Switching from M10... advice on lenses.

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had surgery to my right eye late last year and my eyesight has deteriorated to the point where RF focusing has become a real challenge.

I tried the Visoflex 020 but found it too fiddly in use. I realize my days of shooting with a rangefinder have come to an end.

 

I've decided to switch to the SL and I'd like to hear your thoughts on which lenses to keep/sell.

 

Current M lenses:

16-18-21mm WATE

35mm Summilux FLE

50mm Summilux ASPH

50mm Noctilux 0.95

90mm Elmarit

 

- I also have a Leica Q and Fuji X-T2 with an assortment of XF lenses. 

- The 35mm (when available) and 75mm Summicron's are the two lenses that I am strongly considering, which makes the 35 FLE and 90 Elmarit somewhat superflous.

- I am leaning towards keeping the WATE for my wide angle solution as there's really no substitute. (the 16-35 is too big for my limited use)

- As for my two 50's.... although the 50 lux asph was one of my favorites on the M I don't see myself using it with the SL.  The Noctilux may be the one to keep.

 

I'd like to keep all of them if budget allows but I can't afford the SL + native lenses without selling.

And I keep reminding myself that I'm never going back to a rangefinder.... so if I'm not using them with the SL there's no point in keeping them any longer.

What are your thoughts? Thanks in advance.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Mr.Q

[geetee1972]

 

although the 50 lux asph was one of my favorites on the M I don't see myself using it with the SL.  The Noctilux may be the one to keep.

 

Good as the EVF on the SL is (and it really is superb) you might still struggle to focus the Noctilux critically on the SL. I personally preferred the rendering of the 50  M-Summiliux over the Noctilux anyway but that's just personal opinion. You certainly don't need the added light gathering ability of the Nocti on the SL anyway, by which I mean that the ISO performance over the M240 is about one stop better anyway, so what you lose with the apeture, you gain with ISO performance. And the DoF is pretty much a non-issue in my view. Yes it is shallower but it's also less useable as a result.

 

That said, youv'e got two 50s so that would suggest that 50 is your preferred focal length, in which case it might be worth selling both the manual 50s and buying the 50SL plus say a 50 M Summicron or even a Zeiss C Sonnar if you still wanted a small and compact MF 50.

 

Selling the Elmarit won't yield much and it's a very useable lens on the SL using MF. The 35 at 1.4 is also relatively easy to focus (I have the Zeiss 1.4ZM) and use it quite a lot wide open, so I would also keep that lens.

Edited May 23, 2018 by geetee1972

[Jeff S]

I assume you’ve tried viewing options before giving up the RF.... switching to your other eye, trying diopters, etc. For the SL, If you don’t mind the size and weight of the 24-90, that and the WATE would cover all your focal lengths. But we each have different needs and preferences. Best to demo or rent if you can. If not, buy the SL body and experiment before you commit to new lenses.

 

Jeff

[Mr.Q]

Good as the EVF on the SL is (and it really is superb) you might still struggle to focus the Noctilux critically on the SL. I personally preferred the rendering of the 50 M-Summiliux over the Noctilux anyway but that's just personal opinion. You certainly don't need the added light gathering ability of the Nocti on the SL anyway, by which I mean that the ISO performance over the M240 is about one stop better anyway, so what you lose with the apeture, you gain with ISO performance. And the DoF is pretty much a non-issue in my view. Yes it is shallower but it's also less useable as a result.

 

That said, youv'e got two 50s so that would suggest that 50 is your preferred focal length, in which case it might be worth selling both the manual 50s and buying the 50SL plus say a 50 M Summicron or even a Zeiss C Sonnar if you still wanted a small and compact MF 50.

 

Selling the Elmarit won't yield much and it's a very useable lens on the SL using MF. The 35 at 1.4 is also relatively easy to focus (I have the Zeiss 1.4ZM) and use it quite a lot wide open, so I would also keep that lens.

Thanks for your input.

 

I think I'd be fine with the EVF on the SL as I had no issues focusing the Nocti with the Visoflex 020.

 

50mm isn't my preferred focal length. I just happened to be experimenting with 2 lenses before I had the surgery. I'm not sure which lens I prefer but thought the 0.95 would provide more versatility in the long run.

 

The 50 SL is not an option due to it's size and weight. Neither are the zooms.

 

The 90 Elmarit I could sell for $800 USD locally. I know that's not much but every bit helps with the switch. And I think I won't be using it much after I get the 75 APO-SL.

 

The 35 FLE I'm still on the fence. Perhaps I should hold onto it at least until the 35 SL is available.

[Mr.Q]

I assume you’ve tried viewing options before giving up the RF.... switching to your other eye, trying diopters, etc. For the SL, If you don’t mind the size and weight of the 24-90, that and the WATE would cover all your focal lengths. But we each have different needs and preferences. Best to demo or rent if you can. If not, buy the SL body and experiment before you commit to new lenses.

