jplomley Posted March 19, 2019 Share #21 Posted March 19, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) To fund the 35 APO, I would have to let go of the 35 Lux FLE. To do this, the bokeh of the APO Cron has to be better than the Lux to take a one stop hit and an increase in mass. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 Hi jplomley, Take a look here New APO-SUMMICRON-SL 35 f/2 ASPH vs Leica Q2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
meerec Posted March 19, 2019 Share #22 Posted March 19, 2019 2 hours ago, jplomley said: To fund the 35 APO, I would have to let go of the 35 Lux FLE. To do this, the bokeh of the APO Cron has to be better than the Lux to take a one stop hit and an increase in mass. That is exactly my thinking and my situation too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prismstorm Posted March 20, 2019 Share #23 Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) On 3/19/2019 at 2:48 AM, jonoslack said: Hi There I think it's a rather interesting conundrum, and certainly reflects my indecision. Only difference for me is that I've spent a lot of time with both the Q2 and the SL35 APO, so I can be indecisive with real information. The problem for me is increased by the fact that having just bought the 90-280 and a CL with two of the zooms . . . . I'm entirely skint, so I can't afford either the 35 APO or the Q2. I tried to sell a kidney, but it's too pickled, and my granny died 35 years ago, so I'm a bit stuck! What I can say is that although the lens on the Q2 is wonderful . . . . . it isn't as wonderful as the 35 APO, truth to tell, if I had the money to buy just one of them it would be the 35 APO, and if I had the money to buy both of them . . it would be the 35 APO and wait for the 50 APO. All the best I am also torn between a Q2 and getting those APO-Summicron-SLs. I will be getting a CL body soon, primarily to act as a x1.5 teleconverter for the 90-280 for an African safari, but I don't wish to invest in TL glass so soon as I am primarily a FF shooter, so the SL APO 35/2 is actually an ideal choice that on one hand gives a sublime and compact 35mm prime on my SL, and simultaneously acts as a substitute to the famed Summilux-TL 35/1.4, since it gives the same angle of view as the native TL lens on the CL and has the same light-gathering ability with the full frame f/2. That it carries weather-sealing, is APO-speced, is around the same length, but is able to be use the whole sensor area of both CL and SL, are bonus benefits. However I already own the FLE so it will be a duplicate focal length. But then entered the Q2 and I am tempted to get one instead of the SL 35/2, I have handled it and it is a superb travel camera, something I would prefer bringing along to a SL on a casual trip, which I usually use for serious, dedicated, pre-planned photography such as landscapes and studio portraits, instead of as a standalone, walk-around, more crowd-friendly camera. Edited March 20, 2019 by prismstorm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 20, 2019 Share #24 Posted March 20, 2019 10 hours ago, prismstorm said: But then entered the Q2 and I am tempted to get one instead of the SL 35/2, I have handled it and it is a superb travel camera, something I would prefer bringing along to a SL on a casual trip, which I usually use for serious, dedicated, pre-planned photography such as landscapes and studio portraits, instead of as a standalone, walk-around, more crowd-friendly camera. Quite understand your dilemma . . . worth mentioning that the 35 SL is just great on the CL (I know, I've tried it!). 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkinVan Posted March 20, 2019 Author Share #25 Posted March 20, 2019 2 hours ago, jonoslack said: Quite understand your dilemma . . . worth mentioning that the 35 SL is just great on the CL (I know, I've tried it!). I believe you said you have the SVE - SL 16-35 or have at least used it. Having that lens, how much value and benefits would you see in also getting the SL 35/2 with just the SL. Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted March 20, 2019 Share #26 Posted March 20, 2019 Hi Jono, is the AF of the 35 as fast as the 24-90 or is it more like the 50/1.4? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 20, 2019 Share #27 Posted March 20, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 4 hours ago, jonoslack said: Quite understand your dilemma . . . worth mentioning that the 35 SL is just great on the CL (I know, I've tried it!). Damn, damn, damn. Just as I'd convinced myself the TL summilux would be good enough 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoreserve Posted March 20, 2019 Share #28 Posted March 20, 2019 vor 2 Stunden schrieb tom0511: Hi Jono, is the AF of the 35 as fast as the 24-90 or is it more like the 50/1.4? The AF of the SL 35 is exactly on a par with SL 75/90mm. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted March 20, 2019 Share #29 Posted March 20, 2019 vor 1 Stunde schrieb LocalHero1953: Damn, damn, damn. Just as I'd convinced myself the TL summilux would be good enough at least the Summilux is one step faster and half the price.. so I know what I would use on a TL/CL (if I didnt have a SL as well). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 20, 2019 Share #30 Posted March 20, 2019 25 minutes ago, tom0511 said: at least the Summilux is one step faster and half the price.. so I know what I would use on a TL/CL (if I didnt have a SL as well). I have SL, CL and TL2 - so I have to decide if the extra stop (at 35mm, mind you) is worth cutting out the SL as a use option. Or maybe I'll just hang on to my Summilux-M 35 FLE. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prismstorm Posted March 22, 2019 Share #31 Posted March 22, 2019 On 3/21/2019 at 4:31 AM, tom0511 said: at least the Summilux is one step faster and half the price.. so I know what I would use on a TL/CL (if I didnt have a SL as well). From my understanding the Summilux-TL 35/1.4 is not faster than the APO-Summicron-SL 35/2 because it is a f/1.4 lens in APS-C terms, which is roughly equal to a full frame f/2 lens regarding light-gathering ability. That leaves the Summilux-TL with only the advantage of being a few hundred grams lighter and cheaper, while the SL 35/2 would have the advantage of weather-sealing, being APO-corrected, and able to utilize the whole sensor's resolution across both SL and CL bodies. 