An SL 50mm Dilemma

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

I own both SL50mm lenses. If you ask for the more organic and size is not an issue, I would opt for the 50/1.4SL.

Personally I really prefer the size of the SUmmicron, but I feel the Summilux renders somewhat "smoother". 

These match my thoughts as well. I also own both.

Gordon

[setuporg]

1 hour ago, Arrow said:

Yes, the SL is not a stealthy camera in the streets  

Leica SL2 and S cause folks to say nice camera.  But nothing like the X1D, when they come forward and do an homage.  I feel humbled that they mistake the X1D for something that some famous fashion photographers must have used.  The X1D is noticed by many more women than a Leica, too, as the Hasselblad brand apparently is further into art and fashion...  Just adding it here while we're at it.

[T25UFO]

I had the SL 50 Summilux but eventually sold it and bought the smaller, lighter SL 75 Summicron.  On reflection, I should have kept the 50mm - it renders much better than the ultra sharp, but clinical 75mm.  

One example here of my granddaughter.  She usually smiles all the time so the sad look is a collectors item - she was totally fed up with granddad taking too many photos!  SL 50 at f1.4.  I wonder whether the X1D and 80mm f1.9 would do any better?

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!

[Daniel81]

As is so often the case, these discussions are BOTH enlightening AND send me into further confusion.  I am a new SL owner, my only native lens is the 75 Summicron SL and I have a budget for ONE MORE SL lens and I am having a helluva time deciding between 50 Summicron, 50 Summilux, 35 or even waiting for 28, 24 or 21.  Maybe I will take a year to sleep on it and read hundreds more of these fantastic and complexifying discussions!!!  (I am 60 years old and not as steady I find, as I used to be - so while I do plan to buy an R lens to expand my SL experience, I think I need to stay mostly in the autofocus domain.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Daniel81

[LeicaR10]

Daniel81,   You are not alone with your decision making.  Based on my many years using many types of Leica cameras and lenses (plus Nikon and Canon), it gets down to your intended genre of photography.  Many well meaning photographers will give you all kinds of advice to include myself.  I suggest you reflect on the types of photographs that you create.  Look at the photographs subject content and that should help you determine what focal length might be best for you.  I tell all my workshop students it is not the brand, type of camera or lens, nor number of MPs that should drive your creative photography.  Rather the content of your photographs and how you want to render what you see should be the most important factor.  Everyone has ideas and opinions, but ultimately it is your decision what works best for you.  Some will suggest say a SL 35 since you have SL 75 or a SL zoom.  But as I just wrote, asking the forum to help you decide what is best for you, isn't the ideal way to go as you will see soon enough.  Ultimately, I am certain whatever you decide will be best for you.  r/ Mark

Edited January 7, 2020 by LeicaR10

[Alistairm]

It is fun to discuss, but there really is no bad choice here. Every single native SL lens is magnificent in its own way. 

[Daniel81]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for your wise comments Mark!  I agree with you most whole heartedly and these are very central to my considerations.  I have a kind of varied set of photographic predilections which makes the self-inquiry somewhat challenging!  I tend towards two poles if you like . . . . (1) landscapey stuff - but usually with the shorter end of telephoto (75-105) to get a compression effect for landscape components that I seem very attracted to and (2) either macro or non macro but somewhat wide angle lenses that enable very small minimum focus distance so I can get in really close . . .  and all often with a sort of 'artsy' perspective either through low light conditions or movement or odd angles . . . . .then again, I spent so many years avoiding 50 mm for what i came to realise was the 'wrong' reason of just wanting to be different - and I recently discovered the excellence of 50!  Anyway, I have the 75 (I agree with others above, it is a great lens but tends towards a kind of technical coldness if one is not careful) . . . . the 50 appeals to me because as I said, I recently came to really appreciate 50 in general, but I love the minimum focus distance of the 35 and what that may offer me (I may wait to see how the 28 specs compare in that regard) and I am considering the Elmarit R 100 to give me both real macro as well as just having a Leica 100 focal length at a 'reasonable' (for Leica) price!  And beyond it all, nothing like a great person or pet portrait, but honestly that is possible with many different focal lengths.  Anyway, thanks so much - your words are precisely what I need to keep front and center.

[NRKstudio]

14 hours ago, Sohail said:

Unfortunately, 28 is my preferred focal length. My Q2 is for me perfect in all respects.

