Decided on the SL2, what to pair it with?

[Dr. G]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have decided to purchase the SL2.  I had the original SL with the 50 APO Summicron M, Summilux-SL 50 1.4 and the 24-90 SL.  I migrated to the Sony a7r iii and now the iv and most of my shots are taken with the Zeiss Sony 50 1.4.  I have chosen to go with the 50 APO Summicron SL when the SL2 arrives.

I will, however, need to shoot wider at times.  I'm not comfortable with the 24mm focal length (I had the 24mm GM and it was a great lens, but not one I would reach for often) and had the Q2 for a while.  I really liked the 28mm of the Q2 and it still had plenty of resolution when I wanted to crop to 35mm.

The question is whether to go with the SL2 + 50 APO Summicron SL and the Q2, or wait for the 28mm APO Summicron SL.  Having another body always at the ready isn't a bad idea, plus the Q2 gives me the ability to get closer up in macro mode.  

Any thoughts?

FWIW, I'm switching back because whenever I look at the images from my old SL and the Q2 they just have a "rightness" about them - the colors are far more pleasing (to me) than the Sony.  I do like the ability to pull from the shadows with the Sony, and the sensor in the a7r iii/iv did better at higher ISO, but the tradeoff is more than worth it (again, to me).

[Mr.Q]

A Q2 would definitely make sense as it shares the same battery + a same-ish sensor, which would certainly benefit your workflow. Considering that the Q2 is similar in weight to one SL-Summicron, I'd rather have the versatility of having 2 bodies than 1 body + 2 lenses.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

The Q macro mode is not bad at all -see the Q macro thread-, but not all that suitable for real macro. Full macro needs a longer lens in the order of 100 mm, firstly to keep the subject at a reasonable distance from the front element of the lens and secondly to get a decent perspective. The best use for a wideangle lens in macro is in model photography, as it will give the same impression as a 50 mm on the full-size original.

If you want to do serious macro get an Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R with Elpro and R adapter on your SL. (autofocus is superfluous for this use anyway)

[Dr. G]

I wouldn't be using it for real macro, only to get a closer focusing distance.  

[jhulton]

I am going to Cuba in 3 weeks with a Q2, SL2, SL 50 and SL 90.

 

[tom0511]

If your question is Summicron SL 28 (in 2 years??) vs Q2...difficult to say. 

I had the same "problem" in regards of APO 35 SL vs Q2 (you can allways use the Q2 in crop mode with 20 MP), and opted for the Q2. Still my lust for the APO 35 mm didnt go away and 6 moths later I added this lens.

I really like the Q2, but I find myself not switching back and forth between SL and Q2. I either want the simplicity and leight weight of the Q2 and in this case I bring the Q2, or I want the flexibility of the SL and several lenses and in this case I would use the SL.

My own fav. combos with the SL have been 16-35 + 75,  or 50 +24-90 +21 M21.

I now added the 35 APO and I think I will bring 35-75 (eventually with M21) often instead of the zooms.

 

I think the 16-35 is a great lens. It would also pair with your 50mm.

If you decide for Q2 you have the advantage of a second camera, which is also great for the evenings or when you want small weight/size.

I think in your position I would go for the Q2. The 28SL APO will certainly be even better optically but does it really matter.

 

 

 

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having used the S1R extensively for the last 8 months I could live quite happily with the SL 24-90 zoom and just forget about any other lenses. Image quality can't be faulted and the flexibility it offers is hard to beat. 

The SL2 is comparable, so with 5-6 stops of stabilisation, better DR and high ISO performance and the slightly longer reach of 90mm you really have a lens that can do everything, anywhere.  

Whilst the SL primes are superb, as Tom above, I often just take the 16-35 and the 75.

The SL zooms are already so good optically that the only noticeable advantage you are getting in normal use is the shallower DOF available with the SL primes. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, thighslapper said:

The SL zooms are already so good optically that the only noticeable advantage you are getting in normal use is the shallower DOF available with the SL primes. 

Plus the weight.  I took the 24-90 with me all the time for about 2 years, then the weight got to me, I was ready to give up on the SL but decided to give it one more try with the 35mm, I now take the 35mm with me all time and I am happy, the zooms are excellent but for me personally a bit too heavy, the primes are not exactly light either but for me personally on the right side of what is manageable.  I don't see myself ever buying the 16-35mm, I will go for the 21mm instead, unfortunately another 2 years away...  I am also contemplating the Panasonic 16-35mm which is half of the weight of the Leica 16-35mm.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Guest

[Alistairm]

I love that the SL is so versatile it can be deployed in many different ways. For me, I’ll usually travel with the 16-35 and 24-90 (and 90-280 situationally - eg somewhere with wildlife/sport) and then take an M lens for a compact/fast option so that I can have a smaller nighttime/walk around option... 8 times out of 10 that’s the 35 Summilux M. 

I almost never travel with the SL75 or SL50 Lux... and yet they are two of my most used lenses at home. Funny how that works out. 

There are so many ways to accessorise the camera, but for my use (fundamentally an SLR replacement) the three immaculate zooms are the heartbeat of the system, the other excellent SL lenses are a bonus and the awesome compatibility with M glass is the cherry on top!

 

 

[m9photo]

Sony images are so dull, no color characteristic IMHO. Even my Canon 5DsR does better in that department.

Q2 would be smart back up plan, as you will have back up body that share the same battery. 

