S1R and S Pro 50mm vs Leica SL 24-90 Vario elmar for general photography

[ron777]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been agonizing and equivocating in regards to the purchase of a Lumix S Pro 50mm F/1.4 lens for use with an S1R or SL.  I have discarded the idea of buying the Leica SL 50mm due to the cost that I can no longer justify, but I already own the SL 24-90mm zoom.  Street, or general photography are not my usual area of interest, but I do have occasion to engage in this style of shooting and I'm trying to decide upon the best single lens to carry on those excursions.  In days gone by, the primes were always smaller and lighter than the zooms, but that is no longer the case.  For example, the SL 24-90 is roughly 5.4" long and weighs 2.5 pounds., whereas the prime in question is 5.1" long with a weight of 2.1 pounds ... not a big difference between them.  And from what I've observed from various image examples, at the same focal length and aperture, the images are, at the very least, very close in IQ.  So with the exception of the prime's several stop, wide open advantage (F/1.4 vs F/3.3-3.5 for the SL zoom at 50mm) what is there to be gained from this prime, assuming that it will rarely to never be used in daylight at its maximum aperture?

[Advertisement]

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

[thighslapper]

I'd wait for the SL 50/2 if I were you. ....... or get the 75/2 which will give you the same shallow DOF as a 50/1.4 ..... plus a bit more space between you and the subject for portraiture etc.  

I've an SL 50/1.4 and rarely use it ...... it's too big to carry about 'just in case' , and for the sort of specific uses it's designed for the 75 does it just as well. The 75/2 is by far the best Leica lens I have owned and it is the perfect size for the SL and S1R. Image quality on the S1R is superb. AF is also much quicker than the SL 50/1.4.

The Panasonic 50/1.4 appears to be very similar to the SL 50/1.4 .... and just as big. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by thighslapper

[MarkP]

I have the SL and 24-90

I am waiting for the 2.0/50 Summicron-SL to accompany it.

[ron777]

Thank you both for your suggestions.  The SL 75mm F/2 is a great lens, but I'm not sure that I'd want to spend US $4750 for an occasional use lens.  And as for the SL 50mm F/2, who knows when that will become available and at what cost. But for now, I think that in the absence of any size or real weight advantage in re the 50mm prime, I will stick with the 24-90 zoom and see what the future brings.  That said, I own a full range of M lenses going from 28mm to 90mm, but I am no longer keen on manual focus —other than to fine tune the AF result—when AF is an option, and having become accustomed to longer and larger lenses, with a M mounted on either the SL or S1R, I find myself reaching into space for the focus ring.

Edited April 16, 2019 by ron777

[thighslapper]

3 hours ago, ron777 said:

Thank you both for your suggestions.  The SL 75mm F/2 is a great lens, but I'm not sure that I'd want to spend US $4750 for an occasional use lens. 

My basic 2 lens travel kit is now the 16-35 and 75/2...... and I probably use the 75/2 about 50% of the time. 

For some reason ...... even on the M bodies I have always preferred 75 over 50mm as a general use focal length. I've never really understood 50mm being 'equivalent' to human vision when to me the fact that the image in the viewfinder is the same size as what I am looking at with a 75mm lens looks more like reality ..... Leica themselves have often promoted the 75 + 28mm combo as the perfect 2 lens set up. Never been keen on 35mm for that matter either .

For landscape I am tending towards 16-35 + 75/2 + 90-280 ..... which for hiking is just about manageable. 

I have no particular attachment to the SL 50/1.4 ...... unlike the 75/2 which I will never sell as long as I have a compatible body to attach it to. 

I suspect that once the novelty has worn off, the limitations of a big 50/1.4 will result in it being relegated to a cupboard for long periods of its life. The versatility of the 24-90 counteracts its weight and bulk. The SL 75/2 lies in a sweet spot between the two. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by thighslapper

[ron777]

I agree with your sentiments entirely, and I'm not implying that the 24-90 can emulate the IQ of the 75mm, but as long as one does not need, or shoot wide open at the F/2 aperture, it can come close.  And for myself, that means a $5,000.00 savings ($4750 plus tax and shipping).  But of course the 75mm is somewhat smaller and lighter, but for the savings I can live with the 24-90, and would rather spend the money on an L mount 16-35mm, either Leica's formulation, or the to be released Panasonic.  I guess frugality comes with age.

I own several other camera systems, and have made the mistake of purchasing a full spectrum of native lenses for them, most of which never get used.  And good luck selling them for any semblance of a decent return.  

Edited April 16, 2019 by ron777

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, ron777 said:

I own several other camera systems, and have made the mistake of purchasing a full spectrum of native lenses for them, most of which never get used.  And good luck selling them for any semblance of a decent return.  

