SL primes vs M lenses stopped down

[Csacwp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am considering getting back into Leica after some time off. I used to have an SL and loved it, but I only used M and R lenses with it. I love manual focus but these days I also want very fine image quality, especially when stopped down. I'd be interested in a medium format system if they were faster. How do the SL primes compare to M primes stopped down? Is the image quality worth dealing with the larger size and focus by wire?

[helged]

The SL-primes are technically and optically outstanding. Field flatness is very good, colour aberrations close to non-existent, close to no vignetting, resolution and sharpness above anything I have seen. And they are weather proof. It's hard to tell whether you will see noticeable difference(s) between M primes and SL primes stopped down - it all depends on printing size and/or cropping, I guess. Rent a SL prime and have a look...!

[LD_50]

Most modern lenses tend to look good stopped down.

 

You can choose adapted and small lenses that are much cheaper than Leica if you are regularly stopped down.

[AndreaP75]

SL lenses line are optically the very best you can get in the Leica world and they are superior to equivalent and adapted M lenses at the same focal length and aperture. Using M lenses on M bodies reduces the gap and when stopped down they are basically equivalent. In a practical shooting environment a stopped down SL 50 lux still maintains a slight edge over the M 50 APO (adapted on the SL). It's more about clarity and definition rather than sharpness. 

[Jon Warwick]

SL lenses line are optically the very best you can get in the Leica world and they are superior to equivalent and adapted M lenses at the same focal length and aperture. Using M lenses on M bodies reduces the gap and when stopped down they are basically equivalent. In a practical shooting environment a stopped down SL 50 lux still maintains a slight edge over the M 50 APO (adapted on the SL). It's more about clarity and definition rather than sharpness.

+1

 

I have the M 50 APO. I’ve also extensively used the SL 75mm Summicron. The SL Summicron lenses are superior to anything I’ve got off the 50 APO.

 

It’s not necessarily “resolution” per se that I see as superior, rather, it’s the “clarity” of the SL combo that I notice - for large prints, it’s like someone has removed a sheet of plastic from in front of the lens when I compare the SL over M.

 

In other words, i personally see less “blur” in the SL images.

 

I have no idea what causes this, but would guess that the SL lenses’ longer and larger design allows more accurate and direct placement of light through the lens and onto the SL sensor. I’d guess this could mean less crosstalk on the sensor’s pixels, and hence less “blur”.

 

The M 50 APO is a masterpiece in compact design and image quality, and I think it really shines on the Monochrom cameras .....but for colour work, i do see a decent improvement in image quality for large prints off the SL lenses (again mainly from the lack of “blur”).

[thighslapper]

I am considering getting back into Leica after some time off. I used to have an SL and loved it, but I only used M and R lenses with it. I love manual focus but these days I also want very fine image quality, especially when stopped down. I'd be interested in a medium format system if they were faster. How do the SL primes compare to M primes stopped down? Is the image quality worth dealing with the larger size and focus by wire?

 

I would rate the 50SL and 75SL optically better than any of the available M & R 50 and 75/80mm lenses. AF is accurate and fast.

 

There is a significant weight and size penalty (except with the noctilux) ...... and although pixel peeping might reveal differences that you feel may be significant I doubt that would translate into much difference in prints at the sizes you would make from a 24mpx sensor. 

 

However the lenses are pretty future proof ....... and I suspect even doubling the pixel density (to 96mpx) would not come close to the resolving power of these optics. 

 

Again, it comes down to your needs, and whether having the very best available is worth the money and the extra size/weight. 

[Csacwp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Longevity has me concerned. What happens when the stepper motor dies? Since the lens is focus by wire, I wouldn't even be able to manually focus it is the motor died.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Csacwp

[mmradman]

Longevity has me concerned. What happens when the stepper motor dies? Since the lens is focus by wire, I wouldn't even be able to manually focus it is the motor died.

AF lens is an electronic device with expensive optics cell mounted in, so yes longevity may be a cause for some concern.

 

Top AF lens manufacturers like Canon and Nikon churn out updated models of best sellers and flagship lenses every few years, old model is than supported for a finite period of time, usually several years but never longer than, from memory, ten years.  

[pgk]

..... I ..... want very fine image quality, especially when stopped down. I'd be interested in a medium format system if they were faster. How do the SL primes compare to M primes stopped down?

 

Define 'stopped down'. If you mean f/16 then any decent lens should give reasonable image 'quality', whatever that is. Small apertures tend to be diffraction limited so differences in optics are minimal. I don't follow the logic of needing 'faster' gear if you are going to use it 'stopped down'.

