My Take on the APO-Summicron SL 35mm Asph

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI There - I've had the lens for a couple of weeks to put through it's paces.

Here is a link

A short report on the 35 APO Summicron

 

All the best 

[Guest]

Great stuff, really enjoyed reading that - I only wish you wrote even more!

[Advertisement]

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

[AndreaP75]

Thanks for the report Jono, very much appreciated!

My expectations from this lens are all shown on your great images.

Background separation on images such as "Watching" is nothing short of spectacular and will be very appreciated in documentary and environmental portraiture. 

Now, I guess we can clearly see where the whole line of SL crons is heading to, as far as rendering and look. To me, it's almost stepping into medium format territory (at least the "cropped" MF). When the SL2 will become available, the full potential of these lenses will be finally revealed. 

Thanks again for sharing this great review,

Andrea

 

[Per P.]

Thanks Jono. A shame they don’t let you keep the prototype

Like you I have the 75mm. Unlike you there was no anguish. Tried it, loved it, bought it - and signed up for the 35mm too. Magical lenses!

[jplomley]

One of the complaints I have with the 35 FLE for the M system is the nervous bokeh. If the 35 APO demonstrates improvement in this area, it will be a winner IMHO. Would love to see side by side comparisons of the 35 Cron Asph and Lux FLE vs 35 APO Cron.

Edited March 1, 2019 by jplomley

[helged]

18 minutes ago, jplomley said:

One of the complaints I have with the 35 FLE for the M system is the nervous bokeh. If the 35 APO demonstrates improvement in this area, it will be a winner IMHO. Would love to see side by side comparisons of the 35 Cron Asph and Lux FLE vs 35 APO Cron.

Actually, I sold the 35mm FLE because of the nervous/double line bokeh. The 35SL looks quite different in that respect... 

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nice review and photos but I wonder how many of them could have been taken with the 75 Summicron-SL. If one owns the 75SL, adding the 16-35SL is a better choice IMO.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Nice review and photos but I wonder how many of them could have been taken with the 75 Summicron-SL. If one owns the 75SL, adding the 16-35SL is a better choice IMO.

For me, definitely not. The 75 surely struggles to be any kind of general purpose/walkaround lens, somehting the 35mm does perfectly. The 16-35 is huge and slow in comparison. I'm lucky enough to have both (well, I will be when the 35mm ships!), and I think they work very well together (the 16-35 mainly for landscapes).

[thighslapper]

Tempting ..... but as above I've become quite fond of the 75 SL plus 16-35 duo as stated above.

35mm has never been a focal length I've used much as a prime lens, for some strange reason...... 

[Fedro]

I actually use the 16-35 a lot in the city, for daylight walk around - it is a great lens

For faster and lighter, the new 35SL is a great choice, but probably so also is the new Q .. decisions uh!?

 

[jonoslack]

1 minute ago, thighslapper said:

Tempting ..... but as above I've become quite fond of the 75 SL plus 16-35 duo as stated above.

35mm has never been a focal length I've used much as a prime lens, for some strange reason...... 

I've not really used the 35 as a prime much either . . . . and yep the 75 SL plus the 16-35 is a good duo

[grahamhoey]

For me the weight and size of the 16-35 was too much to walk around with. I sold mine and am really looking forward to getting the new 35mm SL. I found with my 16-35 I was using it mostly at 35mm anyway. 

[Jeff S]

Instead of shlepping the 16-35 and 75, I can see the case for using just the 24-90, get bonus OIS, and be done.  For me, the SL is mostly about the (weather sealed) zooms, and the potentially lighter Lumix options add interest.  Still not sold on the system, though, awaiting the SL2 and other brand options, including L mount alliance products.

I’m probably in the minority, too, by not buying into the direction of SL (and M) lenses with abrupt and  dramatic contrast falloff; works for some circumstances, but doesn’t wear well for me after a while.  But then I feel the same about over-use of bokeh.  Duck and run....