 

Jeff

Yes I've tried but my left eye is worse than my right eye and diopters helped a bit but not enough.

 

Unfortunately the 24-90, the other zooms, and the 50 SL is too big and heavy for my usage.

 

I've demo'd the SL at the Leica store and I like it. I'm just not sure what to do with my M lenses.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Yes, 24-90 is large, but believe me, this lens will cover everything you need. If you cannot focus with RF anymore, you WILL need AF with SL, and none of the M lenses is going to do it for you.

 

This is an advice of an M shooter with more than 40 years of rangefinder experience. When I got the SL, I tried to use M lenses on it, and now I do it only when shooting video.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I've demo'd the SL at the Leica store and I like it. I'm just not sure what to do with my M lenses.

Which is why I suggested buying the body and figuring the rest out by trying them before more buying... or selling.

 

Jeff

[Per P.]

Which is why I suggested buying the body and figuring the rest out by trying them before more buying... or selling.

Jeff

I agree with Jeff. Get the body, take it step by step, if you can, and avoid wholesale. You may decide to replace the 35mm M with the SL when it becomes available - or not, if a smaller alternative is important. Maybe one 50mm M lens is enough, maybe not. I decided to sell my Summilux-R when I realised that with adapapter it was roughly the same size as the SL 75. But so far I have kept my M 75 because that one IS smaller - and I still have an M camera.

[Jared]

I had surgery to my right eye late last year and my eyesight has deteriorated to the point where RF focusing has become a real challenge.

I tried the Visoflex 020 but found it too fiddly in use. I realize my days of shooting with a rangefinder have come to an end.

 

I've decided to switch to the SL and I'd like to hear your thoughts on which lenses to keep/sell.

 

Current M lenses:

16-18-21mm WATE

35mm Summilux FLE

50mm Summilux ASPH

50mm Noctilux 0.95

90mm Elmarit

 

- I also have a Leica Q and Fuji X-T2 with an assortment of XF lenses. 

- The 35mm (when available) and 75mm Summicron's are the two lenses that I am strongly considering, which makes the 35 FLE and 90 Elmarit somewhat superflous.

- I am leaning towards keeping the WATE for my wide angle solution as there's really no substitute. (the 16-35 is too big for my limited use)

- As for my two 50's.... although the 50 lux asph was one of my favorites on the M I don't see myself using it with the SL.  The Noctilux may be the one to keep.

 

I'd like to keep all of them if budget allows but I can't afford the SL + native lenses without selling.

And I keep reminding myself that I'm never going back to a rangefinder.... so if I'm not using them with the SL there's no point in keeping them any longer.

What are your thoughts? Thanks in advance.

 

That's an interesting challenge.  

 

- If you shoot any ultrawide at all and don't want the size/bulk of the 16-35mm, then you obviously need to hold onto the WATE.  

- Since you intend to get the 35mm SL lens in the future, and since you need to raise some capital now to afford the SL, I'd part ways with the 35mm FLE.  Keep in mind that you might have a lengthy wait for the 35SL, though, so be careful on timing.  For me, it would be tough living without this focal length for any period of time, but it sounds like you need to free up some funds.

- 50mm Summilux ASPH should probably be on the "sell now" list.  You'll find the Noctilux is a better match for the SL than it ever was on the M, both in terms of handling and in terms of ease of focusing when wide open.  The only exception to this would be if your eyesight is bad enough that you can't focus the Noctilux even with the SL's excellent EVF, in which case I would swap my recommendation on which 50 to keep.

- 50mm Noctilux is one I would probably keep in your place.  See the caveat from my last bullet point, though.

- 90mm Elmarit I would sell.  This assumes you are getting the 75mm SL, of course.

 

My recommendations all assume that you can't afford to purchase the SL unless you sell a couple of lenses in the process.  Otherwise, I would agree with a couple of others and recommend you get the SL, maybe the 75mm as well as a normal/portrait lens, and then start playing around till you see what works for you and what you aren't using, and sell the lenses that aren't getting used.  

[Jared]

Oh, I should point out that the 24-90, despite being a zoom, is excellent optically.  If you were avoiding it just because it's not a prime, don't. If you were avoiding it because it's big and heavy, understood.  

[scott kirkpatrick]

If size and weight are concerns, consider the CL.  The viewfinder, while not the equal of the SL's, is better than any of its competitors.  A CL with its 11-23 wide zoom, which is excellent, would cost about what you should be able to get for the WATE.  I've used the M 35-FLE on my CL, with good results, but the CL 35 is even better.  I've used my M 50 Summilux on the CL and like the results (see the Giro d'Italia pictures in the CL forum).  The Noctilux on a CL might be really awesome.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

If 50mm isn't your preferred focal length, what is? Build your system around that.

 

You have some very fast lenses in your M set. Why? Exposure or DoF?

