24-90 ... an excellent travel kit for me has been the WATE, SL24-90, and Elmar-R180mm f/4. 

[vanhulsenbeek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very good travel-tele: the Elmar R 180/4 indeed. Small, light and works very well with focus assistance. Example: http://sanderva.zenfolio.com/p14188536/e3C50708B

[LocalHero1953]

4. I think it is face identification rather than eye tracking, but I don't use it anyway. I sometimes use tracking focus, and it works well in some scenarios. I'm happy to believe others who say its not up to Nikon/Canon.

 

5. I only use the two SL zooms (I don't have the SL-50) and I find them magnificent.

 

I don't use the SL as a carry-around camera, but for dedicated photo sessions and events. For these cases I hardly notice the weight. I have used it for carry-around and street with the SL 24-90 zoom, and found it manageable, but the M is much more enjoyable.

[Jeff S]

It will be interesting to see if Noctilux users with similar focus difficulties find the VF/RF improvements in the M10 acceptable as an alternative to switching to the SL.

 

BTW, I hope the OP explored the reasons behind the recent focus difficulties using the MM.....there are many factors that might allow for correction (for user, for camera and/or lens) while still using the MM.

 

Jeff

[ramarren]

4. I think it is face identification rather than eye tracking, but I don't use it anyway. I sometimes use tracking focus, and it works well in some scenarios. I'm happy to believe others who say its not up to Nikon/Canon. ...

Face recognition (not identification). I'm not a big AF user so I didn't want to comment on it, but the little I have used it worked as well as my expectations were set to.

 

G

[jrp]

1. The SL-50 - does anyone know the closest focus distance? Also I read somewhere that the upcoming summicrons with have depth of field at f2 close to 1.4 on traditional lens. Did I read this right - it was an interview with the head of Leica lens design? If so, is this also true of the SL-50? How does the dof for the Sl-50 compare with the Nocti and the M 50/1.4? I'm torn on the SL-50 - I have a 50/.95 but wonder if the SL-50 or the M 50 apo might be a nice addition.

 

2. Does anyone have direct experience with the M21/1.4 on the SL? Interested in focusing at 1.4 on the SL and the quality of images.

 

3. Does anyone use early M lens on the SL? I'm talking say 50mm collapsible or rigid? I got into these on the monochrom and was wondering if they are a good match with the SL. More generally, how are folks finding the SL as a B&W Camera?

 

4. How are folks finding the eye tracking on AF lenses for tight DOF portraits? Seems like a nice feature say on the SL-50.

 

5. Interesting to me how many people have taken to the 24/90 zoom - given initial reservations coming from M. Is that interest holding up with time. I see it as a good all purpose general lens, but unlikely to be my first choice for specialist assignments. Safe assumption? BTW my core M lens on an m body have been Wate, 21/1.4, 35/1.4, nocti, 50 rigid, 75/1.4, 90/2 APO.

 

 

1. 60cm

2. Works v well.  Easy to focus off centre, which is needed with this lens as the field of focus is not planar.

3. Don't know about old lenses, but it's as good a b&w camera as any other digital camera

4. Works better than I expected.  Focuses on on the eyes, even without eye focus.

5. The zoom is more than adequate when light is good.  The fast lenses are better for low light or for isolation.

[Jared]

Hi all

 

It's been along time since I was on this forum. Trying to get my photography mojo back. Have an idea for project so pulled out the M Monos (version 1) and realised my eye sight is now such that I can't focus at f0.95 and 1.4. So I pulled the trigger on a secondhand SL with 24-90. A lot of anxiousness before it arrives - will it be in many ways the antithesis of my M shooting head set.

 

Anyways I was hoping some folks could answer a few questions for me:

 

1. The SL-50 - does anyone know the closest focus distance? Also I read somewhere that the upcoming summicrons with have depth of field at f2 close to 1.4 on traditional lens. Did I read this right - it was an interview with the head of Leica lens design? If so, is this also true of the SL-50? How does the dof for the Sl-50 compare with the Nocti and the M 50/1.4? I'm torn on the SL-50 - I have a 50/.95 but wonder if the SL-50 or the M 50 apo might be a nice addition.

 

2. Does anyone have direct experience with the M21/1.4 on the SL? Interested in focusing at 1.4 on the SL and the quality of images.

