M Lenses on SL2 vs. SL1

[Danno_photoguy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

As someone with more M lenses than SL lenses, I am trying to determine if the sensor in the SL1 and SL2 both have the same Microprism design. In regards to the SL1, many people stated that M lenses are better on M cameras.  Will this still apply to the SL2, when the M11 is released?  Of course I know that we may only truly know the answer when the M11 exist, but I am asking if there is anything about the SL2 sensor design that makes it perform better with M lenses.

Thanks

Dan

Edited November 7, 2019 by Danno_photoguy
I had a typo

[Advertisement]

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

[caissa]

Your question is interesting, but far too general. Not all M lenses are the same. Some like WATE are known to work on almost any camera, and so it works very well on the SL and probably also on the SL2. Jono Slack already gave a hint about 6 lenses that work very well on SL2.
Other M lenses are more critical because they sit very close to the sensor plane and an "ordinary" sensor plane is not well constructed for this. This is often the case for older compakt constructions, which often are wide-angle lenses. For these lenses every single one must be checked. This will probably happen in the next few months ...
Leica officially state that M lenses are supported on SL and SL2 (they have a special micro lens array for that). And if you select the less critical "modern" lenses, then you are on the safe side. If SL and SL2 have the same microprism array will be Leicas secret. Important for an enduser is only the statement of support.

So the general statement "better on M" is simply wrong. It all depends on the single lens.   (All this does not depend on the M11, if it exists or not.)

[nicci78]

Just read Jono Slack review, you will get your answer.

To sum up, SL2 is the same as SL for M support. Supposedly better than S1R. Thanks to special micro lenses array and thinner sensor filter stack : 2 layers instead of 3.

However M10 is still the best option with only 1 layer of sensor filter, instead of 2 with the SL2.

Plus you will save 328g with the M10 over the SL2 + M-Adapter-L.

 

Then rumour said that no M11 yet, but rather an M10-X with 41MP sensor. Same as the rumoured M10 Monochrom.

Edited November 7, 2019 by nicci78

[Danno_photoguy]

THANK you both, that helps a lot.  

[digitalfx]

M lenses will always be better on the M as they are designed specifically for the M. The SL was the closest any camera has performed to the M, but don't expect the SL2 to perform better than the M10 in this regard. The SL cameras are designed for SL lenses first....but their versatility and exceptional performance with R, M, TL and SL lenses is a huge advantage.

 

[Jeff S]

The other issue to consider is user skill in focusing (vision) and hand steadiness, particularly with some fast or long lenses. An M lens might theoretically work better with an M, but results might improve if one can potentially  benefit from focus magnification/peaking and/or IBIS. 

Jeff

[hillavoider]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, nicci78 said:

 

Then rumour said that no M11 yet, but rather an M10-X with 41MP sensor. Same as the rumoured M10 Monochrom.

 

hey Nicci, where is the rumour about M10-X? is that an M10 with a EFV? as that would be excellent 

[nicci78]

It was in Leica rumors : here

[Danno_photoguy]

13 hours ago, Jeff S said:

The other issue to consider is user skill in focusing (vision) and hand steadiness, particularly with some fast or long lenses. An M lens might theoretically work better with an M, but results might improve if one can potentially  benefit from focus magnification/peaking and/or IBIS. 

Jeff

Very good points, thank you all

[scott kirkpatrick]

The worst-case example of a fine M lens that is too old school (exit pupil far too close to the image plane) is the 28/2.8 asph in its first version, introduced in 2006 or so with the M8 and revised in 2016.  Sean Reid has one of these and likes to try them on new full frame bodies.  My experience with both the early and the revised version of this lens is that it gives fabulous images, sharp across the frame, if I stop it down to f/5.6 (the revised version works better wide open as well).  That's on both Ms and my SL.  I wouldn't expect it to work on the S1R and haven't tried.

So take a look at Sean's site. where he has just posted the results of his standard test protocols for resolution, color shifts and vignetting on M[240], S1R, SL and SL2.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick

[bags27]

Sean's site for this typically excellent and thorough review is, I believe, locked unless you subscribe. With the 28/2.8, the lens performs somewhat better with the SL2 than with the SL and significantly better than with the S1R for those considerations Scott mentions. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by bags27

[IkarusJohn]

On 11/8/2019 at 3:54 PM, digitalfx said:

M lenses will always be better on the M as they are designed specifically for the M. The SL was the closest any camera has performed to the M, but don't expect the SL2 to perform better than the M10 in this regard. The SL cameras are designed for SL lenses first....but their versatility and exceptional performance with R, M, TL and SL lenses is a huge advantage.

 

While this often stated, it is not entirely accurate.  The Noctilux 0.95 is significantly better on the SL, as is the 28 Summilux-M.  Conversely, the 28 Summicron-M is problematic on anything but an M.  You really need to test each lens.  As a general rule, not all M cameras are the same, modern ASPH lenses will generally work well and sometimes better on the SL.

