SL 35 or SL 50 ?

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

25 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Are you think of getting a second SL2?

Not yet.  The next SL-SC that I would like to use is the 24mm, and that isn't due until 2021.

[tom0511]

My opinion: If you raise the fonds for a SL2 and for an APO_Summicron, dont you want to be able to use that lens with the full resolution of your SL2? If you crop most images from the 35mm APO Summicron on the SL2 than you could just use your 35 TL instead.

Therefore if I had to decide I would choose the focal length wich you like best and use most.

And if yo allready own the 24-90 and 90-280 than you might want the Summciron APO either for low light or more shallow DOF. Which focal length do you use more often for such occasions?

One other thought: for you plan a 75 or 90 in the future? In this case the 35 might be the better companion to this future lens.

good luck  

PS:if you cant decide: the Sigma 45 is in between focal length

[Advertisement]

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

[Bohns]

Thank you all for keeping my post alive and bringing a lot of valid infos.

Tom0511 : thank you very much. You understand pretty accurately my wish. I thought as well to test the Sigma 45. It will not answer the « more shallow DOF » objective, but could eventually ease the selection between the wider or the narrower option. Plus, it is not expensive.

Then, for the next Leica (huge) expense, I will as well check all my photos from Island and Italy, taken for the most part of them with the SL and the 24-90, and check the distribution of the focal lengths used.

I assume I could reach a rationale decision from that approach.

[tom0511]

for what subjects would you use it most?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have been a 50mm shooter my whole life. I know that's my seeing focal length. So, as good as the 35mm is I know I'll spend my days cropping. It's easier and cheaper just to get the 50mm I know I'll use. If I need slightly wider I can stitch, especially with IBIS.

If you know whether you see best at 35 or 50, get that one. If it's 28 get a Q2.

Gordon

[thighslapper]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I have been a 50mm shooter my whole life. I know that's my seeing focal length. So, as good as the 35mm is I know I'll spend my days cropping. It's easier and cheaper just to get the 50mm I know I'll use. If I need slightly wider I can stitch, especially with IBIS.

I know the feeling ...... I see the world at 75mm .... because that approximates exactly what I see in most camera viewfinders ..... and as a result I have a safe full of 50mm lenses that I never use ..... the 50/2 SL is a fantastic lens, but the world just doesn't look right to me through it ...., so it's collecting dust with all the others  

Edited November 25, 2019 by thighslapper

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, thighslapper said:

I know the feeling ...... I see the world at 75mm .... because that approximates exactly what I see in most camera viewfinders ..... and as a result I have a safe full of 50mm lenses that I never use ..... the 50/2 SL is a fantastic lens, but the world just doesn't look right to me through it ...., so it's collecting dust with all the others  

Do you have the 75 Summicron?

Gordon

[scott kirkpatrick]

I shot with 35 mm as a match to my natural visual field for a long time, but recently this has drifted to 28 and even to 24mm.  (24mm due to some pushing by William Schneider to move in closer and open wider.)  For faces to dominate the image, I like 75 or 80.  I could be happy with SL primes at 24, 35, and 75, but they won't be shipping the 24 for a long time.  In the meantime, I have 35, 50 and 75, and none of them is gathering dust.  Nor is the R 80 SX.

Someone we often cite around here told me that he needed to have 50 and 75.  They do different things for him, and he didn't think they overlapped.

Edited November 26, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick

[Bohns]

Getting back to this thread.

First of all, thank you all for your participation to it.

I since then got a used Sigma 45 for few peanuts. I confirm this lense shall not be ignored because it is not written « made in Wetzlar - Germany » on it. It is a real gem, and very (very !) qualitative.

I also looked at my recent travels photos (Iceland, Italy Lake Garda, French Riviera) made with either SL or CL. I looked at the photos taken with the TL or the SL lenses. I did not consider the photos taken with the M system since the M system is of a different photographic experience.

And you know what ? I have shot exactly the same number of photos at 35 mm eq. than I have shot at 50 mm eq.

Considering the Sigma 45, I may choose the Summicon SL 35. Not yet a definitive decision; I intend the purchase after New Year (probably in Feb or March).

Any thought ?

 

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Bohns

[setuporg]

The best strategy, when in doubt between two, is to get both.  35mm and 50mm are vastly different but versatile FOVs.  With the APOs it's impossible to choose and you don't have to.  There might be questions as to what wider/longer lenses are needed, e.g. I got a broad range of the M and S glass, but these two must be covered in the best native form, i.e., one has to have the APO 35mm and the APO 50mm.  The question of real life and priorities intervenes of course, yet if it wouldn't, both must be in your bag.    The 35mm allows capture of scenes and landscapes and the people are not too tiny, and the 50mm is more suitable for kids or parties with focus on individuals without losing context, as well as details of landscapes without losing the whole.  Each can stay on the camera longer, so the predominant mode can help choose one and then decrease the frequency of switching.

Edited December 22, 2019 by setuporg

[Bohns]

Arf ! Buying both...

Definitely not in my plans. Nor in my wallet.

[nryn]

With the M my two-lens kit was usually 28/2 and 50/2 APO or, if I thought I’d have a little more working room, 35/1.4 and 75/2 APO. I don’t travel with the 35 and 50 together; if I take more than one lens I want a bigger spread.

I have the 35, 50, and 75-SLs and they are all outstanding lenses. I’m having a bit of difficulty adjusting at the moment to autofocus but assuming I figure it out, I’ll probably go ahead and get the 28 when it comes out. And perhaps sell the 24-90.

As for whether you get the 35 or 50 and assuming you don’t want both, I think it depends entirely on the kind of things you photograph. I prefer wider angles and would get the 35. But most photographers I know would probably opt for the 50 because it’s a little more conventionally portrait-friendly.

[Jeff S]

The 35 is Karbe’s best... he says.  And one can easily crop 35 to 50 FOV, whereas the reverse cannot always be accomplished in tight spaces.  

Jeff

[Stuart Richardson]

If you are split evenly and you need just one, then it would make sense to be the 35mm. I was in the same boat and tried the 45mm and did not like it as much. It is a well made lens, but I did not like the sharpness and look at 2.8, though it does sharpen up quickly. I wound up instead getting the 50mm APO Summicron SL, which I am very happy with. The performance is outstanding, and I generally prefer the reach. But if I were to get another lens for the L, the 35mm would be the next choice.