 

3. Does anyone use early M lens on the SL? I'm talking say 50mm collapsible or rigid? I got into these on the monochrom and was wondering if they are a good match with the SL. More generally, how are folks finding the SL as a B&W Camera?

 

4. How are folks finding the eye tracking on AF lenses for tight DOF portraits? Seems like a nice feature say on the SL-50.

 

5. Interesting to me how many people have taken to the 24/90 zoom - given initial reservations coming from M. Is that interest holding up with time. I see it as a good all purpose general lens, but unlikely to be my first choice for specialist assignments. Safe assumption? BTW my core M lens on an m body have been Wate, 21/1.4, 35/1.4, nocti, 50 rigid, 75/1.4, 90/2 APO.

 

Apologise for the random questions. Pre-arrival excitement. I apologise for the indulgence

 

Best

 

Murray

 

 

1) The tech spec says 0.6m which matches what others have posted in this thread.

2) I recently got the 21mm Summilux for use with my SL and am very happy.  If using the lens wide open (and why wouldn't you?), you do need to move your magnification point rather than just focusing in the center and recomposing since it isn't a perfectly flat field.  Not an issue if you are shooting at f/2.8 or above, but wide open it's enough to matter.  In general, the lens has very good pop, handles really well on the SL (much better than on the 'M'), is distortion free once you import into Lightroom (due to the automatic correction through a lens profile), and it's really cool to be able to get some depth of field control at this focal length.  Lots of vignetting, though!  Be prepared to deal with this up to about f/4 if you have much blue sky in your image.  

3) Don't happen to own any older 'M' lenses, so I couldn't say.  In general, I have been very pleased with my black-and-white conversions on the SL, but there is a lot you can do to make things better or much worse depending on your software technique, and it's not a specialty of mine so I'd look for better advice from others.

4) The focus tracking on the SL is, in my experience, almost worthless.  I use continuous AF a fair amount with the 24-90, but the focus tracking is not very reliable with moving subjects (it's intended use), and since contrast detect AF doesn't allow for predictive AF, it's just not competitive with the best from Nikon or Canon for fast moving subjects.  For portraits, where the motion is relatively small, I'd much rather use single AF, and in those situations I have found the SL extremely reliable and accurate, even with fairly poor lighting.  Works quite well as a studio camera for me.  Obviously, there are flash limitations... 

5) The 24-90 is very good for its intended use, but I don't find myself reaching for it very often.  I have learned that I am a better photographer when I slow down and think about what I'm doing, and manual focus primes force that discipline upon me.  If I need something fast and flexible, though, the SL zooms just can't be beat.  

 

I expect you will love the SL.  I know I live mine.  

 

- Jared

[phovsho]

Can I just say thank all that responded to my questions for their generosity. The answers were very helpful.

 

Some implications of your advice.

 

1. Sl-50. I have the nocti, the M 50mm lux, and some 1950s lenses. I think I will wait and see how I like the size of the zoom and the auto focus. If it's not so big so as to be intimidating to subjects or heavy that I leave it at home, and I prefer the user experience better than the m lenses, I will likely get it. Else, I will consider the M50 apo or just dive into the Summicron SL range. Nice problem to have.

 

2. I have the M 21 lux (as well as the WATE) - and it sounds like it works great on the SL. It's this lens I intend to use the most for the project that has got my interest back into photography - situational portraits.

 

3. Older lens and B&W - I will keep my MM (version 1) for those lenses and for BandW.

 

4. Focus tracking - seems pretty average. No biggie. I've worked out why I was having trouble focusing my Ms. I have a new progressive prescription for my glasses, and the place to look through my spectacles so as to focus accurately on the M finder is less natural than my previous prescription. I have to look through the lower part of the lens. So now I'm focusing again, but it's less natural.

 

5. sL 24-90. Its coming and sounds like a great lens. Hopefully it will suit me. How much I will use it and for what, time will tell.

 

Thanks again.

 

Murray

[rc53]

Can I just say thank all that responded to my questions for their generosity. The answers were very helpful.

 

 

4. Focus tracking - seems pretty average. No biggie. I've worked out why I was having trouble focusing my Ms. I have a new progressive prescription for my glasses, and the place to look through my spectacles so as to focus accurately on the M finder is less natural than my previous prescription. I have to look through the lower part of the lens. So now I'm focusing again, but it's less natural.

 

 

 

Thanks again.