Most of my cash for my SL, CL and lenses came from liquidating M gear and lenses ...... the latter hold their value very well and for several I got almost what I paid for them originally. 

Sometime soon I will hit the buffers with nothing left to trade in ...... and then I too will be in frugal pensioner mode ..... 

Edited April 16, 2019 by thighslapper

[ron777]

Understood. I did  notice that the cost for new M lenses is twice what I had paid for them years ago, but then so has most everything else gone up. 

Actually, I would consider selling my M  lenses but the only Leica store locally is in Miami and they’re not making any deals, at least not in favor of the seller. They’re offering %70 of market value, and of course, they determine market value.

[Jeff S]

7 hours ago, ron777 said:

Understood. I did  notice that the cost for new M lenses is twice what I had paid for them years ago, but then so has most everything else gone up. 

Actually, I would consider selling my M  lenses but the only Leica store locally is in Miami and they’re not making any deals, at least not in favor of the seller. They’re offering %70 of market value, and of course, they determine market value.

Don’t need to deal locally.  Popflash, for example, offers 80% for seller, and they typically raise the store sale price a bit for their online listing to cover their increased cost, which potentially benefits the seller.  Similarly, by offering a warranty, they can potentially attract more buyers than one can privately. They handle all the marketing.

Jeff

Edited April 17, 2019 by Jeff S

[tom0511]

I own the 50SL and the zooms. I do use the 24-90 (and now also the 24-105) much more than the 50mm. I think either the 50 /1.4 Leica and also the Pana are very heavy as soon as you also want to carry other lenses with you.

If I could choose again I would also just get the 50/2.0 when its available.

If 50mm is all you shoot/need than the 50 Pana might be ok though in regards of size/weight.

[ron777]

I've taken all of your suggestions and opinions to heart and have scrubbed the idea of purchasing the 50mm F/ 1.4.  Not sure I'll even consider the F/2, if and when it becomes available, as I've noticed that the S1R handles high ISO quite well, and lenses whose widest apertures are F/4 produce more than acceptable results in dimly lit rooms.  That finding, in conjunction with the very effective IBIS,  almost makes the wider aperture almost unnecessary.  I say almost, because I can conceive of situations where an F/1.4 aperture would benefit the desired image.  That said, if the need should arise, I have an M Summilux 50mm F/1.4 that could answer the call.

Since I am suffering from low level GAS, I am about to order a Panasonic S Pro 70-200mm F/4, as nothing I have in my lens harem reaches that focal length.

[Jeff S]

8 hours ago, tom0511 said:

I own the 50SL and the zooms. I do use the 24-90 (and now also the 24-105) much more than the 50mm. I think either the 50 /1.4 Leica and also the Pana are very heavy as soon as you also want to carry other lenses with you.

If I could choose again I would also just get the 50/2.0 when its available.

If 50mm is all you shoot/need than the 50 Pana might be ok though in regards of size/weight.

I probably missed it somewhere, but what’s your assessment of the SL 24-90 vs the Lumix 24-105?  And why both?

Jeff

[tom0511]

vor 56 Minuten schrieb Jeff S:

I probably missed it somewhere, but what’s your assessment of the SL 24-90 vs the Lumix 24-105?  And why both?

Jeff

I havent compared them yet. I got the 24-105 because when buying it in the set with the body one gets a pretty good price for the lens. So I thought I could sell it without loss later if I wanted not to keep it. The 24-105 has a slightly longer reach and is lighter and a little more compact than the 24-90. I assume the 24-90 to be slightly better in regards of optics, but cant tell now. I have the 24-105 with me right now on travel and so far I I think it is a pretty good lens. But yes, makes not much sense to own both lenses in a long term.

[Stuart Richardson]

When I was at the Leica Store recently, I tried the 50mm 1.4 and the 75mm f2. There is absolutely no question that I would prefer the 75mm. The size, weight and handling all seem far superior. The 50mm looks great, but it really is very large and heavy. As great as the SL seems, it seems like the lenses are too large. This is coming from an S user! Those lenses seem to balance better with the S body, but the 50mm in particular seemed needlessly large...it felt even bigger and heavier than the S 70mm, which is pretty huge for a standard lens. I think they should have released a 50mm F2 first....one similar in size and implementation to the 75mm F2. Then they  would have had a compact, high performing lens as a foil to the big heavy zooms. I am generally one for larger lenses if it means better performance, but this one seems to go a bit too far. I suspect that pride outweighed common sense, and they were trying to outdo the Otus lenses in a AF camera...it least it feels like it!