Moving from Nikon to SL to Use M Lenses

[geopatriot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve been thinking about upgrading my Nikon equipment for a long time, but over the last month I’ve been contemplating moving out of the system altogether.  I was a professional photojournalist in the late 80s and early 90s, but now I guess you could classify me as a serious enthusiast who is drawn to technology, quality, and the potential of using well-made tools.  My budget is not unlimited, but I’m ready to finally fund the move to Leica.

 

I like the SL as a camera, with all of its bells and whistles.  I like the idea of GPS and wi-fi.  I really like the idea of continuing to benefit from Autofocus (I was a late adopter).  But, I’m apprehensive about the size and weight of the SL system lenses – all of them.  One of the reasons I was thinking about moving away from Nikon was to reduce size/weight, because most of my serious work is when I travel.  From that perspective, I started to look at the Fujifilm X-Pro2 system.  But, the more I thought about the move, I started to think about Leica.  If I’m going to spend the money, I want an improvement in image quality.  And while the APS-C is respectable, it doesn’t maximize the bokeh possibilities that I’d like to see in my street photography and portraits.  This is also the reason I finally rejected the CL system.  I quickly found myself looking at the SL.

 

The SL 24-90mm lens is an amazing piece of kit, but I still do a lot of travel photography and I’m concerned about the amount of attention I’d be generating with it on my side.  At nearly 2kg, it seems to be going in the wrong direction.  I’m thinking to make the investment in the SL and SL 24-90mm system lens, but base my future kit around manual M lenses (new and used).  I’d use the zoom for locations where there’s no concern about drawing attention (i.e., casual nature walks, trips to villages, photos of my family, etc.) and stick with the manual M lenses for city travel and serious nature work.

 

I’ve been considering moving to the M system, but I like to shoot as wide as 21mm, longer than 75mm and I’m just not sure about the hassles with the framelines and viewfinder magnification.  Like I said, the SL’s bells and whistles are interesting for me.

 

I would also consider R lenses, which I've read are better for the SL "ergonomically" - whatever that means.  At this point, I don't have a strong preference in either direction, so if you have an opinion on this, please chime in.

 

I’m curious about your opinions on this approach.  Are people buying the SL to use (nearly) exclusively with M lenses?  Is this a reasonable approach?  What else am I missing in my decision-making process?

Edited February 9, 2018 by geopatriot

[jaapv]

Yes, there are plenty of users who only mount M lenses with excellent results, and even more who mix SL and M lenses.

For travel photography you might have a look at the CL as a second body. Smaller sensor but of nearly equal quality as the SL, compact lenses, shares the mount with the SL. You can also use small TL zooms on the SL (in cropped mode).

[Advertisement]

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

[phongph]

I’ve been thinking about upgrading my Nikon equipment for a long time, but over the last month I’ve been contemplating moving out of the system altogether. I was a professional photojournalist in the late 80s and early 90s, but now I guess you could classify me as a serious enthusiast who is drawn to technology, quality, and the potential of using well-made tools. My budget is not unlimited, but I’m ready to finally fund the move to Leica.

 

I like the SL as a camera, with all of its bells and whistles. I like the idea of GPS and wi-fi. I really like the idea of continuing to benefit from Autofocus (I was a late adopter). But, I’m apprehensive about the size and weight of the SL system lenses – all of them. One of the reasons I was thinking about moving away from Nikon was to reduce size/weight, because most of my serious work is when I travel. From that perspective, I started to look at the Fujifilm X-Pro2 system. But, the more I thought about the move, I started to think about Leica. If I’m going to spend the money, I want an improvement in image quality. And while the APS-C is respectable, it doesn’t maximize the bokeh possibilities that I’d like to see in my street photography and portraits. This is also the reason I finally rejected the CL system. I quickly found myself looking at the SL.

 

The SL 24-90mm lens is an amazing piece of kit, but I still do a lot of travel photography and I’m concerned about the amount of attention I’d be generating with it on my side. At nearly 2kg, it seems to be going in the wrong direction. I’m thinking to make the investment in the SL and SL 24-90mm system lens, but base my future kit around manual M lenses (new and used). I’d use the zoom for locations where there’s no concern about drawing attention (i.e., casual nature walks, trips to villages, photos of my family, etc.) and stick with the manual M lenses for city travel and serious nature work.

 

I’ve been considering moving to the M system, but I like to shoot as wide as 21mm, longer than 75mm and I’m just not sure about the hassles with the framelines and viewfinder magnification. Like I said, the SL’s bells and whistles are interesting for me.

 

I’m curious about your opinions on this approach. Are people buying the SL to use (nearly) exclusively with M lenses? Is this a reasonable approach? What else am I missing in my decision-making process?

 

Hi Geopatriot!

I am also from Nikon!

I have got SL 601 and SL 24-90 over 1,5 year (I may get SL90 Apo f2 later).

I have also got M10 with M35 Lux Fle, M50 Apo, M75 Lux and R len over 8 month.

SL & M10 is compliment together and I am happy to use both Camera and three lens of them the same time.

Have a nice day!

Thanks!

Edited February 9, 2018 by phongph

[jonoslack]

Hi There

I think that’s a perfectly reasonable approach. The 24-90 is a fantastic lens, and you’ll probably find you use it more than you expect, but the SL is great with M lenses, manual focusing is wonderful with the huge EVF.

