After eight months of using the SL, going back to an M seems impossible

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Highlight mine... Isn't it true that M lenses still perform better on M than on SL? I remember previous 28 Cron ASPH doing better on M240 than SL while the latest 28 Cron ASPH is equally good on SL (based on what I read). I do understand that the technical difference may not matter in one's photography.

Perhaps, although Jono Slack & Reid Reviews have written about how superbly M glass performs on the SL. In practical use I have not noticed any decline in quality using the exact same glass on my SL that I used on my 240, quite the contrary. My ability to frame and expose and focus precisely with the EVF has given me better average results than with my M.

 

I am intrigued by the possibility of higher resolution via the native lenses, some of the recent pictures posted here from the 16-35 & the 75 are pretty impressive. But as I said in the OP, I just can’t get past the size of the native glass. I wonder how many other SL users have felt this way but gotten past it.

Edited June 6, 2018 by trickness

[FlashGordonPhotography]

With all my love for the SL, I still have hesitancy buying any native lenses for it, while I plot my next M lens purchase (to use exclusively on the SL). I sold my Nikon DSLR rig to get a 240 3 years ago, returning to Leica, largely because I hated the bulk of the camera. I sold the 240 to help pay for the SL, and brought my M glass with me to the system. Still I know I'm not getting the best out of the SL without using native lenses.

 

Anyone else having this conflict? I just can't see going "big" again despite the fact that the SL is the ideal camera for me in pretty much every other way. I LOVE this camera with M lenses.

 

I see a CL in your future.

 

And yes I have that as well. But I can select the CL, SL with M lenses or SL with native lenses depending on need and subject. Sometimes I don't mind the size. Others I can select the smaller lenses/system.

 

Gordon

[ramarren]

Highlight mine... Isn't it true that M lenses still perform better on M than on SL? I remember previous 28 Cron ASPH doing better on M240 than SL while the latest 28 Cron ASPH is equally good on SL (based on what I read). I do understand that the technical difference may not matter in one's photography.

 

 

Having used both M lenses and the native SL lenses on the SL extensively, and the M lenses on the M-P and M-D, I'd say that the differences in rendering from the M lenses is questionably identical, with some variations on a lens by lens basis. By and large, the SL lenses outperform the M lenses on the SL. 

 

But ... Always a but in these kinds of evaluations ... We are talking lenses and bodies at the ultra-premium end of the spectrum here in nearly all cases. The differences between their performance are more a matter of nuance and "what you prefer" than huge, gross, easily measurable anomalies. 

 

Where I find the M lenses are not quite as good as the native SL lenses, is in ergonomics. Most just fit the rangefinder camera they were designed for that wee bit better, which makes a difference to me but not to the viewer of my photos. 

[Mr.Q]

I am intrigued by the possibility of higher resolution via the native lenses, some of the recent pictures posted here from the 16-35 & the 75 are pretty impressive. But as I said in the OP, I just can’t get past the size of the native glass. I wonder how many other SL users have felt this way but gotten past it.

 

I have that conflict as well, and I prefer not to purchase additional Leica bodies (I already have the Q and X-T2) to rectify the problem.

 

I question Leica's decision to make all the Summicron's the same size. It probably saves them manufacturing costs, but the standard lenses (35 and 50) should be smaller than the telephoto's (75 and 90), given the optical performance being equal. I plan to purchase the 35-SL but I wish it were an inch shorter.

[sillbeers15]

I question Leica's decision to make all the Summicron's the same size. It probably saves them manufacturing costs, but the standard lenses (35 and 50) should be smaller than the telephoto's (75 and 90), given the optical performance being equal. I plan to purchase the 35-SL but I wish it were an inch shorter.