Jeff

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Jeff S

[Chaemono]

The 16-35 has weaned me off wanting to shoot everything at f/2 or at f/1.4 (actually I like to stop down a bit the 35 Summicron-M, too). And I find its IQ better than the 24-90. It’ll get some more mileage this weekend. As a tribute to the newly launched 35 Summicron-SL, I’ll shoot it wide open, 35 mm at f/4.5. 😁

[jonoslack]

53 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

The 16-35 has weaned me off wanting to shoot everything at f/2 or at f/1.4 (actually I like to stop down a bit the 35 Summicron-M, too). And I find its IQ better than the 24-90. It’ll get some more mileage this weekend. As a tribute to the newly launched 35 Summicron-SL, I’ll shoot it wide open, 35 mm at f/4.5. 😁

 

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Instead of shlepping the 16-35 and 75, I can see the case for using just the 24-90, get bonus OIS, and be done.  For me, the SL is mostly about the (weather sealed) zooms, and the potentially lighter Lumix options add interest.  Still not sold on the system, though, awaiting the SL2 and other brand options, including L mount alliance products.

I’m probably in the minority, too, by not buying into the direction of SL (and M) lenses with abrupt and  dramatic contrast falloff; works for some circumstances, but doesn’t wear well for me after a while.  But then I feel the same about over-use of bokeh.  Duck and run....

Jeff

 

I'm pretty much with you about the SL and zooms Jeff - I like to over-use bokeh, but I'm not offended by you not liking it (so no need to duck and run). The slow burn love affair with the 16-35 is increasing though - and I'll be interested in Longer Lenses from Lumix (or Sigma) as well . . . . but what really impresses me is that all the SL lenses are viceless - by which I mean you can shoot all of them at all apertures and all focal lengths without having to consider the consequences

[Fedro]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Instead of shlepping the 16-35 and 75, I can see the case for using just the 24-90, get bonus OIS, and be done.  For me, the SL is mostly about the (weather sealed) zooms, and the potentially lighter Lumix options add interest.  Still not sold on the system, though, awaiting the SL2 and other brand options, including L mount alliance products.

I’m probably in the minority, too, by not buying into the direction of SL (and M) lenses with abrupt and  dramatic contrast falloff; works for some circumstances, but doesn’t wear well for me after a while.  But then I feel the same about over-use of bokeh.  Duck and run....

Jeff

 

I don't even take the 75! I just go with the 16-35

I guess after spending time with Vieri in Dorset, I came back with a serious case of wideangle-itis

[Jeff S]

All personal of course. I’m not a wide angle or tripod type guy (at least not with 35mm cameras).  So the focal length range of the 24-90 is far more practical for me, and OIS can often have more IQ benefits than technical specs suggest. But the size and weight doesn’t appeal, nor the telescoping action with zoom.  Can’t have it all.... I would have preferred a smaller 28-70 (or even 35-90)... so I’ll see how the new alliance products stack up. 

Jeff

Edited March 1, 2019 by Jeff S

[Fedro]

you are right and in fact I do bring the 24-90 often on its own when I travel. Much as I also hate the telescopic build and would definitely be happy with something smaller. I use it 90% of the time between 24 and 50mm

[scott kirkpatrick]

I was going to skip the 35 and get the 50 SL, but Jono's gallery and the fact that the 50 hasn't been seen in the wild yet pulled me across the line...  I'll bet I have until Christmas time 2019 to put money aside for that 50, or can wait until well into 2020 for my SL 24.  I have two M 50s and the SL 75 and all of them feel like medium tele focal lengths to me.  I went for many years using a 35 mm for almost everything, then a 28 and just recently a 24.  And while the 16-35 on the SL and the 11-23 on the CL are very capable lenses, I like to go out with very light equipment, just one lens, and see what it will find for me.  Looking back for a year to find some pictures for another thread, I realized just how good the CL 35/1.4 is.  So for my needs, I don't miss the 24-90.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jonoslack]

11 hours ago, Per P. said:

Thanks Jono. A shame they don’t let you keep the prototype

Like you I have the 75mm. Unlike you there was no anguish. Tried it, loved it, bought it - and signed up for the 35mm too. Magical lenses!

I quite agree - it would have been fantastic if they'd let me keep the prototype . . . I still have it, but I fear the UPS man will be shadowing my door only too soon!  But he can't have my 75, so I'll be able to console myself with that!