Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guys!

I really love my 24 - 90 though it’s quite large and I feel I’m not taking my camera with me as much as the lens or too big to carry around on a day to day basis. 
 

What are your thoughts on voigtlander lenses or should I make the plunge and sell my 24 - 90 for a 35 summilux ?

 

 

Edited by calamari
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a camera to carry around casually then, seriously, and without the usual embedded sneer, I think you have chosen the wrong camera. You imply that it is too big and heavy with the lens, and I agree that it is, for that usage. You save some bulk and weight by taking the Summicron instead, but it remains big, heavy and obtrusive compared to alternatives. IMO you'd be far better off with a CL (staying within the Leica family). I am happy to have both: SL for 'work' (arranged and planned photo sessions) and the CL for carrying around. And for my 'work' (amateur stage/performance/portraits/events) I wouldn't do without the versatility of the 24-90. It is for the CL that I have just bought a Summilux-TL 35 🙂.

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, calamari said:

Guys!

I really love my 24 - 90 though it’s quite large and I feel I’m not taking my camera with me as much as the lens or too big to carry around on a day to day basis. 
 

What are your thoughts on voigtlander lenses or should I make the plunge and sell my 24 - 90 for a 35 summilux ?

 

 

Here is a photo of my SL with the Voigtlander Ultron 35/2 on it.

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!

 

The lens renders nicely enough and the retro look is a bonus  - as is the price of a new one compared to a 35FLE - keep your 24-90 it is a wonderful lens if a tad heavy for carrying around casually and it performs extremely well at all focal lengths - btu you probably already know that. I use the 24-90 for event photography where I can change focal lengths to suit...but for easy walking around - and a change up a Voigtlander is an inexpensive add on.

The only negative is that they don't come coded so the SL wont play nice as far as lens corrections go out of camera - you can buy after market flanges which you can then code to make the little Voigtlander look like an M cron as far as the SL is concerned - and if you go this way I recommend you invest in the Leica M to L adaptor. 

Here is a link to the hows regarding doing the flange changeover yourself.

https://www.devonbuy.com/how-to-6-bit-code-leica-m-lens/

All the best

Pete

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, hillavoider said:

Voigtlander are very good, I’d wait for the new 35 1.2 apparently coming out 

Not sure if this is true of not, but according to Steve Huff, the IBIS on the Leica SL2 will only work with native or L Alliance lenses. He said that IBIS does not work with his Voigtlander or other third party M Mount lenses.

Is this correct? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bherman01545 said:

Not sure if this is true of not, but according to Steve Huff, the IBIS on the Leica SL2 will only work with native or L Alliance lenses. He said that IBIS does not work with his Voigtlander or other third party M Mount lenses.

Is this correct? 

Not correct. But in contrast to Panasonic S1R, SL2 don't have a menu option where you can type in the focal length of the lens (needed for IBIS to properly work). A work-around on SL2 is to pick any of the available Leica M or R lenses, and chose one that is closest to your focal length. Doable, but I prefer Panasonic's option...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two alternative options:

If you do not need great low lowlight performance, the 45mm Sigma is a compact, well built and cheap lens with nice performance (though rather soft wide open, especially up close. It improves quickly upon stopping down). In this case, you might just be able to keep the 24-90 and add the 45mm.

The 35mm Summicron SL is probably a better choice on the SL than a 35mm Summilux. This is both optically and ergonomically because of the better optical correction and the AF motor. The 35mm Summilux M is not at its best on these bodies, though it is better on the SL and SL2 than the S1 or S1R. If you have an S1 or S1R, I would recommend sticking with a native lens or adapter SLR lens if you want the best corner and edge performance. Whether you notice or care obviously depends on how picky you are and what kind of photography you do. I am very picky and print big, so keep that in mind. But I think buying an extremely expensive M lens to use it on body which does not get the most out of it is a bit of a shame. 

