Jump to content

SL for manual focus lenses only


Steve McGarrett

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

A very simple question, partly anticipated above: in your opinion, it's worth buying today a SL camera as a "platform" for use just manual focus lenses (ie. M, R and some Zeiss lenses here and there...), without any native SL lens?

 

Thanks

S.

Edited by Steve McGarrett
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I took my SL to Patagonia for a photography trip a couple years ago.  I agonized over what lenses to bring.  Just the 24-90?  24-90 and a few select M lenses?  Would I want my one R telephoto?  Which M lenses?  Would I need the weather proofing of the 24-90?  Tierra del Fuego isn't exactly famous for its fine weather.  

 

I ended up thinking about my best landscapes--the ones I print and cherish.  I realized that virtually all of them were taken with prime lenses.  Not because the primes are that much better (the 24-90 is a heck of a lens), but because primes force me to think.  They slow me down and make me consider different possibilities.  What really is the right perspective?  Would the image be better if I moved forwards or backwards a few feet?  What should be my focus point?  How much depth of field do I really want in the image?  What about if I raised or lowered the camera a few feet or even a few inches?  I'm a better photographer when I shoot with primes--at least a better landscape photographer.

 

I ended up leaving the 24-90 behind.  I brought nothing but a few select M lenses and my R telephoto.  I ended up taking about 480 images over nine days.  I have a slide show with my favorite 115 pics.  Here is how they broke out:

 

WATE--28 images

50mm APO--36 images

90mm Macro--27 images

180mm APO Telyt R--20 images

iPhone--4 images

 

The trip included city shooting/street shooting, interiors, landscapes, and some wildlife (guanacos, foxes, eagles, condors, a mountain lion, penguins, a couple whales, etc.).  

 

Basically, with a trip as diverse as this, I was glad to have a range of focal lengths.  If I had just done the cities, I would have been fine with the WATE and the 50mm.  For the landscapes I actually needed everything from 16 to 180mm.  For the wildlife, it was all the 180mm and I occasionally wished I had more focal length, though then I would have missed autofocus.  It turned out to be the right mix of lenses.  I never once wished I had the 24-90 with me, though the 90-280 (which didn't yet exist) would have been a godsend for some of the wildlife.  

 

So can one consider the SL an effective platform even without any of the native lenses?  For me the answer is a definite, "Yes!"  Obviously, not everyone has my requirements or my shooting style, and there are plenty of photographers who are more disciplined than I when it comes to zooms and don't instantly become lazy.  But, no, you don't need the native lenses to make the SL a good choice.  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guy and Jared makes the point very well, the SL versatility is a fantastic selling point and I would keep the camera without hesitation even if I decided to part with the SL24-90.

 

If I really only want to bring one lens (and don't mind the weight) I pick the SL24-90. Because the weight of that combo (and curiosity) I bought a few lighter R-zooms and now often travel with a bag of R 21-35, R35-70, and one or two prime lenses. The full bag is obviously heavier but one any given day I pick one lens and weight/size is no longer an issue. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's arguably the better camera to use with M or manual focus lenses because the EVF makes focusing them a joy and realistically easy to achieve.

 

I have a 50mm M Summilux mounted on mine and shoot 90% of everything with just that lens. I've even just sold off the only other lens I had (35mm Summicron) because I don't use it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leica SL is, in my opinion, the best universal platform out there for manual focussing lenses (and to adapt third party lenses to a camera in general, AF or MF). Its EFV and focus aids are second to none, and make using MF lenses precisely and effectively a breeze. I would definitely recommend it as a platform for MF Leica lenses.

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I purchased mine as a back up / second body for my M10. I am using M glass and love it. I have no interest int eh SL zoom or 50 lux but I am interested in the 90mm F2 SL lens when it gets released next year. 

 

Having such an amazing evf I beleive the SL is perfect for manual focus lens and a excellent option for people that dont have perfect vision for a rangefinder. 

 

My wife struggle with the M10 but can get sharp focus with the SL.

 

Chris

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just returned from a photographic tour in China, mainly in the Yellow Mountain area. I took the SL with a 21-35R, the 180 Apo-Telyt R and a 2x converter. I also took an M mount VM15/4 but this was not used. I have not yet analysed the lens usage but would guess that 70% of shots were taken with the 21-35 Vario-Elmar. I use filters quite a lot but curiously they were hardly needed this time because the light was usually nicelly diffuse. Both the R lenses I took are fine for filters (the VM cannot take them because if it's stupid built-in hood). In no longer own the otherwise excellent 35-70/4 R but remember the lens retracts when zooming out, (or in, I forget) which renders filters unusable over a certain focal range.

 

The SL performed magnificently. A fellow shooter was using the M240 with a 35/2 Summicron and there appeared to be significantly better sharpness from the SL. This might have been a sensor or focusing issue as we were both using tripods. A tip with tripods is to use the 2s self timer to release the shutter so as to avoid any camera shake if doing this by hand.

 

What truly impressed me is the ability to cycle through the various display modes so as to be able to align the camera and check the histogram, while adjusting exposure compensation (I use aperture priority rather than manual). Focusing is s breeze with the magnified view but it is vital to remember to focus wide open before stopping down as focusing at my typically used aperture of f/16 is easily rendered inaccurate by the increased depth of focus.

 

I have found that, for landscapes at least, the SL is the finest camera I have used and the relatively small sensor has not proved to be a handicap. The only issue when using non-native lenses is the lack of waterproofing, which was a constraint, which is why I intend to acquire the 24-90.

Edited by Waterden
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just returned from a photographic tour in China, mainly in the Yellow Mountain area.

 

Yellow Mountains like in Huangshan? That should be on every photographer's bucket list.

Pictures, Waterden, we want to see pictures!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the SL 24-90 will not let you down. It's an excellent lens.

Given that none of these lenses and cameras are waterproof, only weather proof, at what point does a down pour become substantial enough to overcome  the weather sealing and if that happened, how does he warranty determine whether the camera is covered?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought my SL without having any intention to buy a 24-90 (or whatever) to go with it. I have lots of M lenses, lots of other manufacturers lenses, and I bought the SL for these alone given the versatility of it's EVF over a digital M.

 

Regarding the 'weather proofing' mine has got pretty wet, water running off the back of the camera and top plate as I held the lens downwards, and I had no concerns, that is 'weather proofing' in action. Waterproofing is being proof against immersion and the pressures imposed by depth, for which I recommend the Olympus TG5, an ideal companion for any Leica system when your risk aversion reaches max.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that none of these lenses and cameras are waterproof, only weather proof, at what point does a down pour become substantial enough to overcome  the weather sealing and if that happened, how does he warranty determine whether the camera is covered?

 

 

No guarantee can or will be given, but many users have used the SL with native lenses in very wet conditions without problems (as far as I can recall). Jono has reported on this, the comment from Steve above confirms it, and I have used the SL with native lenses under constant and heavy rain. Many times and no problem (but obviously no guarantee for no leakage; I would never put the body+lens in water...).

Edited by helged
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...