M-lenses vs SL-lenses on the SL

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now that more and more SL-lenses  appear - what do you feel how they compare to their M counterparts?

Yesterday I did some unscientific comparison between 16-35 vs 21/3.4 and 35/2.0 M, and 75 SL vs 75/2.0 M.

My impression the SL lenses are drawing comparable with the M 50 APO - neutral, smooth bokeh, very 3d looking images.

The 75M seemed a little less contrasty on the SL , and the M35/2.0 seemed not to have the smoothest bokeh.

I have always liked the M lenses, but now I feel I prefer the rendering of SL lenses. They are priced high but I really like those SL lenses.

I would be interested how the WATE compares to the 16-35.

[m9photo]

Image wise, I'd say they would be almost the same based on some comparison posts here on forum. The advantage of using L is AF, while M advantage would be size.

If I have the money, the only M i'd love have is Noctilux.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jared]

Based purely on Leica’s MTF data, there is really no comparison.  The additional degrees of freedom afforded the optical designer from using ten, eleven, twelve elements and not worrying so much about keeping things ultra compact gives a significantly sharper lens, especially in the corners.  

Would you see it in the images?  Maybe/maybe not.  Depends on the subject, whether you nailed the manual focus of the M lens, how large you print, whether you crop the image much, etc.  If you want a lens that will hold up well as the megapixel counts continue to climb, the SL lenses are probably a safer bet.  They are, frankly, designed with the expectation of 50+ megapixels.  The same is not true for most of the M lenses.

Of course, none of this tells you a thing about bokeh, rendering, etc.  But that’s not something that is a characteristic of M vs SL so much as a specific lens.  
 

I have owned perhaps a dozen M lenses in my life.  I currently own three SL lenses.  The SL lenses are all optically better than the M counterparts I owned.  But that does not necessarily yield a better picture.  

[LeicaR10]

Tom0511,  Your question about the WATE compared to the SL 16-35 has some vague resemblance to the thread question, "WATE GAS" in the M lens forum.  I posted my reply #8 on that thread and cut/pasted it here.  You might consider these thoughts about both these superb lenses.  I am certain you are not suffering from GAS, but I offer this to you.

"Idhrads,  The WATE is a superb lens.  I use to own one until the SL 16-35 arrived on scene.  GAS is a terrible addictive condition that affects many photographers.  The only cures known by myself are either one goes out and purchases the lustful lens or have discipline and simply go out and shoot, shoot, shoot with what one already owns.  Then after a month or two ask after practicing and mastering the lens for your genre of photography consider this aspect.  In your case, the Zeiss 18mm lens, ask;  Do you really, really need the WATE or simply want it?  I suggest too if you look at your hundreds of photographs taken with the Zeiss 18mm lens, you will discover that you really don't need or want the WATE after all and you will find yourself cured.  That is, until the next lustful lens or camera comes along and you relapse and then need another stint in rehab.  Last, it will get down to your lustful desires vs discipline to work hard with your existing lens.  I don't envy you, but ultimately I would suggest you will save yourself a lot of angst and stay focused on the creating fine photographs with meaningful content with your most excellent Zeiss lens and save yourself some money as well.  Ultimately, only you can decide what is best for you.  r/ Mark"

IMO, the WATE works very well with the SL camera, but it works best on the M camera.  I found the SL 16-35 being a native lens works much better based on my photographic results with the SL.  My clients agree as they are voting with their wallets and for me, this is always a good validation point.  BTW, I agree with your comparisons and results of your M lenses and SL lenses.  My staff did similar a comparison before I moved more into the SL system.  As others have discovered and mentioned here before, M lenses work best on M cameras and SL lenses...well, work best with the SL.   I hope this helps.  r/ Mark

 

[northernlights]

On 10/3/2019 at 5:34 AM, LeicaR10 said:

 

IMO, the WATE works very well with the SL camera, but it works best on the M camera.  I found the SL 16-35 being a native lens works much better based on my photographic results with the SL.  My clients agree as they are voting with their wallets and for me, this is always a good validation point.  BTW, I agree with your comparisons and results of your M lenses and SL lenses.  My staff did similar a comparison before I moved more into the SL system.  As others have discovered and mentioned here before, M lenses work best on M cameras and SL lenses...well, work best with the SL.   I hope this helps.  r/ Mark

 

Agreed. When I had the Leica T (701), I shot with M lenses as i did not invest in any TL lenses. Then, i had the 24-90 SL for a while on the T. Notwithstanding the AF idea didn’t work out, somehow I think even SL lenses on T is better than M lenses on T, IQ wise. 

Edited October 5, 2019 by northernlights

[tom0511]

The problem for me is the following: I really love th 16-35 and its IQ. But then I also often need the range 35-90 (or 105)mm. And I realize I really do not want to carry 2 heavy zooms all the time.... Panasonic offers a m43 lens with 21-50 equivalent range, thats really cool IMO.

 

 

[LeicaR10]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tom0511,  I understand your angst for the choices available.  Granted the SL zooms are heavy, but the IQ with the SL is most excellent.  I certain the SL2 IQ is going to hit a grand slam ball out of the park too...November is coming soon enough.  It will get down to what works best for you and your genre of photography.  Me, I just lift weights and hike 25 KM several times a week to carry the SL load...LOL.  I am positive no matter what you chose for a lens, the IQ and most important the content of the photographs will be superb.  r/ Mark

[Einst_Stein]

The SL system lens is defined to offer significant improved optical advantages, but it takes a capable sensor to refeal it.

I doubt you could see much difference in 24mp or 48mp, but maybe when go beyond that.

[jrp]

The main difference is the absence of aberrations in the SL lenses, which is noticeable. Otherwise, it’s mainly edge performance, including flatter fields. 

[mmx_2]

On 10/6/2019 at 6:06 PM, tom0511 said:

The problem for me is the following: I really love th 16-35 and its IQ. But then I also often need the range 35-90 (or 105)mm. And I realize I really do not want to carry 2 heavy zooms all the time.... Panasonic offers a m43 lens with 21-50 equivalent range, thats really cool IMO.

 

 

Maybe not an option, and you would be stuck with MF, but the Vario-Elmar-R 35-70 f4 is a great lens (and quite cheap) and could  very easily be adopted to the SL. It’s compact, light and with excellent IQ (yes the SL-zooms are better) but of course without AF.

Joakim