SL using M lenses - which wides to avoid?

[SonomaBear]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28mm is my favorite perspective. 
I prefer using M lenses manually on my SL. 
I’ve heard that a few wide M lenses should only be used on M or film cameras since they are designed to use the difficult angles when rear elements are close to the film plane. 
Micro lenses on M10 are perfect. Some 3rd party bodies dislike older wide Leica lenses. 
With the SL, which 28mm should I seek? 24mm?  WATE?

thanks folks

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by SonomaBear

[IkarusJohn]

28 Summilux-M ASPH

[RoySmith]

Sean Reid’s review (Reid Reviews) on the 28mm Summilux M is worth reading. Excellent lens on the SL.

[IkarusJohn]

As is Jono’s

[frame-it]

i bought this lens today, i don't see any smearing at the corners..tiny soft vignette but that's easy to fix

SL + 28mm Kobalux Avenon f3.5

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[scott kirkpatrick]

The very small 28/2.8 asph and 28/2.0 are the toughest cases for edge smearing, even on the M10.  New versions which reduce the problem were released in 2016, but Sean Reid uses an early version for his testing.  On the M10, I used to stop down my old 28 Elmarit-asph to f/5.6 to crisp up the corners a little bit.  It's not as necessary with the new one (I upgraded).  Neither of these lenses are a particularly good fit on the SL, as they are both quite tiny and feel fiddly on the larger body of the SL. 

The 28, 24 and 21 Summiluxes are big modern design bruisers, and handle well on the SL, as does the WATE.  Jono reports no problems using them.  I've used some of them on my S1R without problems. The relatively new 21/3.4 asph apparently works well on the S1R (I did a few experiments) so it should be no problem on the SL and SL2 (I think it is on Jono's list.  I have heard that the M50's (APO 2.0 and 1.4 asph) are noticeably better on the SL than on an S1R but I haven't done the experiments myself.

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've had no concerns with the the 1.4/21 Summilux ASPH, 3.4/21 SEM ASPH, 3.8/24 Elmar-M ASPH, and 2.0/28 Summicron ASPH (v1).  Haven't bothered trying the 2.8/28 Elmarit-M.

[caissa]

What about the older versions of the Elmarit M 28 without Asph ? I think there were about 4 earlier versions, 5 was the first Asph and 6 the current one. So 6 seems to be ok, and 5 difficult. And the others ?

The WATE is uncritical, right ?

[scott kirkpatrick]

I don't have a WATE, but it looks long and thin, should be no problem.  Jono relies on it.

I don't have any experience with the older 28 Elmarits, but I do use the 24 Elmarit asph.  I normally use it on an M, but I can check..  It's about the same size and proportions as the older 28s.

Edited November 20, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick

[SonomaBear]

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts. 
a friend has a 2.8/28 Elmarit for sale which he has professionally used For many years on M bodies. I use SL thus the concern... but really folks - will it really matter to those non-pixlepeepers? 

[Stuart Richardson]

Which version? I found the version 3 elmarit better than the 28mm summicron on adapted bodies...that one ought to do fine. 

[AndreaP75]

Summilux 28 is excellent on the SL, I assume the 24 and 21 Lux will also perform very well due to the longer / taller design.

The most problematic ones are the first versions of Elmarit Asph (28 and 24), also the 28 Cron first version Asph. I have used the 21 SE but I got mixed results. 

Never tried the WATE but the SL 16-35 would be the natural choice for zero compromises.