New APO-SUMMICRON-SL 35 f/2 ASPH vs Leica Q2

[Kim Dahl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, jonoslack said:

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

Hi Jono ☺️
Do you not think that 50 mm and 75 mm are too close together. I would think that (21) -35-75 or (28) -50-90 fit together?

best 

Kim. 

[panoreserve]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Kim Dahl:

Hi Jono ☺️
Do you not think that 50 mm and 75 mm are too close together. I would think that (21) -35-75 or (28) -50-90 fit together?

best 

Kim. 

Yes, I would totally agree: 21-35-75 (135) OR (21) 28-50-90 (180) are the perfect combo.

[Advertisement]

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

[panoreserve]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb tom0511:

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.

If you are a 35mm-shooter (as I am), there‘s finally no alternative. The upcoming SL 35 has utterly no real competition in the market, it’s an Apo-Version, which is unique.  AF is extremly helpful due to the markedly little DOF the new Summicrons have. 

[jonoslack]

On 3/22/2019 at 4:32 PM, Kim Dahl said:

Hi Jono ☺️
Do you not think that 50 mm and 75 mm are too close together. I would think that (21) -35-75 or (28) -50-90 fit together?

best 

Kim. 

Well - they feel fairly different to me. I tend to use 28/50/75 . . 

[scott kirkpatrick]

22 hours ago, jonoslack said:

Well - they feel fairly different to me. I tend to use 28/50/75 . . 

Simply because these are the lenses that I like most, I'm using 28 and 50 on the M, 50 and (crisp APO 75/2.0 or gentle R 80/1.4) and maybe someday 24 and 35 SL-SCs on the SL.  But I seldom have more than one of these with me at a time.  The old 24/2.8 asph M lens (with an external viewinder) is excellent on M10 or M10-D.  So rather than shift between two of them, I make a guess of the target density that I will face, and hope I guessed right.

[RoyB]

On 3/22/2019 at 11:58 AM, ropo54 said:

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

I have the CL, the SL and the TL35Lux. In a low light situation, I will default to using the lens on the CL as the performance is roughly similar. The CL is that good. 

There is still a slight advantage of the SL. There seems to be more separation of light and dark areas, colors of a similar shade seem more distinctive between each other. However even with this advantage, I value the lightness, start-up speed and user interface of the CL. There is also the ‘comfort’ that if I need to crop, I still have enough resolution in case I’d like to print in the future. 

But really, image quality-wise in low light will not be a question on both in a broad range of circumstances but rather which is the preference in the situation - ergonomics, user interface, and final use of the images in terms of size.