Switching from M10... advice on lenses.

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.  

 

Yes, I think I'm set on keeping the WATE. It's not really a focal length that I shoot often (mostly for travel) so the bulk of the 16-35 makes absolutely no sense for me.

 

I have the Q which covers the 28-35 focal range (I crop quite regularly with the Q) but I think I will hold onto the 35 FLE for now. I might swap it for a Zeiss 35/1.4 (which I never considered for a M) to free up some funds.

 

My eyesight was good enough to focus the Noctilux with the Visoflex 020, so the EVF of the SL is more than sufficient. I'm still on the fence on whether I should sell the 50 LUX though...

 

The 90 Elmarit is most likely gone. I rarely used it on the M10 and it will likely collect dust once I get the 75SL.

Like many have suggestest, I'm leaning towards getting the SL + 75SL and figuring out the rest later. I just need to decide which lens to sell, other than the 90 Elmarit.

[Advertisement]

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

[sillbeers15]

Thanks all for your great suggestions

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Good to hear that only you know what you want. Other opinions may be valuable but ultimately only you know what you want.

[Mr.Q]

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.  

 

Yes, I understand that the 24-90 is a reference lens. Just too big and heavy for my usage.

[Mr.Q]

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.

 

I tried the CL earlier this year and I loved it's size and controls. However, I sold it a couple weeks later mainly due to the lens lineup. I shoot with fast primes and I feel the SL system with it's current lens roadmap suits me better.

[sillbeers15]

Yes, I understand that the 24-90 is a reference lens. Just too big and heavy for my usage.

Go try out the SL lenses, you might be surprise to find how they perform. The handling might also give you a more accurate assessment of the bulk rather than just judge the sizes visually. An example is I am absolutely delighted by the performance of the 16-35 and will certainly be a keeper for me even though I’m still tempted to get the WATE to pair with my M10.

More importantly, the SL and M lenses cannot be compared directly as each have different merit. The SL and native lenses should not be judged from the M size perspective, else you only stand to miss the advantage of the SL lenses by a mile. Rather if you see and compare the SL lenses to other regular AF lenses in size. It makes sense as you need to factor in the convenience of AF against the additional bulk to contain the motor, drive mechanism & electronics components.

[Mr.Q]

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

 

 

My preferred focal length is 28mm or 35mm (no preference I like both) followed closely by 50mm.

 

I shoot with fast primes because I live in Tokyo and 90% of my photography consists of street photography, or my commute going home, which happens at night. This is why the 24-90 is not an option either. It's too big and heavy to carry in my briefcase lol

 

Fuji is my more casual setup that I use for work, family, events and travel. It goes places that I feel uncomfortable taking my Leica setup, like on a boat or traveling to a 3rd world country. I often lend it out to family members as well. For lenses I have the 16/1.4, 16-55/2.8, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, and 50-140/2.8.

 

As for keeping my MF lenses, I'd say it's both for enjoyment and size. 

 

I appreciate the CL suggestion but I've tried it already. It's a lovely camera but the lens lineup does not suit my needs. I'm mainly a night photographer and the 28-50mm range lacks speed in the CL system, with the 35/1.4 being the only exception. Hope this addresses the 2 following posts as well. 

 

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. 

 

 

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.

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Yes, I think I will take this a bit slower than I initially planned. As for the CL, my M lenses changing focal lengths is no good for me.  If there were a 18/1.4 or 23/1.4 in the TL lens lineup I would have likely kept my CL in my first go-around.

 

 

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.

 

I will miss my M10 but I know that I'm never going back.

 

Unfortunately my eyesight no longer allows RF focusing.

 

I tried the Visoflex 020 for 4-5 months but I was never really happy with it.

 

I've decided to move on.

 

 

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...

 

Yes, I need fast wide primes, specifically 28mm or 35mm.

 

Even a 24mm would suffice, like the XF16/1.4. 