 

Murray

 

I've one of these varifocal prescriptions. Fine for everyday use, but I found there was only a very small area that was in focus, and the distortion beyond this was annoying.

 

I've since got a pair with tri-focal lenses. Don't look to smart, but much easier to use with a viewfinder.

[phovsho]

I'm not willing to sacrifice my looks for a view finder!

 

Agree that the distortion around the area of focus is annoying. Very uncomfortable too. Like looking down my nose.

 

Hopefully the SL will for the most part solve these issues.

 

Best

 

M

[ramarren]

I've worn glasses most of my life, progressives since the past 18-20 years. 

 

Last Fall, I had my annual eye checkup and it was deemed time to update my prescription. Picked out a new pair of frames, etc. Well, without going down a rathole, the new glasses didn't work. At all. We remade the prescription four times, readjusted the fit and feel of the frames and lenses a half dozen times. I had another prescription made up by my opthalmologist rather than the optometrist I've used for 22 years and checked them against each other ... the same. 

 

So I finally said "Chuck it, my old glasses work better than these, and I know they're off. Let's start over." The optometrist agreed so I picked out a new, entirely different set of frames and we sent them off for entirely new lenses. I also went to another (new) optometrist, picked out yet another entirely different set of frames, and ordered another pair of glasses as a hedge. 

 

The replacement glasses arrived the day before yesterday. They are perfect. Comfortable, easy to see with, easy to focus both SL and M with. I'm looking forward to seeing what the 'hedge' pair are like ... Hopefully, they'll be as good or better. 

 

One of the key differences between the pair that didn't work and the replacements (both of them!) is that I went for a frame that has a much taller, more round-shaped lens. This gives the folks making the lenses a lot more degrees of freedom to get the prescription just right. 

 

Progressive lenses are complex, making them has a lot of ways to fail. If your glasses aren't right, work through the problems and/or demand a restart. Don't put up with glasses that don't work correctly. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I found a set of frames and a supplier of progressives that work for me, with only occasional problems seeing through camera viewfinders.  My prescription seems to change steadily, so I have ended up with two sets of identical frames, and replace the older set of lenses each time I find sufficient change in the prescription, keeping the frames the same.  I have also found that big progressives are less tricky to use with viewfinders than skinny lenses, even though they probably require greater eye relief.

 

scott

[MT0227]

You have a 21lux, 35lux, 50Nocti and 90APO.   If you are not tied to or need AF, I think you have the 24-90 ranged covered with some incredible glass.  I have a very similar kit (21SEM, 35FLE, Nocti f/1, 90 APO) and find the SL's focusing aides provide for quick and accurate Manual Focusing experience; certainly much quicker that my M-P240.  The latter has a little to do with my aging eyes on a .68mag OVF, but still the 10x zoom is pretty helpful in certain scenarios.  I highly recommend you shoot the glass you have before spending money on the 50SL or 24-90.  If you're not happy with the results, give some time and tinkering before making quick decisions that will cost you in the end.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ropo54]

I've worn glasses most of my life, progressives since the past 18-20 years. 

 

Last Fall, I had my annual eye checkup and it was deemed time to update my prescription. Picked out a new pair of frames, etc. Well, without going down a rathole, the new glasses didn't work. At all. We remade the prescription four times, readjusted the fit and feel of the frames and lenses a half dozen times. I had another prescription made up by my opthalmologist rather than the optometrist I've used for 22 years and checked them against each other ... the same. 

 

So I finally said "Chuck it, my old glasses work better than these, and I know they're off. Let's start over." The optometrist agreed so I picked out a new, entirely different set of frames and we sent them off for entirely new lenses. I also went to another (new) optometrist, picked out yet another entirely different set of frames, and ordered another pair of glasses as a hedge. 

 

The replacement glasses arrived the day before yesterday. They are perfect. Comfortable, easy to see with, easy to focus both SL and M with. I'm looking forward to seeing what the 'hedge' pair are like ... Hopefully, they'll be as good or better. 

 

One of the key differences between the pair that didn't work and the replacements (both of them!) is that I went for a frame that has a much taller, more round-shaped lens. This gives the folks making the lenses a lot more degrees of freedom to get the prescription just right. 

 

Progressive lenses are complex, making them has a lot of ways to fail. If your glasses aren't right, work through the problems and/or demand a restart. Don't put up with glasses that don't work correctly. 

 

 

 Sounds like your problem may be eyeGAS rather than eyeglass?