Leica R Lenses vs SL Lenses

[Steven R]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I've been using Leica R and M Cameras since the early 1990's and have a bunch of R-Lenses (19mm 2.8, 100 2.8 Macro, 70-180 APO Zoom, 280 2.8 APO) that I am considering trading in for SL lenses to use with a new SL2.

 

Would you recommend keeping these lenses to use with a new SL2 or trading them in for SL lenses to use with an SL2..

 

Thanks

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Those are exactly the lenses that I would keep...

[Danno_photoguy]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Those are exactly the lenses that I would keep...

I fully agree.   I have all but one of the 4 you mentioned (the 70-180 APO Zoom), but I love all the others on my SL.  The 19mm in particular.  

[otto.f]

The only thing I would consider to swap is the Apo 280/2.8 for the 4.0. That saves 1kg and brings you a lot more resolution, even handheld.

Furthermore I think that our forum should consider measures to protect members against themselves with plans of trading in Leica lenses. 😉 It’s a great loss of image quality and money. Unless you have real severe problems with your eyes which would legitimate AF, I wish you all the happiness with your R lenses on the SL(2).

Edited December 28, 2019 by otto.f

[LocalHero1953]

I come from a different direction. Real world image quality would be little different for most photographers and observers of your images. So it comes down to whether you want AF or not. I have both L lenses and M lenses with adapters, and the manual lenses are hardly used.

[otto.f]

Yes, AF certainly is usefull and indispensable for certain domains of photography, but these domains are quite specific to my mind. If you use manual focus from the 90’s on, I doubt that you’re suddenly moving into sports and safari and leaving your old style and subjects. Furthermore, in my case, my styles and subjects have a certain cyclic course, which cover rather years than the few months in which you wish for something new. So the regret can come 2 years later. 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been using manual focus since the 60s, and rangefinders since 1980. Regrets - I've had a few - but then again, too few to mention. And I still use MF with AF lenses for some subjects - macro particularly. And I actually do still use the M lenses occasionally.

I'm interested in photography and the photographs I take, mainly. How I take them and the equipment I take them with, though interesting to explore and enjoyable to talk about here, are secondary to being able to get the photographs I want. For some of my casual travel and landscape photography, I could certainly use manual focus without hindrance; in the absence of other uses I might prefer manual focus for that. But much of my photography has changed since my first digital M in 2011, and I spend more time with people: portraits, performance, drama, music, events. In these uses I want to forget about the equipment, the process, the technique, and concentrate on the subject, movement and composition. I want the camera to get out of the way (fundamentally, this is what Leica is good at). In my head, that means AF rather than MF.

Back to the OP: unless you are a collector, your choice should come down to your photographic practice, and (among other things, such as size and weight) whether AF or MF come into it. Of course, if you are a photographer for whom the differences in IQ between R/MF and L/AF lenses make the difference between success and failure, then by all means take that into account as well.

Edited December 28, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[tom0511]

I think it really depends if you want/need AF.

For me personally AF is very usefull (family, kids, dog, sports,...)

If you like AF you could swap the 70-180 and 280/2.8 for a 90-280SL.

I dont think you need AF for a Macro lens or a UWA-lens. So I might keep the 19 and 100mm.

The 19 would be a good "partner" for a 24-90mm.

 

[masjah]

I am seriously considering the possibilities of the SL2 with my Leica R lenses. My main problem is with a tremor that is worsening with age (it's been fully checked out over a period of time, and diagnosed as being benign) but it is a nuisance when I'm not using a tripod (although a significant proportion of my work is actually tripod based). At first sight the in-camera image stabilisation promised with the SL2 might be at least a partial answer. Presumably the SL2 would have some sort of viewfinder image magnification/focus peaking (like my M240) so personally I could easily live without autofocus.

 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, otto.f said:

Yes, AF certainly is usefull and indispensable for certain domains of photography, but these domains are quite specific to my mind. If you use manual focus from the 90’s on, I doubt that you’re suddenly moving into sports and safari and leaving your old style and subjects. Furthermore, in my case, my styles and subjects have a certain cyclic course, which cover rather years than the few months in which you wish for something new. So the regret can come 2 years later. 

Yes, but there are no real replacements for these lenses in the SL system.

[otto.f]

1 hour ago, tom0511 said:

If you like AF you could swap the 70-180 and 280/2.8 for a 90-280SL.

