M lenses on SL vs M camera bodies

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I presume that this topic has been discussed before, but my search has come up with nothing useful.

In my own practice, I use several Leica M lenses on my SL and am extremely pleased with the results. But there are some folks who claim that M lenses perform better on M bodies. What is the truth of the matter?  I am certain that there are more than a few users of both M and SL cameras on this forum who can speak from their own experience.

[Advertisement]

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

[Fedro]

interesting topic. I am not sure how to define better, and I have not done any tests, but to my eyes there are at least a couple of M lenses that perform really well on the SL: one being the 28 Lux and the other being the 21 Lux. I think I read somewhere a comment (perhaps by Jono Slack?) that this type of lens build seems to work really well on the SL

I also noticed that the 75 Lux is really good on the SL, but perhaps that is a function of me nailing focus more regularly compared to the same lens on an M

[grahamhoey]

To me the last point made by Fedro is the most important. It is so much easier for me to nail focus with focus peaking and magnification on the SL than on a M. I know you can put a EVF on a M but the EVF experience is entirely different on a SL

[Alistairm]

I have used M lenses extensively on the SL and haven't noticed any image quality degradation. That they are easier to focus and frame and that you get WYSIWYG exposure is a bonus. 

Of course, there is nothing quite like shooting with a rangefinder and the satisfaction of nailing a photo in that format is (at least for me) intense. But if I could only keep one it would be the SL. 

[kikouyou]

You can read the Reid Reviews at www.reidreviews.com and check that on the wide angle starting at 28mm there is a difference in the corner with the previous version of the 28mm 2.8. This is due to the microlenses in front of the M sensor which I am not sure are implemented on the SL. In general wide angles perform better on the M in the corners. In the center, you would be pressed to see any difference...

[Alistairm]

1 minute ago, kikouyou said:

You can read the Reid Reviews at www.reidreviews.com and check that on the wide angle starting at 28mm there is a difference in the corner with the previous version of the 28mm 2.8. This is due to the microlenses in front of the M sensor which I am not sure are implemented on the SL. In general wide angles perform better on the M in the corners. In the center, you would be pressed to see any difference...

I probably haven't noticed because I don't have any M lenses wider than 24... that's a focal length I can guestimate pretty well... anything wider I find my framing uncomfortably innacurate on a rangefider. And the 16-35 is soooo sweeet.... 

[caissa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some say that M lenses are best on M and almost as good on SL. Personally I think they are equal on both systems, as both systems have special (aspherical) microlenses to support the quality of M lenses (in out of center areas). I even heard/read that the new Panasonic systems have special microlenses, but currently it's difficult to confirm. Some lenses are definitely better on the SL, like for example the Noctilux, because usage is so much easier, and misfocus therefore rarer.

Of course there can be differences in the microlenses between these systems - nobody really knows. (nobody but Leica) . I am really mainly looking forward to experiences with the S1R, which might be bigger or not. (The jury is still out).

I use (by chance) only non-critical M lenses (WATE plus 28mm and upwards), so for me the quality of the M lenses is really exactly the same (on M246 and SL). And I think Reid Reviews has also done many tests and reaffirmed that. He actually found that some newer versions of the 28mm lenses work slightly better on the SL. But I am sure, that I do not take pics in such a way that I could prove that there is a difference. And I also do not like too much pixel peeping.

Summary: Do not worry too much about quality differences with M or SL. The other differences (OVF vs EVF) are much more important. (Especially reading from the sensor plane, which never needs adjustment, versus a separate system (OVF) that needs calibration from time to time (and sometimes also per lens)).

[jaapv]

Agree, except that my rangefinders only need calibration after a heavy knock or something like that. For the rest they stay in calibration for decades.

[MarkP]

The only SL lens I have is the 24-90. I'l eventually get either a 35 or 50 Summicron-SL, probably the latter.
I have used most of my M lenses (21 to 135mm) on the SL and have had no concerns with image quality.

[thighslapper]

18 hours ago, robgo2 said:

I presume that this topic has been discussed before, but my search has come up with nothing useful.

In my own practice, I use several Leica M lenses on my SL and am extremely pleased with the results. But there are some folks who claim that M lenses perform better on M bodies. What is the truth of the matter?  I am certain that there are more than a few users of both M and SL cameras on this forum who can speak from their own experience.

I did some quite thorough testing and comparisons shortly after the SL was released. Most of the concerns were with peripheral performance. You may find the thread if you search. I've put the main findings below. Basically all the modern design M lenses + WATE perform about as well on the SL as compared to on the M. The only significant differences were worse peripheral/corner performance with the older versions of W/A lenses such as the 28/2 and 35/2. Even then it was difficult to notice as in landscape images the top corners are usually sky and the bottoms very close and OOF. Also bear in mind differences wide open may not be significant as if you are using large apertures on wide angle lenses you are usually actively trying to get everything but the subject OOF, so corner issues may be irrelevant. Similarly you rarely use W/A lenses at very close distances. Maybe with architectural subjects you would notice something. Above 50mm there were no discernible differences at all (I checked at a later date but didn't update the thread). I'd take anything anyone else says with a pinch of salt. Doing accurate repeatable testing is very difficult.....  and I have absolutely no faith in 'anecdotal findings' which are in reality just unsupported opinions.  

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!

Edited February 17, 2019 by thighslapper

[Guest]

I couldn't tell any difference in image quality between my M lenses on the SL and M10. What I didn't like however is how they look and feel on the SL, being much too small and light for my tastes. I know that's of zero importance to many, but it did matter to me. I've since sold my M lenses (and M10), and am using Contax/Zeiss glass when I want the manual focus experience. These lenses balance much better on the SL for me, similar to how Leica R lenses are.