Newbie Leica (almost) Owner Lens Choice

[alywit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All, I traded in my very old Canon DSLR gear and am (not so patiently) waiting for my SL2 which is a significant upgrade. I can only buy one Leica lens at this time and am deciding between the Leica Super-Vario-Elmar-SL 16-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ASPH. OR Leica APO-Summicron-SL 50mm f/2 ASPH. I am an amateur who will shoot a broad smattering of situations including family moments, food, nature and travel walk-arounds. I know one lens can't do EVERYTHING so I will eventually expand, however not for awhile. But for now what do you think?

Edited November 19, 2019 by alywit

[MarkP]

I agree.

See this contemporaneous thread:

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by MarkP

[jaapv]

24-90 without doubt.

[evikne]

I would never buy a lens slower than f/2.0, but that’s just me. 😉

[jaapv]

Ah, but you are in Norway - six months of night

[evikne]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Ah, but you are in Norway - six months of night

I don’t use the lens speed for darkness, but for DOF. 😆

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know - and I am a non-doffer

[evikne]

It’s the OP’s  wishes and needs that matters, not ours. 😉

[alywit]

3 hours ago, Artin said:

I would go with the 24-90 for first lens.  Will give you landscapes to portrait. It is a very well designed, excellent images 

ooops I meant to reply to the entire topic, sorry about that! I don't know how to relocate it.

That is a very helpful suggestion which I hadn't considered as a first purchase and similar to my Canon 24-70 f2.8L which I just sold. However I owned a couple of prime and a macro lens when I acquired that so it was a part-time use situation. Like I said you can't have everything in one lens, and in this case my concern is it's a 2.5lb lens which is really weighty for me to carry around on an all day traveling situation. When I decided to switch to Leica I knew the lenses were significantly heavier and accepted that so I am going to have to compromise somewhere and the weight may be the best place to do it.

Edited November 19, 2019 by alywit

[alywit]

47 minutes ago, Artin said:

Actually the DOF is quite balanced on the VE lenses portraits with the 24-90 still have a wonderful Bokhe and do isolate the subject very well  this was taken at 90mm 

Thanks for posting the picture. You are right about the bokah and clarity of the subject which helps mitigate the DOF concern.

 

[alywit]

3 hours ago, MarkP said:

I agree.

See this contemporaneous thread:

 

 

Thanks for directing me to this thread. We clearly are wrestling with lots of similar concerns.

[caissa]

I would go for the SL16-35 . You could add the small sigma 45mm later. (Or wait until January for the cheaper and smaller Panasonic 16-35. ) But the SL16-35 is a wonderful lens and flexible and always useful. It is always in my bag.

(The SL24-90 is a hog. 😁. I used it once, never again. The best will be you try both SL 24-90 and SL16-35 . Then you will know what you like.) 

Instead of the SL24-90 you could try the cheaper and lighter Panasonic 24-105 or the new 24-70 (December ?). The choice gets wider ...  I hope sooner or later also Sigma will offer a similar lens.

Leica committed the error that they produced a very expensive 2/50. So there is no cheap compact entry lens. This gives now Sigma the opportunity to push the 2.8/45 as a “normal lens” for the L-mount. It is quite inexpensive and the quality is nice, so it is popular (costs nothing, weighs nothing).

Edited November 19, 2019 by caissa

[bags27]

I wouldn't buy any of these lenses at first. If you're new to Leica and to its system, I'd buy the Sigma 45 f/2.8 autofocus L mount. Can be had for ~$600.US. Jono Slack and Sean Reid both love this lens. It will give you a feel for the camera and great for family snapshots. Plenty of speed with the SL2's 5 stops of IBIS. Then after a couple of months you'll have a better appreciation of what focal length, speed, and lens weight you want to invest in. And you'll still have that really convenient all-rounder.

EDIT: thanks caissa!

Edited November 19, 2019 by bags27

[caissa]

Be careful if you introduce ISIS into this forum.... 😁.    Be careful and check the spelling. 🤓

[SonomaBear]

My primary lenses for the SL are all M primes (oldies but goodies) which are just perfect in my mind.