This might be the least unwise decision with the smallest chance of regret. But not after thorough proofing and not just on sharpness in the narrow sense.

[Danno_photoguy]

All great points/advice, it illustrates how hard it is to have a non unique perspective.  As someone who has used RF (a Voiglander Vitessa at first) and manual focus cameras since the 1960's, I have been seduced by AF a number of times.  While using my M6's I also got a Context G2.  While using my Hasselblad 500CM, I also got the Hasselblad H1.  While using my M264/M10, I also got the Q1.  

Although the AF felt great at first, I have (at least for now) always gone back and used my MF most often.  Yes, there are clearly situations that AF is more suited for a given situation, but from an enjoyment situation, I love the control/experience of using MF.  Maybe I am just to use to it.

I have one SL lens (the 75mm) which I love, but I mainly use Leica M and R lenses on it.  As mentioned, there are some (many) lenses that just have a unique look.  They may not be the most advanced optically, but still render in a very pleasing way.  I for one LOVE the Leica R 19MM,  R 100 2.8 Macro, R 180mm  2.8 APO (and others) on my SL1.  I also love the M WATE, M 24mm 2.8, and M 50mm 1.0 on it.

Not sure if it is possible, but maybe get the SL2 (or SL1) body and adapter and use the lenses that you already have to see what you produce/like.  Although it may be necessary, I believe that most people come to regret selling their 'old' Leica glass.  

[jankap]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Danno_photoguy:

Although the AF felt great at first, I have (at least for now) always gone back and used my MF most often.  Yes, there are clearly situations that AF is more suited for a given situation, but from an enjoyment situation, I love the control/experience of using MF.  Maybe I am just to use to it.

The same here. It is interesting, that a camera can do focus automatically. But where the focus will be achieved, still is manual work. I prefer MF. Perhaps I am consume refuser?

[Leicaiste]

3 hours ago, Danno_photoguy said:

I have one SL lens (the 75mm) which I love, but I mainly use Leica M and R lenses on it. 

I also use several R lenses on the SL2 and I’m tempted to buy the L 75 for portrait of my grand daughter. It is not easy to follow her movements with the R 80/1,4. 
 

I’m also considering the replacement of my 280/2,8 with the 90-280. But the lack of extender stopped me until now. 

A Leica L 500/5,6 à la Nikon would be nice. 

[Danno_photoguy]

1 hour ago, Leicaiste said:

I’m tempted to buy the L 75 for portrait of my grand daughter.

I know that many love the L90 for portraits, but the L75 really does work for me.  

[jankap]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb Leicaiste:

I’m also considering the replacement of my 280/2,8 with the 90-280. But the lack of extender stopped me until now. 

I have this lens too. The lens with the extender is difficult to aim. You mean, that a zoom would help?

Otherwise with the megapixel flood of the SL2 you can crop as with the Leica Q.

[jaapv]

29 minutes ago, jankap said:

I have this lens too. The lens with the extender is difficult to aim.

Beanbag

[Leicaiste]

2 hours ago, jankap said:

 

Otherwise with the megapixel flood of the SL2 you can crop as with the Leica Q.

Yes, that’s why I am considering it again. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[cpclee]

On 12/28/2019 at 7:59 AM, Steven R said:

Hi,

 

I've been using Leica R and M Cameras since the early 1990's and have a bunch of R-Lenses (19mm 2.8, 100 2.8 Macro, 70-180 APO Zoom, 280 2.8 APO) that I am considering trading in for SL lenses to use with a new SL2.

 

Would you recommend keeping these lenses to use with a new SL2 or trading them in for SL lenses to use with an SL2..

 

Thanks

I have the SL + 24-90 zoom and personally I’d keep those lenses you have.  If you really need an AF lens, get the 24-90 as it is fantastic and covers 90% of the situations and doesn’t overlap with what you already have.  The only real downside of the 24-90 is the heft, but if you have the 70-180 than this is nothing.

[ramarren]

I used the SL for several years and had two of the SL zooms. My 'standard' lenses, however, were my R lenses. I simply preferred the handling and feel with these lighter, smaller lenses, and I generally prefer the simplicity of manual focus.

Imaging qualities are a toss up ... as always, I pick what lens to use based on what I want/like about my various lenses' rendering qualities and capabilities. NONE of these lenses are poor performers, in any absolute sense, so that means it's a toss up for what you might like more. 

G