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 22, 2019 Share #32 Posted March 22, 2019 6 hours ago, prismstorm said: From my understanding the Summilux-TL 35/1.4 is not faster than the APO-Summicron-SL 35/2 because it is a f/1.4 lens in APS-C terms, which is roughly equal to a full frame f/2 lens regarding light-gathering ability. That leaves the Summilux-TL with only the advantage of being a few hundred grams lighter and cheaper, while the SL 35/2 would have the advantage of weather-sealing, being APO-corrected, and able to utilize the whole sensor's resolution across both SL and CL bodies. It's still the same aperture, whatever the size of sensor. For the equivalent scene frame, the DoF will be different, but the aperture remains the same. Exposure settings don't change with sensor/film size. Light meters don't ask you for your film/sensor size. My choice of Summilux-TL or Summicron-SL (or Q2) would thus be determined by: - is the extra stop significant in terms of DoF for the shots I would take at 35mm? I think it's marginal, but I'm not sure. - is the Summicron-SL IQ noticeably better than the Summilux-TL? I suspect it is, but would anyone notice in my photography? For me, the subject matter is more important than absolute perfection in IQ. - is the size of the Summilux-TL small enough to make a difference to carryability (and which bag I would use)? I don't think the CL+Summilux-TL will fit in my Fogg Flute, but I'm not sure. If it won't, why should I worry about its small size? - do I need AF so much that I can't get by with my Summilux-M 35 FLE on the CL and SL? I list these considerations to show that my choices are very much determined by personal practice, circumstances and preferences, not by the supremely rational and dispassionate arguments offered for one or the other by members of this forum, valuable though they may be! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 22, 2019 Share #33 Posted March 22, 2019 On 3/20/2019 at 4:30 PM, MarkinVan said: I believe you said you have the SVE - SL 16-35 or have at least used it. Having that lens, how much value and benefits would you see in also getting the SL 35/2 with just the SL. Thanks! I do have it, and it's a wonderful lens. I think he SL35/2 is different though - principally because I nearly always shot it at f2 (and of course the SVE is f4.5 at 35mm). Personally however the SVE is fine for me - Sadly I can't afford to get all the SL summicrons, and 35mm really isn't a favourite focal length, so I'll probably wait for the 50 (I already have and love the 75 SL APO). best Jono 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 22, 2019 Share #34 Posted March 22, 2019 On 3/20/2019 at 5:21 PM, tom0511 said: Hi Jono, is the AF of the 35 as fast as the 24-90 or is it more like the 50/1.4? Hi Tom Definitely faster than the 50 / 1.4, probably not quite as fast as the 24-90 (same as the 75 and 90 as Panoreserve says) 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 22, 2019 Share #35 Posted March 22, 2019 On 3/20/2019 at 6:52 PM, LocalHero1953 said: Damn, damn, damn. Just as I'd convinced myself the TL summilux would be good enough On 3/20/2019 at 8:31 PM, tom0511 said: at least the Summilux is one step faster and half the price.. so I know what I would use on a TL/CL (if I didnt have a SL as well). Hmmm Well, I don't actually have either, but if I thought I wanted one of them then it would definitely be the SL APO - 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted March 22, 2019 Share #36 Posted March 22, 2019 If one needs AF in a 35mm lens is one question I ask myself as well. i would clearly answer that for my photography AF is a benefit for 50mm and anything longer. 35 it wouldnt hurt and maybe sometimes make me a little faster. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted March 22, 2019 Share #37 Posted March 22, 2019 For my part I will skip the 35 Summicron at the moment and use the 16.35 outside and an M 35mm lens (or the Q2) inside/in lower light. I might exchange my 50SL lux with the 50 Summicron for size reasons...but then I also like the rendering of the 50 SL Summilux. I also think it would be cool if there would be a (compact) 180/2.8 SL lens in the future. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted March 22, 2019 Share #38 Posted March 22, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said: It's still the same aperture, whatever the size of sensor. For the equivalent scene frame, the DoF will be different, but the aperture remains the same. Exposure settings don't change with sensor/film size. Light meters don't ask you for your film/sensor size. Perhaps someone can answer this long-standing question of mine: In low-light situations is it better to use the TL 35 1.4 on the SL (with fewer pixels but larger sensor) or the CL (with more pixels but a smaller sensor)? Yes, I understand that the light gathering of the 1.4 lens remains the same on either full frame or APSC. I realize that with the SL, one is getting only 10 mpx, versus 24 mpx one gets on the CL. But, does the larger sensor with only 10mpx do a better job with light and graininess than the APSC size sensor with its greater number of pixels. Or, would one just be better off compensating with higher ISO settings to offset the light gathering advantage of the full frame sensor? Or, is this just pretty much a difference without a distinction? Thanks for anyone's thoughts. Rob Edited March 22, 2019 by ropo54 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 22, 2019 Share #39 Posted March 22, 2019 Using a TL lens on either the CL or the SL, you will get the same image area. The SL will crop the image to the same APS-C region that the chip in the CL or TL would occupy. So your choice is whether to describe an APS-C image with 10M big pixels or 24M smaller ones, of a slightly newer technology. The data at photonstophotos.com show that the CL has just as good dynamic range as the older SL so I think the choice comes down to whether or not you need to blow things up or crop. Shadow detail will be there for you in both cases. 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 22, 2019 Share #40 Posted March 22, 2019 3 hours ago, jonoslack said: Hmmm Well, I don't actually have either, but if I thought I wanted one of them then it would definitely be the SL APO - Yes, definitely. The man with an SL APO 35, and the technical data sheet with those incredible MTFs folded tightly in his pocket, can walk taller and stride further than the poor slob with only a CL and its now-established 35/1.4. But the latter has been getting good pictures for the past year or so, and the former is still waiting for a call from his dealer. 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.