But I wanted a AF lens for family images.  The 45mm f2.8 Sigma is truly very good. Great images, instant focus, and an aperture ring!  It also takes up very little room I my bag.

All that said, I am saving up for the 24-90...  

[Jeff S]

56 minutes ago, Artin said:

I actually purchased the Panasonic first 24-105 before I got the 24-90  .... well it is what it is you get what you pay for . Plastic and lots of it feels like anything else that was made in that part of the planet.. the Image is no where near that of the Leica. colour renditions are very sonikon, corners are softer more vignetting the Bokhe is so so.   Is it less expensive sure it costs less then 1/3 of the L VTE ... and it is little over 1 pound lighter .  there are compromises in life this is one that I could not consider  to me the only reason to buy a Leica is to put a Leica Glass on her. It is a premium Brand we all know it.. it does cost a ton and we all know that and they put quality and performance in the forefront of their product and we all know that too.

Unlike the 24-105, the Lumix 16-35 and 70-200 zooms are designated ‘Pro’ and are Leica certified.  Reviews are excellent.

Personally, I would buy the SL 24-90 for my mostly used focal lengths, but would strongly consider the two Lumix Pro zooms for wider and longer, less frequently used alternatives, which are lighter, more compact and ridiculously less expensive than the Leica counterparts (albeit without the reach to 280).

Jeff

[Per P.]

My choice is the 24-90 which is the swiss army knife of lenses.

[Jeff S]

3 minutes ago, Artin said:

Jeff I can Understand,,  I did play with the Panasonic at Pro Fusion very similar to a Nikon 70-200 vII as far as build and Image quality. This is my opinion but after doing this for 39 years , owning my own commercial studio for 23 years which incidentally It was part of a commercial colour separation film house, I can tell a performance of a lens very quickly . A huge part of Lithography was dealing with very critical Art Directors  who payed very little attention until the 11th hour, so I have done a ton of post processing in my time , and the rule of thumb is, what you put in to it is what you are going to get out of it. There is a reason why we pay huge dollars for really fine glass. I have learned long ago that a Seiko will never be a Rolex. Cadillac will never be a Rolls Royce and Pananikosonypenanon will never be a Leica

 

Well, I’ve made my own prints, and have also collected vintage prints from some of the best photographers, for over 40 years, and viewers (including other photographers) typically have no idea what gear was used to make a fine print.  There are myriad variables from camera and lens to shooting and lighting conditions, to processing and editing decisions, and ultimately to a matted/framed and lighted display print. Blind tests have embarrassed more than a few people in real world experience.  

Give me someone with a special eye and talent, using good quality gear (many great options available today across various brands), over someone with supposedly the best gear (Leica??), and I’ll choose the former all day long for delivering the goods. As it always was.  Weston did well with a bare light bulb, at the same time others with top end darkroom gear produced mediocre results.

Leica produces fine gear, notably lenses ...else we wouldn’t hang around here... but if that’s the prerequisite for producing superb results, then chances are there’s a lot more missing from the equation.  The most important tools reside between the ears.

Jeff

[FlashGordonPhotography]

In my testing the 24-90 outperforms the 24-105

. I think the same between the 90-280 and 70-200. The 50's are close. The surprise to me was the Sigma 14-24 f2.8. I bought one while my 16-35 is in for repair (user error not a fault with the lens) and I am seriously thinking of selling the 16-35 when it comes back from Leica. The 14-24 is fantastic, except it can't take normal filters.

So my vote is the 24-90 followed by the Sigma 14-24 if you want a wide. Then a 50mm Summicron or 'lux.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[alywit]

9 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Unlike the 24-105, the Lumix 16-35 and 70-200 zooms are designated ‘Pro’ and are Leica certified.  Reviews are excellent.

Personally, I would buy the SL 24-90 for my mostly used focal lengths, but would strongly consider the two Lumix Pro zooms for wider and longer, less frequently used alternatives, which are lighter, more compact and ridiculously less expensive than the Leica counterparts (albeit without the reach to 280).

Jeff

Thanks so much for the vid. I really have become a YouTube junkie watching whatever I can to learn more about lenses as I continue to weigh my options.