 

You have the XT2. What lenses do you have for that? Are you looking to possibly replace both systems with one? Where do you take the fuji that the M doesn't work?

 

Are you looking to keep using manual focus for the enjoyment of it or purely because they are smaller than the SL primes?

 

Sorry for so many questions......

 

*********************

 

The SL will be a bigger system. So you'll have to come to terms with that. Even with a mixed bag and a couple of the SL primes it's still going to grow. On the other hand those lenses are absolutely stunning. Really stunning. The best I've ever used. However I have another suggestion. Unless you're really attached to that Noctilux.

 

Sell the lot.

 

Buy a CL not SL.

 

CL body

11-23

23mm f2

35mm f1.4

60mm f2.8

 

consider the long zoom as well,,,,,,,,,

 

This essentially replaces your current kit with the same resolution, similar size and lighter weight. The optics of all the listed lenses is superb. The files are very close to the SL (95%++). All the lenses are better than the Fuji options and have the same look and draw as the modern M lenses you have. Unless you have Fuji lenses longer than 135mm (200~) then you might also be able to consider selling the Fuji kit. The Fuji makes better jpegs but the CL makes better raw files.

 

If you like the Noctilux. Keep it. You'll be financially ahead and can still get an SL body for that if you crave the 24x36 files after using the CL (unlikely). Keep the Q.

 

Gordon

[scott kirkpatrick]

I second Gordon's suggestions.  On a recent trip with light luggage, I found the CL with 11-23 and 35 did everything I needed.  I brought the 60 along, but didn't use it (no wildflowers).  I also have some Fuji gear, and like what C1 does with their raw files, but the X-T2 and 100-400 OIS lens is the only part of the kit getting used. 

[jaapv]

I third the suggestion. But don’t dismiss the 18-56 too lightly. It is a superb zoom in it’s own right and very convenient in use.

[hkgmatt]

 

I'd like to keep all of them if budget allows but I can't afford the SL + native lenses without selling.

Like Jeff and others suggested, I would start with the SL body alone if your budget allows it. For my first year and half with the SL, I did exactly that, happily using my M lenses, and only acquired the - excellent - zooms later. If your budget doesn't allow it, have you looked at a CL, which works very well with M lenses too albeit with a different field of view due to its smaller sensor than the M10 and SL.

[Einst_Stein]

I switched from M9 to SL, while SL is every bit justified, I still miss my M9.

 

If I had both CL and M9, I probably would not get into SL at all.

 

Ever considered CL plus the three zooms. My advise is to keep the M10 set. I don't think you need a reason.

[Guest VVJ]

On a recent trip with light luggage, I found the CL with 11-23 and 35 did everything I needed.  

 

I quite honestly still miss my Fuji 14mm... The TL-11-23mm is a very good lens but it is slow as hell whereas Fuji has both fast wide angle lenses and a wide angle zoom with OIS.

 

The CL and its 7 lenses are good but its native lens line-up (after 4 years) still has holes you can drive a truck through...

Edited May 23, 2018 by JorisV

[sillbeers15]

With so many good suggestions and individual opinions widely varied,....MrQ is just going to be confused.

[Mr.Q]

Thanks all for your great suggestions 

 

Yes, 24-90 is large, but believe me, this lens will cover everything you need. If you cannot focus with RF anymore, you WILL need AF with SL, and none of the M lenses is going to do it for you.

 

This is an advice of an M shooter with more than 40 years of rangefinder experience. When I got the SL, I tried to use M lenses on it, and now I do it only when shooting video.

 

I can not RF focus anymore but my eyesight is good enough to focus with the Visoflex 020.  Focusing with the SL's EVF was a godsend, ridiculously easy.

For my usage, the SL + 24-90 is not an option due to it's size/weight.

 

 

Which is why I suggested buying the body and figuring the rest out by trying them before more buying... or selling.

Jeff

 

 

I agree with Jeff. Get the body, take it step by step, if you can, and avoid wholesale. You may decide to replace the 35mm M with the SL when it becomes available - or not, if a smaller alternative is important. Maybe one 50mm M lens is enough, maybe not. I decided to sell my Summilux-R when I realised that with adapapter it was roughly the same size as the SL 75. But so far I have kept my M 75 because that one IS smaller - and I still have an M camera.

 

I'll pay for the SL + M adapter by selling my M10 and accessories.

 

Similarly, I need to build capital for the SL lenses by selling my M lenses.

 

If I keep all my M lenses, it hampers my ability to try out the native SL lenses and indulge myself in the SL experience, which seems like a lost cause at this point because I know I'm never going back to the M system.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

So why did you start out by posting that you’re considering two new M lenses? You’ve lost me.

 

SL lenses can be demo-ed or rented. If you can never afford to buy them without selling M lenses (in lieu of your two other camera systems), then I guess you have your answer.

 

Jeff