Jump to content

SL low light lens options


paulb33

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

 

I toured Ireland this summer with the SL + 24-90mm.  Fabulous photos and I found the overall size for travel is excellent when worn slung over the shoulder.

 

The only disappointment was low light performance.  I have a dinner/dance event in a hotel in a few weeks time and considering what set-up in low-ish light.  Most of the photos will be 2/3 group headshot portraits.  My current kit options are:

 

1. SL60 + 24-90mm (too big? poor low light)

2. Sony RX1RM2 (great size but too wide?)

3. Sony RX100 (great size)

4. Sony A7R + Batis 85mm/f2 + Batis 24mm/f1.8 (good general performance)

5. Sony A7SII + Batis 85mm/f2 + Batis 24mm/f1.8 (great low light)

6. SL60 + NEW LENS? (willing to make this investment)

 

The light will be okay but not ideal.  I'd prefer to invest in my new Leica setup, but the SL lens options are scant and I'd rather not spend big on M lens.  So may need to revert to my old Sony choices.

 

Thoughts would be appreciated.

 

Cheers,

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

M lenses work well for this.

 

There are no native SL lenses other than the Summilux SL.

Right. I hadn't realised the 50mm was available now.

 

What M lens would you suggest?

 

Of course, the Sony ASII is king of low light and the Batis is a sweet lens...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by paul.bridges.3388
Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a 28mm 1.4 the wide angle and fast aperture make it easy to shoot hand held at lets say 1/30 or 1/60th...

 

meanwhile it's 1.4 so has a lot of light.

 

Or a 50mm Noctilux at 0.95 which is easy to focus with the SL EVF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a 28mm 1.4 the wide angle and fast aperture make it easy to shoot hand held at lets say 1/30 or 1/60th... .

Thanks!

 

Does the Q also give me this option? I'd been thinking about adding the Q (replacing the RX1RII). to the SL 24-90mm for indoor shooting.

 

Or, perhaps the wonderful RX1RII gives me that pretty much already (albeit 35mm)?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by paul.bridges.3388
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lux 50 ASPH. No better lens on this planet when it comes to superior quality wide open in a tiny package. Same for Lux 35 ASPH if you prefer it a little wider (or Zeiss Distagon M 35 f1.4 if you want the performance of the lux at half the price).

 

Manually focussing these rather wide lenses on the SL is a piece of cake. I see really no point in the 50 SL at that size.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both the Q and SL as do many others. The Q is perfect for low-light indoor shooting with a wide aperture of 1.7 + good high ISO performance + autofocus + very short minimum focusing distance even when not in macro mode. For what it's worth, the SL 24-90 also has similar close-focusing ability, which for me is a huge advantage over an SL + M lens combo (despite the fact that the 24-90 feels as big and heavy as a GFX medium format lens).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both the Q and SL as do many others. The Q is perfect for low-light indoor shooting with a wide aperture of 1.7 + good high ISO performance + autofocus + very short minimum focusing distance even when not in macro mode. For what it's worth, the SL 24-90 also has similar close-focusing ability, which for me is a huge advantage over an SL + M lens combo (despite the fact that the 24-90 feels as big and heavy as a GFX medium format lens).

 

Interesting about the Q - very tempted as my "indoor option", leaving the 24-90 on the SL for better light situations.  But, at this event I'll be taking candid portraits from across a large table or into the dance floor.  Hence thinking a longer reach lens might be best or that I may need to crop on the (highly discrete and 42MP) RX1RII.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

 

If it were me, I'd concentrate on the SL system, so I'd add the Summilux-SL 50/1.4.  Yep, it's big (not significantly bigger than the OTUS, which is not AF), but the results are fantastic from what I've seen.  I'd then think about adding a fast 28, like the 28 Summilux-M.  You'll need to add an adapter, but that's not a big chore and it's a lovely lens.

 

If the 50 Summilux-SL is too big, then I'd endorse the 50 Summilux-M.  Having said that, I tend to use the Noctilux on my SL when I want a fast 50 - ergonomically, it's better, I prefer the images and it has that extra stop which can be useful.

 

But, short answer, stick with the SL and add a 50 and a 28.  Sadly, there's no fast 28 in SL mount on the horizon; but the M mount version is fantastic.

 

Cheers

John

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

 

If it were me, I'd concentrate on the SL system, so I'd add the Summilux-SL 50/1.4. Yep, it's big (not significantly bigger than the OTUS, which is not AF), but the results are fantastic from what I've seen. I'd then think about adding a fast 28, like the 28 Summilux-M. You'll need to add an adapter, but that's not a big chore and it's a lovely lens.

 

If the 50 Summilux-SL is too big, then I'd endorse the 50 Summilux-M. Having said that, I tend to use the Noctilux on my SL when I want a fast 50 - ergonomically, it's better, I prefer the images and it has that extra stop which can be useful.

