Returning to the fold

[chris_tribble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well... after a flirtation with the CL I decided that some of my lenses were feeling underused on the M (WATE / Apo 90) and that it might be time to reconsider the SL.  Starting to work again with a good used one from Manchester Leica store + the necessary M-L adapter has been a very interesting experience.  It's also led me to getting a very clean R 35-70 Macro f4 and I've been reveling in the experience.

 

First time round with the SL (a couple of years ago) I was waiting for the M10 and didn't have funds to live with the two systems.  This time round my M10s will remain as essential companions and work tools - but the SL is going to be fun to have around for more specialist tasks - particularly macro, extreme wide and telephoto + I can see the SL + 35-70 turning into a rather nice trave set up. 

 

What fun!  Some test samples below (R 35-70 Macro f4):

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by chris_tribble

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

nice shots

[Musotographer]

The 35-70/4 is a splendid lens, especially for travel. Essentially three FLs in one, plus macro, and it's very light. I use it on my M10, but LV does drain the battery very quickly so I also sometimes use it on my cheapo Sony A7II, on which it is very good. Sadly I can't afford an SL as well as an M10!

Edited March 9, 2018 by Musotographer

[Bill W]

Chris, Are you using the R adapter L or I believe there is a stacking solution. Not sure. I have an R 35-70 but have never tried to adapt it to my SL. It would be a much lighter zoom than the 24-90.

[chris_tribble]

Chris, Are you using the R adapter L or I believe there is a stacking solution. Not sure. I have an R 35-70 but have never tried to adapt it to my SL. It would be a much lighter zoom than the 24-90.

I'm stacking the R adapter M to the M adapter L.  Best solution for me at the moment as I leave the M adapter on the SL all the time and then easily swap lenses (my other R lens is the 80-200 f4). I might have been tempted by the R 21-35 Asph 3.5-4 but it's silly prices for this lens compared to the other two + I have the WATE which covers wide perfectly from my perspective.

 

YES - the SL + 35-70 is a much bigger package than the M10 + a 35 cron (with maybe an elmar 50 or elmarit 75 in the bag), but its combination of three core focal lengths AND really useful macro makes it a really flexible combination.  I look forward to having some fun with these...

[ramarren]

I still use the two-adapter stack (bought the pair of adapters before the R Adapter L was available) as it works fine, but I'll eventually go with the single dedicated adapter for some things. No rush. 

 

Enjoy your Leica SL! Are you using only adapted lenses on it or did you get one of the zooms as well?

[AZach]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The SL with R 35-70 is a great combination, lens bundled with R Adapter L - still very good value for money.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited March 9, 2018 by AZach

[chris_tribble]

I still use the two-adapter stack (bought the pair of adapters before the R Adapter L was available) as it works fine, but I'll eventually go with the single dedicated adapter for some things. No rush. 

 

Enjoy your Leica SL! Are you using only adapted lenses on it or did you get one of the zooms as well?

Although I'm very tempted by the 24-90 I've not gone in that direction yet.  I have a Canon 5D3 with fast L series zooms which fulfil bread and butter assignments when weight's not an issue.  For now I'm experimenting with the SL as a niche MF tool with R and M glass which doesn't sit comfortably on the M10.  While the EVF on the M10 is pretty damn good, it's ergonomically less than ideal for the flow of work.  The EVF on the SL is another story...

[Bill W]

I had the R to M adapter but got rid of it a while back. I did not like the R lens experience on my M240 at the time. I do have the M to L adapter as I do like to use my Noctilux on the SL. I wish the R to L was not so darned expensive. 

[chris_tribble]

I had the R to M adapter but got rid of it a while back. I did not like the R lens experience on my M240 at the time. I do have the M to L adapter as I do like to use my Noctilux on the SL. I wish the R to L was not so darned expensive. 

Stacking really isn't a problem.  I was like you and hated R lenses on the M240.  On the M10 they're usable, but feel alien.  In the SL, they're great.  Intuitive, quick to focus (though I miss a split prism!) and render beautifully.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Although I'm very tempted by the 24-90 I've not gone in that direction yet.  I have a Canon 5D3 with fast L series zooms which fulfil bread and butter assignments when weight's not an issue.  For now I'm experimenting with the SL as a niche MF tool with R and M glass which doesn't sit comfortably on the M10.  While the EVF on the M10 is pretty damn good, it's ergonomically less than ideal for the flow of work.  The EVF on the SL is another story...

 

SL with 24-90 is 100% usable for any bread-and-butter assignments. I've done 33 commercial shoots last December using nothing but the 24-90. Clients were UberEats and Expedia.

[chris_tribble]

Irakly - interesting.  Maybe I'll see if a used 24-90 turns up with Ffordes and I can do a part exchange - but it's still going to be an issue financially as I'd really need the 90-280 as well to cover the kinds of jobs I tend to do (the Canon 70-200 IS L mkII) is my main lens on the DSLR system.  Yes, they're great lenses, but the combined cost of the Leica lenses compares unfavourably with the equivalent Canon set up (24-70 / 70-200) which has met my core needs for fast zooms (and now with IS) for over 20 years.  A 5D mk4 + these two can be had for around half the price of the SL setup.  YES - the Leica lenses are (probably?) better and the extra reach makes them interesting - but it's still a lump of cash to put down

 

Canon    24-70 £1849 / 70-200 £1999 / 5Dmk £4 3,239 = £7,087 

Leica      24-90 £3,499.00 / 90-280 £4,650.00 / Leica SL £4,995 = £13,144

 

Additional thought - although the 24-90 reach feels interesting - the 90-280 would be too long for a lot of my purposes...

 

Heigh ho - life was never meant to be easy...

Edited March 11, 2018 by chris_tribble

[Irakly Shanidze]

Irakly - interesting.  Maybe I'll see if a used 24-90 turns up with Ffordes and I can do a part exchange - but it's still going to be an issue financially as I'd really need the 90-280 as well to cover the kinds of jobs I tend to do (the Canon 70-200 IS L mkII) is my main lens on the DSLR system.  Yes, they're great lenses, but the combined cost of the Leica lenses compares unfavourably with the equivalent Canon set up (24-70 / 70-200) which has met my core needs for fast zooms (and now with IS) for over 20 years.  A 5D mk4 + these two can be had for around half the price of the SL setup.  YES - the Leica lenses are (probably?) better and the extra reach makes them interesting - but it's still a lump of cash to put down

 

Canon    24-70 £1849 / 70-200 £1999 / 5Dmk £4 3,239 = £7,087 

Leica      24-90 £3,499.00 / 90-280 £4,650.00 / Leica SL £4,995 = £13,144

 

Additional thought - although the 24-90 reach feels interesting - the 90-280 would be too long for a lot of my purposes...

 

Heigh ho - life was never meant to be easy...

 

Most likely, it makes no sense in terms of return on investment, as majority of clients will not pay for the difference in image quality (which is there, believe me).