Your argument on the overall length on lenses based on focal length is theoretically correct. But you need to consider the other factors. For overall DSLR / SLR lenses, my non scientific observation is such that the lens length from focal length perspective is non linear. Ie 10mm to 18mm lenses are not generally shorter than say 28-35mm lenses. Wherelse a 500mm lens can be seen clearly longer than a 200mm lens. So back to your enquiry on length of 35mm to 50mm to 75mm, these focal lengths are just next to one another, that is all the more logical for Leica to group them together with the same barrels. Besides, you do not expect to see a shorter than DSLR lens physical cause these lenses support the SL that is Mirrorless (lenses need to fill up length of mirror in camera body).

[Mr.Q]

Your argument on the overall length on lenses based on focal length is theoretically correct. But you need to consider the other factors. For overall DSLR / SLR lenses, my non scientific observation is such that the lens length from focal length perspective is non linear. Ie 10mm to 18mm lenses are not generally shorter than say 28-35mm lenses. Wherelse a 500mm lens can be seen clearly longer than a 200mm lens. So back to your enquiry on length of 35mm to 50mm to 75mm, these focal lengths are just next to one another, that is all the more logical for Leica to group them together with the same barrels. Besides, you do not expect to see a shorter than DSLR lens physical cause these lenses support the SL that is Mirrorless (lenses need to fill up length of mirror in camera body).

 

From my observation (admittedly a non-technical one) standard focal length (35mm to 50mm) lenses can be made the smallest. The more it deviates from the standard focal length (wider than 28mm and longer than 70mm), with aperture being equal, the lenses become larger.  The 50mm APO-Summicron-M, for example, is every bit as good optically as the 75mm APO-Summicron-M and 90mm APO-Summicron-M, but is nearly half the size of the latter lenses.

 

With that in mind, it is my observation that they designed the barrel to accommodate the optics of the 90-SL first, then decided to use the same barrel for the other Summicron's for cost-cutting measures. That to me is a bit disappointing.

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This gives you some idea of where the 'extra dimension' comes from ......

 

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!

 

and the explanation ....

 

https://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-SL/SL-Lenses/Prime-Lenses/APO-Summicron-SL-75

[wlaidlaw]

I have to admit to considering a 75mm SL lens but that is mainly because I have never really warmed to the 75/2.5 Summarit, since I bought it in the first week they came out in 2007. Unlike my various Summicrons and Summiluxes, which seem to increase the depth of what they are taking, the 75 Summarit seems to compress and flatten images. I kept it, as this odd characteristic made it a good lens for technical use and archival work but I have retired from that business. I will probably go up to Leica Mayfair in the autumn to see if I can borrow a 75mm SL demonstrator for an hour or so to see if I like it better than the Summarit or the 24-90 Zoom set at 75mm, which is pretty good if a tad slow at f3.9 (from the DOF point of view not the light transmission).

 

Wilson

 

However I do wonder whether saving approx £2000 and buying a second hand 75 Summicron-M might not be a better idea. I can then use on my various film M's and M240. 

Edited June 7, 2018 by wlaidlaw

[Mr.Q]

This gives you some idea of where the 'extra dimension' comes from ......

 

DSD-Visualisierung-ffffff_teaser-1316x878.jpg

 

and the explanation ....

 

https://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-SL/SL-Lenses/Prime-Lenses/APO-Summicron-SL-75

If the AF mechanism is the reason for it's size then the AF speed better be ultrasonic, which it clearly isn't. It's like packing a V8 motor into a sports car that produces only 150hp. Quite embarrassing.

[Mr.Q]

BTW I'm referring specifically to the 35 and 50 SL lenses. With all things being equal (aperture, IQ and AF speed) they should be smaller than the 75 and 90, which I feel are appropriately sized.

[sillbeers15]

If the AF mechanism is the reason for it's size then the AF speed better be ultrasonic, which it clearly isn't. It's like packing a V8 motor into a sports car that produces only 150hp. Quite embarrassing.

 

You're overeacting for someone who does not own a single Leica SL lens. 

 

In ancient Chinese there is saying: 'The weak acts arrogantly!'.

