Summilux 35 mm FLE vs Summicron 35 mm SL?

[Mikewest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

I use the Leica SL with several LEICA M lenses: 21 mm Super elmar, 35 mm summilux FLE, Noctilux f1 and Summilux 75 mm.
My favourite lens is the Summilux 35 mm FLE, but with the release of the Summicron 35 mm SL, I wonder if should buy the new Summicron and get rid of the Summilux? This way, I could have one lens with autofocus , and keep the other M lenses.  Several years ago, I bought a Leica Q because of the autofocus and to complement my M lenses. Eventually, I sold it because I couldn't use of the 28 mm angle. The new 35 mm Summicron could potentially give me my favourite 35 mm approach with the autofocus in prime.

What do you think about it? I like the render of the Summilux FLE and don't want to commit a mistake. 

Thank you very much for your advices. (and sorry for my english mistakes)

[mmradman]

Unless you use M camera M lenses are not necessity,  as old adage goes best lens are native system lens. 

[johnbuckley]

I have, and use, both lenses -- though admittedly, I use the M 35 Summilux with my M. I can tell you, though, that if you get the SL Summicron, you won't miss anything about the 35mm M FLE. It is a glorious lens, in terms of sharpness, bokeh, and color rendition. If you are looking to have one AF native SL lens, and have an FLE to trade for it, I'd say go for it.

[helged]

10 minutes ago, johnbuckley said:

I have, and use, both lenses -- though admittedly, I use the M 35 Summilux with my M. I can tell you, though, that if you get the SL Summicron, you won't miss anything about the 35mm M FLE. It is a glorious lens, in terms of sharpness, bokeh, and color rendition. If you are looking to have one AF native SL lens, and have an FLE to trade for it, I'd say go for it.

+1. And for my eyes, the sometimes (too often) nervous bokeh of the 35 Lux-M FLE would mean that I would go for the 35 Cron-L. The arguments in favour for the 35 FLE are smaller body size, lower weight, smaller filter size and a mechanical lens (for those in favour of the latter).

[ajmarton1]

If you are going to the SL for the benefit of AF then you need the AF lens to truly take advantage of everything the SL offers.  I actually have tempered my desire to shoot wide open and I am finding that my composition is improving so there's not much reason to put an M lens on an SL other than size and weight if that's an issue.  So I wouldn't be driven just by the bokeh issue.  

[scott kirkpatrick]

I haven't made any systematic comparisons on this, but I have all three current 35's. the CL 35/1.4 and the SL 35/2.0 as well as the 35/FLE for the M.  I use each on its own platform.  The CL and SL lenses are very exciting, often produce surprising and delightful results.  On the M, I tend to prefer wider lenses, like the 28/ 1.4 and 2.8 asph, or the old 24/2.8 asph.  So the 35 FLE isn't getting much work right now.

edit:  I do prefer the 35FLE on the CL to the CL 23.  That's a combination I happened to try one day.

Edited November 5, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick