Leica Lenses: SL vs M

[wosamko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear all,

 

I am planing to buy either SL or M10. What are the differences between those two lenses model? Is it quality? or only manual focus and small size?

 

Thanks

[Stonewall Brigade]

With the SL, the zoom lenses are image stabilized. You'll never get that with M lenses.  The SL lenses are also much larger than M lenses, and cost the same or more. And the SL lenses are autofocus.  From what I'd read regarding sharpness and contrast, the SL lenses are excellent. That said, the M and SL lenses are really very different from each other in many ways, yet both the M and SL cameras can yield almost identical images.

[Advertisement]

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

[wosamko]

With the SL, the zoom lenses are image stabilized. You'll never get that with M lenses.  The SL lenses are also much larger than M lenses, and cost the same or more. And the SL lenses are autofocus.  From what I'd read regarding sharpness and contrast, the SL lenses are excellent. That said, the M and SL lenses are really very different from each other in many ways, yet both the M and SL cameras can yield almost identical images.

 

What is about sharpness and contrast: M is equal to SL? Or SL is better?

[M11 for me]

would be interesting to read from your perspective how you would rate the differences.

[Bill W]

Modern Leica lens are sharp if you the photographer do your job. Contrast is subjective and can be controlled in post. Out of camera jpegs for the SL and CL are very nice especially with the CL. I use vivid as my default in the CL. FWIW

[jaapv]

What is about sharpness and contrast: M is equal to SL? Or SL is better?

Answered in another thread: sharpness is a meaningless term and contrast irrelevant. 

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Answered in another thread: sharpness is a meaningless term and contrast irrelevant.

 

Unless you’re looking for another interminable semantic discussion, how on earth is this comment helpful to someone trying to understand his choices (I assume Wosamko is a man)? Seriously, what is the point? Wosamko is nonethewiser and your post looks ... like you’re just making a point.

 

Sharpness might be a meaningless term (I don’t really know or care) - what he’s wanting to understand is what he sees, and a good lens will give an image appearing “sharper” than an image from a crap lens; I don’t know why you would say “contrast is irrelevant” when to many photographers it is. More semantics, I assume. We perceive both sharpness and contrast, and that is the point, surely.

[Chaemono]

FYI, the OP posted the exact same question in the SL thread.

[Tailwagger]

Perhaps its a growl resulting from a bit of impatience. There are somethings in life you can ask for guidance and get some worthwhile advice. Others, you're simply asking for trouble.  This is one of them. 

 

As we all know, you can consult the charts, read reviews, solicit opinion, view images, but in the end selecting the appropriate equipment comes down to one's own vision meshing with what the gear can produce.  There really are no short cuts to getting there.  Equally the question seems to presume that anyone can simply come along and extract the best out of the equipment that its capable of.  The 75 Noctilux might well be the most technically perfect lens in the world, but neither is everyone capable of shooting it as intended, let alone being able to swallow hard enough to buy one.   

 

That said there are some who do try to others answer such questions. In this sphere, SL vs M, I'd suggest looking, carefully, through the street silhouettes blog.  Numerous comparison of SL and M glass. Most to the relevant posts are from early to mid 2017. http://www.streetsilhouettes.com/

 

[jaapv]

Unless you’re looking for another interminable semantic discussion, how on earth is this comment helpful to someone trying to understand his choices (I assume Wosamko is a man)? Seriously, what is the point? Wosamko is nonethewiser and your post looks ... like you’re just making a point.

 

Sharpness might be a meaningless term (I don’t really know or care) - what he’s wanting to understand is what he sees, and a good lens will give an image appearing “sharper” than an image from a crap lens; I don’t know why you would say “contrast is irrelevant” when to many photographers it is. More semantics, I assume. We perceive both sharpness and contrast, and that is the point, surely.

Contrast can be endlessly manipulated on a digital image.

[6bit]

I received my SL today. It’s bigger and heavier. I can’t really describe the bigger part. I believe it is the large grip that makes it seem so big. It’s a big grip. Overall, I really like the SL. I have no plans at the moment to use SL Glass. I am going to use M glass on it. My 50/.95, 75/2.4, and 35 lux at the moment.

 

The EVF is remarkable. I dare say I have not encountered a nicer one. The menu/button system is different but really nice once you spend a few hours with it. Well thought out. I’m on FW 3.2.

 

Overall, I only have a few nit picks but I really like the camera. Focusing is a dream and I’m not guessing if I nailed it. I know. I still love my M10 but this SL is going to have a long love affair with me.

[adan]

Contrast can be endlessly manipulated on a digital image.

 

Quite true - but it's nice if the lens designer does most of the work for me.

 

That being said, I prefer lenses with a bit less macro-contrast (as opposed to edge contrast, a different characteristic). Any help I can get to keep the histogram from clipping in direct sunlight is useful. Thus I tend to stick with the last pre-APO/ASPH generation of Leitz/Leica lenses when I can.