Edited by Stuart Richardson
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

If you want a camera to carry around casually then, seriously, and without the usual embedded sneer, I think you have chosen the wrong camera.... IMO you'd be far better off with a CL (staying within the Leica family).

No sneers here either, but I have to agree. I hung out with Bags27 over the weekend so he could try out my Ms. I walked around from 8:30 AM through 1 PM or so with the SL2, Pano 16-35mm, SL-75mm and the monstrous 135MM ART in one bag and an M240 with a 50mm 'lux and 21mm SEM (Mr. Bags had my M10). No problems, despite being a senior citizen and someone who hasn't stepped into a gym in his adult life.  Now, of course, we all have varying levels of fitness and tolerance, but if you can't deal with a camera and a single, admittedly large, but by no means huge, lens without getting overly uncomfortable, either you just have to keep using it to get accustomed to the increased burden or you did indeed buy the wrong camera... really into the wrong camera system.  

My advice would be don't compound the problem, at least from a financial standpoint. Presumably you bought the zoom for the flexibility it offers. If one prime is all you require, fine but if not, then the frustrations will continue, just in a different dimension. A 35mm can't stand in for a 24mm in many circumstances, nor can it replace a 90mm. Lighter kit, in the form of a CL (or Z, A7, etc) might make more sense.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can bear witness to Tailwagger's tale. 😀 He did, indeed, schlep all that equipment around, even while I only had his M10 and yet I managed to drop it hard a couple of times (oops, forget to mention that to you).🙃

A story I've probably told too many times. Walking into the Louisiana Museum outside Copenhagen 2 summers ago, I was carrying my Q and bumped into a guy with an SL and the 24-90. Nice kit, I told him. He looked longingly at my Q and replied that, yeah, but the Q is a lot lighter. He didn't at all seem happy, and yet he looked almost as tough as Tailwagger.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, thighslapper said:

The Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 also runs the Summilux 35 a close second. 

It's a fabulous lens for the money. It can be easily self 6 bit coded. 

Yes a few of the Zeiss lenses are very good ...It is always a hazardous exercise offering an opinion to a person about anything - which is why I think best course of action with Leica is to save up and buy the real thing....

This little Voigtlander is a replacement whilst my 50 lux is off to Germany for a fix - after an unfortunate mishap - I've decided on a 35/75 combo in primes for my SL/SL2 and I am keeping the 50 lux as my 50.

So as can be seen there are all sorts of reasons why a person might be using a non Leica something at any point in time - but you already know all this - maybe the OP doesn't -:)

 

 

 

Edited by PeterGA
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the insight and replies.

I've not made the wrong decision buying the SL with the 24-90. I ended up getting the SL and the 24 - 90 for $7000 AUD, so I couldn't pass it up as I really wanted an SL and was looking to get a M lens straight away if I was just to buy the body, though the body and lens combo came up for sale and I couldn't miss it. 

The 24 - 90 is an amazing lens and i've been enjoying every focal length and it's pure sharpness and contrast. 

The idea was to look at selling the 24 - 90 to fund a couple of smaller lenses, though for me I feel the 24 - 90 is the perfect lens for when I go hiking or shoot my adventure documentary projects. It was more the idea of having a lens to put on the SL when I go out for dinner with mates, walk the streets. Just so that the camera is always with me.

The plan is to look at putting a voigtlander or similar option on the camera and then to keep the 24 - 90 because really the 24 - 90 lens is almost perfect as is all leica's SL lenses.

In my eyes the SL and SL2 are pretty much the most perfection! 

 

Edited by calamari
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, thighslapper said:

The Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 also runs the Summilux 35 a close second. 

It's a fabulous lens for the money. It can be easily self 6 bit coded. 

I second this. It is also going to perform better than the Summilux on the SL sensor, because it has lower field curvature.
https://www.macfilos.com/2018/05/18/2018-5-16-zeiss-distagon-t-1435-zm-review/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...