 

[Fedro]

9 hours ago, thighslapper said:

Having used the S1R extensively for the last 8 months I could live quite happily with the SL 24-90 zoom and just forget about any other lenses. Image quality can't be faulted and the flexibility it offers is hard to beat. 

The SL2 is comparable, so with 5-6 stops of stabilisation, better DR and high ISO performance and the slightly longer reach of 90mm you really have a lens that can do everything, anywhere.  

Whilst the SL primes are superb, as Tom above, I often just take the 16-35 and the 75.

The SL zooms are already so good optically that the only noticeable advantage you are getting in normal use is the shallower DOF available with the SL primes. 

 

4 hours ago, Alistairm said:

I love that the SL is so versatile it can be deployed in many different ways. For me, I’ll usually travel with the 16-35 and 24-90 (and 90-280 situationally - eg somewhere with wildlife/sport) and then take an M lens for a compact/fast option so that I can have a smaller nighttime/walk around option... 8 times out of 10 that’s the 35 Summilux M. 

I almost never travel with the SL75 or SL50 Lux... and yet they are two of my most used lenses at home. Funny how that works out. 

There are so many ways to accessorise the camera, but for my use (fundamentally an SLR replacement) the three immaculate zooms are the heartbeat of the system, the other excellent SL lenses are a bonus and the awesome compatibility with M glass is the cherry on top!

 

 

I have come to the same conclusion and use mostly the zooms (primarily the 24-90). If I had to keep one lens, that would be it. I use the 16-35 and 90-280 more sparingly but great to have them. Not sure if I will keep the 16-35 in the long run, much as it is a great lens. I have tried most of the Crons and the 50 Lux and in the end kept the 50 and 90 Crons which work for me. Will definitely look at one of the wider crons (any of them would be great I m sure, but I am particularly looking forward to the 21). 

[jrp]

12 hours ago, m9photo said:

Sony images are so dull, no color characteristic IMHO. Even my Canon 5DsR does better in that department.

It may be that Sony just produces realistic colours, that you can then adjust to taste; easier doing that than dialling back colours that are out of whack. But realistic colours are not necessarily the most appealing, which is why each camera manufacturer adds their own emphasis. Just speculation on my part. The SL is slightly blue/green in emphasis, which can be unattractive for some skin tones. Anyway, that is for JPEGs. The SL also has a built-in DNG profiles, which tends to pump colours such as red to 11. Adobe has a more sophisticated profile that probably targets a specific set of colours. It may be that all cameras will end up looking similar if you use that. As I say, speculating. 

[jplomley]

SL2 + 21 APO + 35 APO + 75 APO...beautiful 3 lens kit.

[Mr.Q]

3 hours ago, jplomley said:

SL2 + 21 APO + 35 APO + 75 APO...beautiful 3 lens kit.

Agreed. We can't complete that set until 2021 though.

[sillbeers15]

On 11/18/2019 at 6:47 AM, jplomley said:

SL2 + 21 APO + 35 APO + 75 APO...beautiful 3 lens kit.

I once grabbed the wrong lens to carry as  I mixed up the 16-35 vs 24-90 due to both lenses having approximately similar in size.

No you’re going to run into interesting mix out of 21/35/75 as all share the same barrel. Have fun!

[panoreserve]

Am 17.11.2019 um 03:04 schrieb SlowDriver:

Plus the weight.  I took the 24-90 with me all the time for about 2 years, then the weight got to me, I was ready to give up on the SL but decided to give it one more try with the 35mm, I now take the 35mm with me all time and I am happy, the zooms are excellent but for me personally a bit too heavy, the primes are not exactly light either but for me personally on the right side of what is manageable.  I don't see myself ever buying the 16-35mm, I will go for the 21mm instead, unfortunately another 2 years away...  I am also contemplating the Panasonic 16-35mm which is half of the weight of the Leica 16-35mm.

SL Apo’s 21 (in 2020/21) & 35 & 90 is a simply fantastic combo - for me the very best choice.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I shot for the first half of this year primarily with the 75 and 35 Summicrons on an S1R or SL.  When I need wider than that (and don't just shoot a panorama with the 35 held sideways), I go to an M10-D and use either an M 24/2.8 asph or the M 21/3.4/  I'll grab a 24 SL SC when they finally appear.  A zoom feels a bit lazy to me.  I usually use just one lens a day and shoot what leaps out of the viewfinder and grabs me.

[wlaidlaw]

A cheap temporary solution until the SL28 comes out, is the 7Artisans 28/1.4. I use this on both my SL, CL (as a fast 42mm EFOV lens) and M240. My expectations were not very high for this lens but when I got it, I  was pleasantly surprised. It had less vignetting at full aperture than I expected and its resolution even wide open is perfectly acceptable, if a bit soft at the corners. No it's not a Summilux 28-M but then it is about 10% of the price, so expecting to be so, would be delusional. As I already had a 28/2 ASPH Summicron-M I felt I could not justify the purchase of the 28 Summilux but at the price point of the 7Artisans, felt it was a useful addition to my lens bank. It has also allowed me to send away the 28/2 to get its loose front section and damaged tiny and soft locking grub screws repaired/replaced. Now I suspect there may be quite a bit of sample variation and I have been lucky to get a good one, so it might be wise to read other reviews. I was so impressed with the 28/1.4, that I subsequently bought a 7Artrtisans 75/1.25, which I think is even better than their 28/1.4. I have no idea how they manage to make these seemingly very well made and solid lenses at the price point. 

Wilson