[Mr.Q]

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

 

Yes, these are great suggestions. I'm glad I started this thread 

 

 

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

 

Sorry to confuse you. I'm considering two new SL lenses. Not M lenses.

 

I've demoed the 75SL and I want it.

 

You're right that I can technically afford the entire SL lineup by simply selling my car or house  but my camera budget must be kept in check. 

[LD_50]

I really don’t understand these “what should I buy” threads.

 

You have M and Fuji X lenses that cover your needs but you can’t use the RF to focus on your M camera.

 

You can use the EVF for it but it’s too “fiddly.”

 

You bought the CL but returned it due to the lens lineup not being fast enough. That was the case before buying it right?

 

You want an SL but don’t want large lenses. You for some reason want to try the native lenses, but want wide fast lenses that don’t exist.

 

Just shoot M lenses on the SL or CL.

[Mr.Q]

Good to hear that only you know what you want. Other opinions may be valuable but ultimately only you know what you want.

 

Yes, thankfully my options have narrowed quite a bit 

 

 

Go try out the SL lenses, you might be surprise to find how they perform. The handling might also give you a more accurate assessment of the bulk rather than just judge the sizes visually. An example is I am absolutely delighted by the performance of the 16-35 and will certainly be a keeper for me even though I’m still tempted to get the WATE to pair with my M10.

More importantly, the SL and M lenses cannot be compared directly as each have different merit. The SL and native lenses should not be judged from the M size perspective, else you only stand to miss the advantage of the SL lenses by a mile. Rather if you see and compare the SL lenses to other regular AF lenses in size. It makes sense as you need to factor in the convenience of AF against the additional bulk to contain the motor, drive mechanism & electronics components.

 

I tried the SL + lenses at the Leica store and the new SL-Summicron's are at the absolute limit of size/weight that I can tolerate. I understand that all the zooms are reference lenses. The Leica rep showed me some prints taken with the 24-90 and 90-280 and I was blown away with the detail/resolution.

 

I'm not really comparing the SL lenses to the M lenses. I know that AF lenses and zoom lenses are larger and heavier. I just need to find what's right for me.

[Mr.Q]

I really don’t understand these “what should I buy” threads.

 

You have M and Fuji X lenses that cover your needs but you can’t use the RF to focus on your M camera.

 

You can use the EVF for it but it’s too “fiddly.”

 

You bought the CL but returned it due to the lens lineup not being fast enough. That was the case before buying it right?

 

You want an SL but don’t want large lenses. You for some reason want to try the native lenses, but want wide fast lenses that don’t exist.

 

Just shoot M lenses on the SL or CL.

 

Respectfully, it's a "what should I sell" thread. 

 

I know what I want to buy; a Leica SL with two lenses --- the 35SL and 75SL.

 

I want to keep some of my M lenses to compliment those two lenses, and many posters have helped with great advice throughout this thread.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to post in a condescending manner.

[LD_50]

I wasn’t intending to be condescending.

 

The 35 and 75 overlap with only one of your existing lenses. The lenses you state you want (you mentioned a preference for fast 28-50 at small sizes) don’t exist for the SL system. You already have these lenses covered with your existing M lenses.

 

I just don’t understand the need for advice if you’re going to buy those two SL lenses. Sell what you don’t use. Keep what you do. I can’t see how anyone’s input would be helpful. I’ll drop out of the thread because I’m probably not helping you decide which of your lenses you want to keep.

[sillbeers15]

Respectfully, it's a "what should I sell" thread.

 

I know what I want to buy; a Leica SL with two lenses --- the 35SL and 75SL.

 

I want to keep some of my M lenses to compliment those two lenses, and many posters have helped with great advice throughout this thread.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to post in a condescending manner.

Great that all the information helped you.

Importantly enjoy your experience with the SL!

It is a great system so I hope it serves your needs.

[Per P.]

I’m also dropping out of this click-bait thread.