 

But, short answer, stick with the SL and add a 50 and a 28. Sadly, there's no fast 28 in SL mount on the horizon; but the M mount version is fantastic.

 

Cheers

John

I'm with you, John. It's just I'm just left wondering if that huge SL 50mm is really viable for indoor use, such as this party, where discretion counts for so much. Thats really the only place I'll use it: the 24-90mm will remain my lens of choice for good light -(I'm lazy and not one for switching lenses if I can avoid it)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's the point, I guess.

 

I haven't used the SL 50.  I understand it's smaller than the 24-90, which would suggest that the complaints over size are over stated.  I can say that the Noctilux is about the perfect size on the SL (ergonomically).  Why don't you compare the sizes in the technical specifications to see if there's a difference?  I suspect the size complaint is a bit over stated - all 50s of this quality seem to be this size.

 

I'm a 50 shooter, it seems.  I have a 50/2 Summitar from 1948 (it's collapsible and tiny), a 50 Summilux-M (fabulous lens, though apparently not as good as the 50 APO-Summicron) and a Noctilux (a heavy lump, but nice on the SL and it offers different alternatives).  I really like what I've seen of the SL 50, but I really can't justify yet another 50mm lens.

 

But, if I was buying afresh ... it would definitely be on my list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's the point, I guess.

 

I haven't used the SL 50. I understand it's smaller than the 24-90, which would suggest that the complaints over size are over stated. I can say that the Noctilux is about the perfect size on the SL (ergonomically). Why don't you compare the sizes in the technical specifications to see if there's a difference? I suspect the size complaint is a bit over stated - all 50s of this quality seem to be this size.

 

I'm a 50 shooter, it seems. I have a 50/2 Summitar from 1948 (it's collapsible and tiny), a 50 Summilux-M (fabulous lens, though apparently not as good as the 50 APO-Summicron) and a Noctilux (a heavy lump, but nice on the SL and it offers different alternatives). I really like what I've seen of the SL 50, but I really can't justify yet another 50mm lens.

 

But, if I was buying afresh ... it would definitely be on my list.

With all those nice 50s, what is it that appeals about the SL 50? The AF? Or..?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by paul.bridges.3388
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a somewhat lazy AF shooter, I worry that I'll struggle to nail the Noctilux. How hard is it on the SL?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not at all.  

 

On an M camera, when you shoot the Noctilux wide open, it can become a bit of a lottery in that the camera and lens have to be perfectly calibrated.  The focus throw is long, and with a 1.4x magnifier, it's easy enough to think you've nailed focus - the rest is down to how good your RF mechanism is with your lens adjustment.  I'd have to say that I now have doubts about the Noctilux on an M camera.  I sometimes use it on my Monochrom, but the 50 Summilux-M seems glued to that at the moment.

 

On the SL, it's a different kettle of fish altogether.  It's incredibly easy to nail focus through the EVF (using the magnifier if you need it - quick press of the joystick), the focus throw is precise and you don't get the purple fringing you sometimes get with the M series cameras.

 

It does cost a lot, though and I suspect the 50 SL is a better lens all round.  Reviewers seem to be saying it does achieve the "reference" status Leica was aiming for, matching the 50 APO-Summicron and the 55 Otus.  It can be slow(ish) with the AF in low light, but then any AF struggles in low light from my experience.  I like the out of focus treatment - very smooth.

 

I guess every lens has its faults - we just need to make the most of their strengths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all those nice 50s, what is it that appeals about the SL 50? The AF? Or..?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm not a huge AF fan (I haven't really worked out how to make any AF work well for me, and I can't get fly-by-wire manual focus to work at all).  Perhaps I'm a boring traditionalist, liking the feel of manual focus.  Having said that, I had the Nikkor 14-24 AF-S zoom on my F5 and I liked that.  I particularly liked the way you could AF, then make fine adjustments manually - I haven't got the SL there yet, though I do have it on manual focus, so I hit the joystick to get AF, then I finalise focus manually, which seems to work well.

 

I like the SL 50's rendering, I'd have to say.  It's colour looks nice and the out of focus areas are very smooth, and it seems to be sharp corner to corner (which the 50 Summilux-M isn't, if I'm honest - I've also wondered if it doesn't suffer slightly from a wavy or curved plane of best focus like the 35 Summilux-M FLE).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both the Q and SL as do many others. The Q is perfect for low-light indoor shooting with a wide aperture of 1.7 + good high ISO performance + autofocus + very short minimum focusing distance even when not in macro mode. For what it's worth, the SL 24-90 also has similar close-focusing ability, which for me is a huge advantage over an SL + M lens combo (despite the fact that the 24-90 feels as big and heavy as a GFX medium format lens).

The GFX has a 24-50 equivalent lens at f4. Is that really comparable to a 24-90 f2.8-4?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...