[Csacwp]

Faster as in the camera is faster to use. I didn't mean fast lenses. With modern ISO performance nobody really needs anything faster than f/4.

[LD_50]

With modern ISO performance nobody really needs anything faster than f/4.

I don’t agree with that statement at all. Even with my high ISO focused Nikon D4 and D4s I saw significant advantage to shooting f/2.8 zooms over f/4 for sports and fast primes over slow ones for most anything else. Higher ISO degrades image quality and slower max aperture degrades AF capability.

[pgk]

Faster as in the camera is faster to use. I didn't mean fast lenses. With modern ISO performance nobody really needs anything faster than f/4.

 

Makes sense in terms of faster to use camera. But I do use fast lenses still and find them useful.

 

But you still need to define 'stopped down'.

[Richardgb]

Faster as in the camera is faster to use. I didn't mean fast lenses. With modern ISO performance nobody really needs anything faster than f/4.

Surely a wider aperture gives greater accuracy for focusing on cameras relying on the lens' own optics.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Richardgb

[Mr.Q]

Longevity has me concerned. What happens when the stepper motor dies? Since the lens is focus by wire, I wouldn't even be able to manually focus it is the motor died.

 

I hear you, hence why I have a hard time paying a premium for AF lenses. They are like digital bodies and have a finite life span..... like 10-15 years max probably?

 

Have you considered Otus lenses?

[robgo2]

I hear you, hence why I have a hard time paying a premium for AF lenses. They are like digital bodies and have a finite life span..... like 10-15 years max probably?

 

Have you considered Otus lenses?

 

10-15 years? You have a long time horizon. For me, if I got superior performance from an autofocus lens for that length of time, I would be pleased and would look forward to replacing it at the end of its life. I say this as one who happily uses only MF lenses on his SL.

[Mr.Q]

It's not a lifelong investment (and your children/grandchildren inheriting it) like MF lenses is all I'm saying.

[Csacwp]

I'd happily use Otus if they made a 35mm. The 85mm is killer.

[robgo2]

It's not a lifelong investment (and your children/grandchildren inheriting it) like MF lenses is all I'm saying.

 

Understood, but I have never considered my camera gear as an investment. Different strokes.    BTW, my R and M lenses are superb on the SL. Even if the SL lenses are technically superior, I doubt that the difference can be seen except in very large prints. Moreover, there are times when I prefer the classic rendering of the classic lenses. Can any of the native SL lenses produce the same look as the Summilux-R 80 f1.4 or Summilux-M 75 f1.4 at wide apertures? Almost certainly not. I would say that in this respect, they are different, not better. Yet when stopped down, those two lenses are very sharp indeed.

Edited September 19, 2018 by robgo2

[LD_50]

Understood, but I have never considered my camera gear as an investment. Different strokes. BTW, my R and M lenses are superb on the SL. Even if the SL lenses are technically superior, I doubt that the difference can be seen except in very large prints. Moreover, there are times when I prefer the classic rendering of the classic lenses. Can any of the native SL lenses produce the same look as the Summilux-R 80 f1.4 or Summilux-M 75 f1.4? Almost certainly not. I would say that in this respect, they are different, not better.

I am definitely in support of using the lenses that give the look you prefer.

 

That said I read this sort of thing frequently:

1- “I doubt the difference can be seen except in very large prints.”

2- “I prefer the classic rendering of the classic lenses.”

 

Don’t these two statements contradict each other? If you can see the “classic rendering” you can certainly see the difference with the SL lenses. I like my Summilux-M lens and I like my Summilux-SL lens. The difference was pretty clear when I shot them side by side on the SL. Each are good, and I may prefer one or the other’s end result.

Edited September 19, 2018 by LD_50

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[helged]

Understood, but I have never considered my camera gear as an investment. Different strokes.    BTW, my R and M lenses are superb on the SL. Even if the SL lenses are technically superior, I doubt that the difference can be seen except in very large prints. Moreover, there are times when I prefer the classic rendering of the classic lenses. Can any of the native SL lenses produce the same look as the Summilux-R 80 f1.4 or Summilux-M 75 f1.4 at wide apertures? Almost certainly not. I would say that in this respect, they are different, not better. Yet when stopped down, those two lenses are very sharp indeed.

 

With the SL, we can - and do - enjoy all sorts of lenses, old and new, technically 'inferior' and superior. And everything between. Quite amazing, actually.

Edited September 19, 2018 by helged