 

If you want a practical solution then do as Gordon suggests. Sell the Fuji and M stuff to get the CL. If very fast primes are essential then keep them and sell the rest. If 35mm is important then keep it until the - not superfast - 35mm SL is available. If the Wate is irreplaceable then keep that too. If size matters then stick with the M lenses. If autofocus matters then don’t. All combos have some sort of compromise.

 

Good luck.

[Mr.Q]

I wasn’t intending to be condescending.

 

The 35 and 75 overlap with only one of your existing lenses. The lenses you state you want (you mentioned a preference for fast 28-50 at small sizes) don’t exist for the SL system. You already have these lenses covered with your existing M lenses.

 

I just don’t understand the need for advice if you’re going to buy those two SL lenses. Sell what you don’t use. Keep what you do. I can’t see how anyone’s input would be helpful. I’ll drop out of the thread because I’m probably not helping you decide which of your lenses you want to keep.

No worries, messages can come across more harsh than intended.

 

I'm seeking for advice from current SL owners because experience always trumps assumption.  I'm sure a lot of folks have switched from M to SL and know which M lenses work good with each system. That is valuable input that is helpful to me.

[Mr.Q]

I’m also dropping out of this click-bait thread.

 

If you want a practical solution then do as Gordon suggests. Sell the Fuji and M stuff to get the CL. If very fast primes are essential then keep them and sell the rest. If 35mm is important then keep it until the - not superfast - 35mm SL is available. If the Wate is irreplaceable then keep that too. If size matters then stick with the M lenses. If autofocus matters then don’t. All combos have some sort of compromise.

 

Good luck.

 

Thanks, I'm probably going to follow what you mention in your 4th sentence onwards.

 

I'm still on the fence with the 50 lux ASPH though. That's what I need to sell/sacrifice in order to afford the 75 SL.

 

I know the Noctilux better balances on the SL but it just feels weird selling one of my favorite M lenses.

[Einst_Stein]

I believe enginerringwise CL is capable of M portability and IQ, and SL autobility. Not FF, but the difference should be more than ignorable for most people. But it will be a long way for CL and SL to catch up the rich assets of M system.

 

So CL or SL should be an “upgrade” for M, but keeping some of the M assets could be a wise choice in the transition prriod. If money is not an issue, keep the M stuffs for a while till you yourself know which can go without asking opinions. If money does matter, go with CL and still keep the M stuffs, at least your most favorite pieces.

[Mr.Q]

I believe enginerringwise CL is capable of M portability and IQ, and SL autobility. Not FF, but the difference should be more than ignorable for most people. But it will be a long way for CL and SL to catch up the rich assets of M system.

 

So CL or SL should be an “upgrade” for M, but keeping some of the M assets could be a wise choice in the transition prriod. If money is not an issue, keep the M stuffs for a while till you yourself know which can go without asking opinions. If money does matter, go with CL and still keep the M stuffs, at least your most favorite pieces.

It seems Leica hit a homerun with the CL judging from the amount of supporters there are for that system. It didn't work for me but I certainly understand the appeal.

 

I'm not really thinking in terms or upgrading or downgrading, but I do know that my eyesight no longer allows the use of a rangefinder. It was once a joy to use but now it's just stressful. I'm a bit relieved to be moving on to be honest. I will be keeping some of my M stuff though

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Mr.Q]

I'd like to thank everyone who chimed in with their thoughtful replies.

 

I've decided to sell the M10, 50 lux asph, 90 Elmarit, and all M accessories. That will build enough capital for a pre-owned SL, extra battery, M-mount adapter, and the 75 SL. Will hold onto the 35 FLE at least until the 35 SL becomes available for purchase.

 

I'll miss the M but I'm excited to move on to the SL system

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Congrats and enjoy your new camera and lenses.

 

Be warned though. You like the M lenses now. The SL75 is going to knock your socks off. It's that good. You're on a wonderful slippery slope with the SL primes.

 

Gordon