My favorite focal length is also 28mm!  I’ve been using my 28 Lux (m mount) until the 28 Cron SL comes out (it was scheduled for last year initially, but latest roadmap shows 2020 release).  the 35/1.2 fills in fine for me, and reminds me how versatile a 35mm lens can be, as well how unique/pleasing a fast wide angle lens can portray a scene by pushing away a background and melting it at the same time. 
 

I preordered the 28/1.4 Art L mount, which was scheduled for release mid-December.  In E mount, the 28 Art was one of Sigmas finest Art lenses (and much smaller than the 35/1.2).  It bettered their 40/1.4 Art as well.  in E mount it had a MF clutch override, and a distance scale for Zone focusing.  As well as decent size and outstanding bokeh and resolution.  

I’m sure it’ll do the same in L mount.  The 28 Art will def give the future 28 Cron SL a serious fight.  
 

 

[T25UFO]

6 hours ago, Daniel81 said:

As is so often the case, these discussions are BOTH enlightening AND send me into further confusion.  I am a new SL owner, my only native lens is the 75 Summicron SL and I have a budget for ONE MORE SL lens and I am having a helluva time deciding between 50 Summicron, 50 Summilux, 35 or even waiting for 28, 24 or 21.  Maybe I will take a year to sleep on it and read hundreds more of these fantastic and complexifying discussions!!!  (I am 60 years old and not as steady I find, as I used to be - so while I do plan to buy an R lens to expand my SL experience, I think I need to stay mostly in the autofocus domain.

The SL’s EVF is so good you should have no problem manually focusing R or M lenses.  I am somewhat older than you 🙂 and struggle focusing the 90mm APO with the M10 but the SL is easy.  Another good 28mm option is the Q2 - probably comparable in price to the SL 28 whenever that arrives, plus you get a “free” camera with a reasonable macro function as well.

I find working with two cameras, maybe 75mm on the SL and 28mm on the Q2, a really good combination and saves having to change lenses on the go.

[Daniel81]

14 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

  Another good 28mm option is the Q2 - probably comparable in price to the SL 28 whenever that arrives, plus you get a “free” camera with a reasonable macro function as well.

I find working with two cameras, maybe 75mm on the SL and 28mm on the Q2, a really good combination and saves having to change lenses on the go.

What  a great suggestion.  I have been looking keenly at the Q2 and never thought of it as a possibility in the way you suggest!  And furthermore, I just checked . . . the whole Q2 weighs less than, for example, the 35 SL . . . . so this option is not even more weight in the camera bag - even less!

Edited January 7, 2020 by Daniel81

[lpeeples]

I too am fortunate enough to have the SL2 and Q2. I have the 75 SL Cron and the will have the 50 SL Cron later this month.  I did S1 and the 50SL lux but just hated the size so I sold both.  The cron's are a nice size.  My thought now is to use the SL2 with the 50/75cron and have the Q2 for that focal length, so as mentioned above, I don't have to change lenses as often. I saw a video last night, I think his name was Oz, talking about the 21 and 28 cron.  I shoot a lot of urban landscapes, so my 21 SEM will be just fine as its always on infinity and the Q2 will handle that focal length.  If I want really light, I can carry my Q2.  

 

[tom0511]

One more thought...the 50/1.4 can be found used since some people switch to the smaller Summicron.

I really like the size of the Summicron and it is a great lens as well, but I found the rendering of the 50/1.4 really special and f1.4 doesnt hurt sometimes.

At least I have not let got the 50/1.4 yet (I thought I would after getting the Summicron)

 

[tom0511]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Daniel81:

As is so often the case, these discussions are BOTH enlightening AND send me into further confusion.  I am a new SL owner, my only native lens is the 75 Summicron SL and I have a budget for ONE MORE SL lens and I am having a helluva time deciding between 50 Summicron, 50 Summilux, 35 or even waiting for 28, 24 or 21.  Maybe I will take a year to sleep on it and read hundreds more of these fantastic and complexifying discussions!!!  (I am 60 years old and not as steady I find, as I used to be - so while I do plan to buy an R lens to expand my SL experience, I think I need to stay mostly in the autofocus domain.

If you have 75 as your standard lens than 35 might offer you more additional posibilities than adding a 50mm. Specially when shooting indoors the wider fiel of view makes it a more flexible available light lens IMO.

[Leicaiste]

I sometimes wonder if the 50/1,4 L was released to make the Summicron’s look small. 
 