 

Also worth mentioning that the new summicron lenses are smaller and lighter (and wonderful)

 

Best

[Fedro]

After many years using M bodies I did not think I would end up liking the SL so much (though admittedly it took me a little while to warm up to it)

 

After buying it to use exclusively with M lenses, 12 months in I got the 24-90 out of curiosity and ended up using it more and more

 

I have just bought the SL 75 Cron which agree is great - my original intention was to buy the 90, but found that despite a more compressed look, that I liked, the 75 had a clearly faster AF

 

All in all it is an amazing, flexible system both with native and M lenses (I use it coupled with a Monochrome). Have not tried R lenses but heard they are great too on the SL

 

And let's not forget that this is only V 1.0 ...

[frame-it]

this might help too

 

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2877361@N25/pool/

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You appear to have a rather muddled collection hopes, assumptions, requirements and wishes ...... and as with most of us there is no single camera that is going to do what you would like without compromises 

 

The SL+ 24-90 is exceptionally accomplished and versatile and would be ideal for portraiture, travel, landscape and general use. Carried crossways over the shoulder and with a handgrip the weight/size is not an issue.

 

I'm not clear in my mind what you want in terms of bokeh ..... I prefer good subject separation and inconspicuously blurred OOF areas .... which most Leica lenses will give you without having to resort to sub f1.4 lenses. 

 

The SL+ zoom is no more obtrusive than most ....... and these days anything bigger than a phone is noticed as unusual. 

 

If you hadn't mentioned the need for AF I would have thought you were after an M240/M10 and manual lenses ...... and I would have thought the CL would have been the better choice as far as size/quality is concerned for AF. 

Is the hankering for an SL desire conquering rationality ? I'm all for using a system if it suits your way of working and where the enjoyment of it outweighs any downsides, but you won't find that answer from us ..... or review sites .... 

 

I think you need some serious 'hands-on' time to sort out what you really like and separate  reality from assumptions .......

Edited February 9, 2018 by thighslapper

[Alistairm]

I moved from Nikon to Leica via an M240 for size reasons and the lovely M lenses. The SL allowed me to replace my Nikon gear for everything except birding.

 

While I love my M, especially the M10, objectively the SL is better body for shooting M lenses and the EVF still impresses me after years of use. I think you'll love it and if budget is an issue I think the SL is the best body choice. And hey, even if you don't plan to use the native lenses immediately, never say never!

[geetee1972]

 

Are people buying the SL to use (nearly) exclusively with M lenses?  Is this a reasonable approach?  What else am I missing in my decision-making process?

 

I think it's the combination that makes the most sense personally. Yes the SL lenses are very good but the 24-90 is very large, ridiculously expensive and only f/2.8 at the wide end. The SL50 is faster but is unfathomably expensive and while I'm prepared to acknowledge now that it's at least as good as the M 50mm Summilux, it's still four times the mass. If your need is for an AF system then the Leica SL is lovely but lordy it's expensive compared to the equivalent from Nikon or Canon and I'm really not so sure that results you'd get from say a Nikon 850 with the best glass Nikon would be any worse than from the Leica SL.

 

But an SL with M glass is small, relatively compact and the results are lovely. the benefit of this over a Nikon with a prime lens is size

[robgo2]

I use my SL exclusively with MF lenses, mostly M-mount and one R-mount. As you have heard, the wonderful EVF makes manual focusing simple and, I think, fun, though it is not a substitute for AF when shooting action. I also own the SL 24-90, which I do not use, because of the size and weight. Obviously, some people do not find this to be problematic, but I do. And although the 24-90 may be one of the finest zoom lenses ever made with excellent IQ, it is still not a match for my prime lenses. Either way, you cannot go wrong with the SL, as long as you understand your own needs and preferences.

[ramarren]

When I ordered the SL in October 2015, I already had a full complement of R and M lenses to work with. So my initial order was for only the SL body. I re-thought that a couple of days later and added the SL24-90 to the order. Although I received both on November 16, 2015, I didn't really use the SL24-90 much for most of the following year: zooms in this range have always been somewhat large and heavy—clumsy—for me and the SL24-90 is no exception. 

 

However, once I started using the zoom, I found its performance outstanding and the additional feature support added to my satisfaction of having it. In the following year I sold all but one of my long R lenses to acquire its sibling SL90-280 lens, and I couldn't be happier with these two lenses as the basis of my SL kit. 

 

I've not been particularly enamored with the use of the M lenses on the SL. They were designed for a completely different type of camera shape and always feel a bit awkward to me on the SL body. I have used them, however, and they perform extremely well ... I just prefer the SL native mount lenses and the R lenses on the SL body. I reduced the size of my M lens kit and use my M lenses on my M-D and M4-2 bodies now, with little exception. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I like using the SL with longer focal lengths and larger lenses.  Thus I use the 50 Summilux on the SL and the 50 APO Summicron on my M10.  Several R medium telephotos (80 SX-R and 90 SC-R) also feel right on the SL.  I very much like the way the 90-280 SL lens handles on the SL, with its autofocus and OIS (and even use it, more awkwardly, on a CL for the 1.5X extension that this provides).  I'm interested in the Summicron-SLs that are starting to appear and in the 16-35 zoom.  With all the attention on newer lenses coming, I may finally want to try the 24-90 SL zoom, perhaps obtained at a steep discount from some GAS sufferer on EBay, but I have resisted it so far because of its size, and the fact that I don't really need it.