[Mr.Q]

You're overeacting for someone who does not own a single Leica SL lens.

 

In ancient Chinese there is saying: 'The weak acts arrogantly!'.

Hmm, what makes you so sure that I didn't receive my 75-SL last weekend? And I had plenty of time handling the 16-35 and 24-90 at the Leica store in Ginza.

 

Not sure why you felt the need to resort to personal attacks.

[robgo2]

I am a travel and street photographer. I owned a 24-90 SL until recently but never used it, because I knew that having to schlepp that lens around all day would drain much of the pleasure from the shooting process. So I sold it. It is undoubtedly a great zoom lens, but the IQ is certainly not better than what I get from M and R prime lenses, which have more character are more pleasurable to use, at least for me.

[trickness]

Hmm, what makes you so sure that I didn't receive my 75-SL last weekend? 

 

 

Curious if you're an M lens user on the SL and if so, what you think about the 75SL? I haven't gotten to handle one yet here in NYC, wondering if it is truly smaller and more manageable than the other native lenses that have been released so far.

[Csacwp]

The new primes are a good size, but I too only use M glass on my SL. The reason for me isn't size but my disdain for autofocus. If Leica had made manual focus lenses for the SL, I would have bought them in a heartbeat. I don't like the idea of spending $5000 on a lens with electronic components that could one day fail. I also don't like fly by wire manual focusing.

[helged]

Curious if you're an M lens user on the SL and if so, what you think about the 75SL? I haven't gotten to handle one yet here in NYC, wondering if it is truly smaller and more manageable than the other native lenses that have been released so far.

For the latter - I would say a clear yes. The 75SL is, compared to the three zooms, small and light-weight. Relatively speaking. Actually, 75SL FEELS comparable to 75Lux-M or 90Cron-M, although being somewhat heavier (720 g) compared with both (560 g and 660 g, respectively).

[Mr.Q]

Curious if you're an M lens user on the SL and if so, what you think about the 75SL? I haven't gotten to handle one yet here in NYC, wondering if it is truly smaller and more manageable than the other native lenses that have been released so far.

In my recent swap from M10 to SL, I decided to keep the WATE, 35 FLE, and 50/0.95.

 

The 75-SL is definitely more manageable than the other native zooms. It's actually noticeably lighter than my Noctilux + M-adapter-L, though about an inch longer. I bought it primarily to pair it up with my Q for event/wedding type work where autofocus will be needed. In any other case I'd prefer to shoot with my M glass.

 

I was originally planning on replacing my 35 FLE with the 35 SL, but now having second thoughts. Perhaps I'll sell my 35 FLE and replace it with the excellent Zeiss 35/1.4 and 50/1.5 ZM's, both of which had quirks with a rangefinder but not so much with the SL.

[tom0511]

Curious if you're an M lens user on the SL and if so, what you think about the 75SL? I haven't gotten to handle one yet here in NYC, wondering if it is truly smaller and more manageable than the other native lenses that have been released so far.

 

It is clearly smaller than the zooms or the 50. And it allows easier accurate focus compared to the M. I really like both systems but at 50/1.4 or 75/2.0 AF helps a lot for accurate focus. 

[thighslapper]

The new primes are a good size, but I too only use M glass on my SL. The reason for me isn't size but my disdain for autofocus. If Leica had made manual focus lenses for the SL, I would have bought them in a heartbeat. I don't like the idea of spending $5000 on a lens with electronic components that could one day fail. I also don't like fly by wire manual focusing.

 

 ...... so you are still driving a 1960's Vintage car and flying by Biplane ...... and using a wind up gramophone .....  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[trickness]

...... so you are still driving a 1960's Vintage car and flying by Biplane ...... and using a wind up gramophone .....

......which has nothing to do with the ultimate output from these tools, nor are they in anyway an impediment to one’s photographic ability. All these tools are so good these days that the only real impediment to a good photograph is the photographer him or herself.

Edited June 7, 2018 by trickness