😉

[Chaemono]

No, because the Summicron SL lenses are small.  See here Nikkor Z 35/1.8 S vs. 35 Summicron-SL.

[albireo_double]

5 hours ago, T25UFO said:

The SL’s EVF is so good you should have no problem manually focusing R or M lenses.

Well, I am not so sure about this. I was using the SL2 during my break in the past two weeks, with a 28mm Summicron M and the 50 APO M. Yes, with focus peaking switched on, in contrasty light and with magnification on, with a static subject, it is not a problem. But I had a lot of misfocused images, especially of people, whenever I needed to work reasonably quickly (even when the people - in the street photography context - volunteered to pose for me for a few seconds). The issue is that the M lenses have to be focused stopped down which makes a lot of the picture seem in focus, but at 47MP resolution, you can see every mistake in the final image (when the eyes are not in focus, for instance). In these scenarios, M cameras are faster to focus than the SL, in my view. I will be taking AF lenses with me next time I travel. 

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, Daniel81 said:

What  a great suggestion.  I have been looking keenly at the Q2 and never thought of it as a possibility in the way you suggest!  And furthermore, I just checked . . . the whole Q2 weighs less than, for example, the 35 SL . . . . so this option is not even more weight in the camera bag - even less!

By that logic, the SL 24-90 provides an even better solution...one lens, no changes, far less weight and bulk than multiple lenses and bodies, minimal difference in IQ, better weather sealing (with SL2... plus IBIS) than Q2, and no need to deal with multiple camera interfaces.  And it focuses to .3m (1 foot). One can rationalize many approaches. 

Jeff

Edited January 7, 2020 by Jeff S

[Daniel81]

Ha!  GREAT POINTS  Jeff S.  I guess in the end, we each have our own specific scenarios and requirements combinations.  I do love all these points - they add clarity AND confusion!  I've been a prime guy for so many years - maybe I need to reexamine my dogma around that?  The SL and the 24-90 together seem to me to be a LOT of metal to hold.  But your points are well taken and I need to think about it all.  One of my big challenges is I live in a remote place, FAR from stores - so I can't just walk into a Leica store and try things 'on for size'.  I do also like the Q2 option of having a remarkable little camera for travel.  Sooooo many variables!

[Daniel81]

I guess - aside from of course my many personal details which are all up to me . . . I do have a technical question . . . .  comparing option (A) the SL with a 35 SL summicron and option (B), a Q2 with the option to crop to 35 and still have a lot of resolution  (and I realise technically, a 35 captured image and a 28 captured image cropped to 35 are not exactly the same - but with only 7mm difference in the original focal length used, the difference can't be much?) . . .all that said, and especially for those of you who may have experience shooting under both options . . . are there any specific technical , pragmatic, rendering, shooting, etc differences that are worthy of my attention?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[T25UFO]

38 minutes ago, Daniel81 said:

I guess - aside from of course my many personal details which are all up to me . . . I do have a technical question . . . .  comparing option (A) the SL with a 35 SL summicron and option (B), a Q2 with the option to crop to 35 and still have a lot of resolution  (and I realise technically, a 35 captured image and a 28 captured image cropped to 35 are not exactly the same - but with only 7mm difference in the original focal length used, the difference can't be much?) . . .all that said, and especially for those of you who may have experience shooting under both options . . . are there any specific technical , pragmatic, rendering, shooting, etc differences that are worthy of my attention?

Well, @albireo_double is right, easier to focus M lenses on a rangefinder, but only if you can handle the rangefinder.  I’m generally comfortable with that, despite ageing eyes, but many aren’t.  The best way to focus manual lenses on the SL is to do so wide open, then stop down, but it’s slower. 

Jeff is also right about the 24-90 Zoom being a one stop solution, but it didn’t suit my style.  I took the SL and 24-90 to Iceland along with M camera and 24, 35, 50 and 90 lenses.  I just couldn’t get my head around using the large zoom lens at the 24 mm end of the spectrum so I ended up using the 24 M on the SL and 35 and 50 on the M.  Hardly used the 90 at all on either cameras, but that’s just me.  Others will be very happy with SL plus zoom for everything.

There is no right or wrong answer to your question because different solutions suit different people.  The Q2 suits my style and the two camera, two lenses combo works for me - didn’t  have the Q2 when I went to Iceland but it would be in my bag now, probably alongside the M with 50mm APO.