Jono tested some in his SL review.  You just need to try them. I agree that older wide lenses may be a problem. Telecentric lenses less so, regardless of age. Of mine, the 21 Summilux-M, 28 Summilux-M, Noctilux and 75 Summilux-M are all fine.

[scott kirkpatrick]

There are caveats and exceptions out there, but I don't think in those cases where an M lens performs a bit better on an SL, I would still make the choice of where to use it on operational grounds (how does it handle) not for resolution.  One concern about Sean's tests is that he works in a studio with the test images 3 to 10 feet away.  Pictures taken at infinity move the lens further aft, and increase the problems.

[2M6TTLs]

I think the big advantage of M lenses on the SL2 will be the focus ease and accuracy of the viewfinder rather than optical qualities.Not to mention the versatility of the SL2's other features. Stabilization for one.

[Danno_photoguy]

It is clear that my question was (as pointed out) a bit too basic, but as a SL1 (and M) owner I was searching to see if the SL2 had any additional advantage in regards to the use of M lenses.  Based on what I (think) I know, it does and it does not.  It does, in regards to the qualities of the new SL sensor.  Clearly an improvement over the SL1 (which I love).  It does not, in respect that there does not appear to be a 'special' enhancement in this regard.  Sort of the 'a high tide lifts all boats' sort of thing.  At least, that is my take.  

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Danno_photoguy said:

It is clear that my question was (as pointed out) a bit too basic, but as a SL1 (and M) owner I was searching to see if the SL2 had any additional advantage in regards to the use of M lenses.  Based on what I (think) I know, it does and it does not.  It does, in regards to the qualities of the new SL sensor.  Clearly an improvement over the SL1 (which I love).  It does not, in respect that there does not appear to be a 'special' enhancement in this regard.  Sort of the 'a high tide lifts all boats' sort of thing.  At least, that is my take.  

The addition of IBIS is probably the most significant improvement for M lenses, probably more than the increased resolution.

[jrp]

While the M-series cameras produce crisper edges on some lenses, they only have a central focus point.  So focus and recompose may no produce ideal sharpness if the field of focus of the lens is flat or wavy, not spherical.  (Hasselblad had a focusing mode that addressed this scenario.)

So the SL / Panasonic cameras may produce a better picture in practice.  See down this article https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/things-you-dont-know-about-stopping-down-your-lens/ for some fields of focus examples for different lenses.

[Tailwagger]

10 hours ago, jrp said:

While the M-series cameras produce crisper edges on some lenses, they only have a central focus point. 

True when using the OVF, but false when using the EVF where one can move the zoom point across the frame.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[mmradman]

10 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

True when using the OVF, but false when using the EVF where one can move the zoom point across the frame.

M10 yes, not M240/246.

[Stuart Richardson]

Yesterday my friend lent me his SL (1) and 24-90mm lens, and I spent awhile running through comparisons with my M and S lenses, as well as the 50mm APO Summicron L. I tested the cameras and lenses on an M10 and Panasonic S1 as well. Here are some general conclusions:

1. The 50mm APO Summicron SL is astounding. It was sharper across the frame at f2 than the 50mm Summilux ASPH M is at f11 on the SL or S1. On the M10, it gets close to the APO Summicron by f5.6, but it still does not have as much microcontrast and snap. The 50mm APO Summicron SL is the sharpest lens I have ever seen. This is coming from an S user. It is also sharper than the 30-90mm S zoom at 50, the 24-90mm at 50 and the 45mm Elmarit S. 

2. SL lenses in general are great. The 24mm on the zoom was sharper than the 25mm Zeiss Biogon M on all the bodies. I think this lens is unfortunately a casualty of the digital revolution...the angle of incidence is so high that even sensors with thin cover glass and microlenses can't give you all the sharpness it can offer on film (assuming you could get a fine enough grain film to show it).  

3. M lenses indeed worked best on the M10, followed by the SL followed by the S1. The difference between the S1 and SL was significant with all lenses, and the difference between the M10 and S1 was like night and day with lenses like the 25mm Biogon. 

4. The lens performance does not necessarily follow the focal length...for example, the 50mm Summilux ASPH is worse on the SL than than the 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE. 

5. Size aside, I would recommend the SL lenses over the M lenses on the SL. I think the M lenses will be useful for focal lengths that are not as often used, but if you intend to make the SL your main system, it is probably worth it to try to find a way to buy an SL prime lens at your most used focal length...the performance is remarkable and the advantages in terms of AF, weather sealing and fluidity of use are very beneficial. 

6. The zooms are good, but not AS good as the primes. Of course. Never let anyone tell you they are. They may be for their use (or yours), but at least comparing the 24-90mm to the 50mm APO Summicron SL, the competition is not even close.