Autofocus Lens for SL

[Schittra]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use my SL with the M lenses (ie, 21/3.4, 35/1.4 FLE, 50/1.4 APSH, and 90/2 APO). I want to try the autofocus feature of SL. I am thinking about:

1. Summilux 50/1.4 (quite less expensive used Lens and I love wide open. But that’s BIG and I already have 50/1.4 APSH M)

2. 16-35 SL (good price in the used market with Wide angle but I rarely shot at wide anyway)

3. 24-90 (good all around lens. It’s supposed to be travel lens but so big. The lens is not fast too)

any thought or other option is welcome. Thank you so much.

[Jim B]

75 F2 Apo SL if you have the money!

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Personal preference, although I have the SL2, which has IBIS and more MP to consider.  I knew from the outset that I wanted to build out a full system if I bonded with it.  And I did.  In particular, I wanted a weather sealed option to my M system , which I limit to 28-50 RF use, and to include zooms and primes.  It was a matter of prioritizing the sequencing (and budget).  One of the key aspects of the SL system is its versatility using native and adapted (Leica and other) lenses, and even some nice Panasonic and Sigma L mount lenses.  I decided to stick with native lenses and bought the SL 24-90 initially for all-around use. Soon after, I added the SL 75 for a smaller option and to address a void in my M lens kit, since I like the focal length, but never liked the 75mm M frame lines.  I then added a mint used 90-280, which was deeply discounted relative to the current post tariff price. Without the anticipated price jump, I would have waited on it, but I'm glad I didn't: it's even better than the 24-90, which is already superb.  At some point, I'll round out the system with a wider option, perhaps the SL 16-35 (possibly used) or an SL 21/24 (still a year or two off), although the SL 35 is tempting as good spacing with the 75 as a compact two lens kit.

Whatever suits your immediate needs and preferences.  With the SL instead of the SL2, you might consider that the 24-90 has OIS (as does the 90-280), but the other SL options, including the 16-35, do not.  On the other hand, the 16-35 doesn't telescope out like the 24-90 when zooming or focusing, is a bit lighter and smaller, and is probably a bit better optically.  For me, though, focal length needs come first; everything else follows.

Jeff

[Schittra]

2 hours ago, Jim B said:

75 F2 Apo SL if you have the money!

Thank you. DOn't you suggest for 90/2?

[LocalHero1953]

I have the 24-90, 90-280, 16-35 and 90. I wanted the 90 very specifically as a portrait lens, but I would not buy it as my first SL lens unless that was my only intended use - it is too long a FL. We are all different, but if I was starting again with the current lens line up I would probably go for the 35 and then the 75. Or perhaps the 16-35. Though I've taken most shots with the 24-90......any of them would be good.

What kind of advice do you want from us? Unless you're a collector, this depends so much on your own photographic practice! My choices are coloured by the fact that I have the CL and TL lenses for lightweight travel and casual/social photography: light weight and small size are not priorities in my SL choices.

[chasdfg]

Depends on whether you're a 50mm or 35mm guy though. If I had 1 AF lens for the SL it'd be the 35APO Summicron, cause I'm a 35mm guy. The 50APO Summicron SL is the best 50mm I've used though and is remarkably like the 50mm APO Summicron M. Less overlap with your 50 1.4 ASPH too. For me it'd be either 35 or 50 APO Summicron SL, pairing the 50 with the 28mm Summicron SL when it comes out, or 35mm Summicron SL with 75mm Summicron SL eventually (neither of these overlap too much with your existing kit).

 

Alternatively, you could check out the 45mm 2.8 Sigma. I had one for a brief period of time and enjoyed it a lot, but didn't gel with 45mm.

 

 

[Jared]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I suppose there are three things I would think about...

1) What are the situations where autofocus would bring a benefit?

2) What focal lengths do I use the most?

3) Are there any holes in my current lens lineup that I need to fill?

For example, the 16-35 is a fantastic landscape lens, but AF will rarely be beneficial in landscape use.  In general, the longer focal lengths are where you will benefit more from having AF,  not the shorter ones.  So that isn’t the lens I would look at for you unless you do a lot of work at shorter focal lengths or want to get something wider than your current 21.

My favorite of the SL lenses currently is the 35mm Summicron, and it’s also a great general purpose lens, so if you were just starting out without any lenses and wanted to avoid the size and weight of the 24-90 I would probably recommend that lens. However, you aren’t just starting out and you already have a bunch of M glass including the excellent 35mm FLE.  Plus, having AF on a 35mm is less critical to “getting the shot” than it is on longer lenses.

The lens where AF would bring the most benefit and also a lens that covers focal lengths you don’t already have is the 90-280. Would you use those focal lengths much?  I don’t know.  I actually use mine a fair amount, but that’s just me.  While it is moderately compact for a 300mm class zoom it is still a beast compared to the rest of the SL lineup.  I would need to know a lot more about what you want to shoot before I would recommend that lens.

In general, AF is more beneficial at longer focal lengths than shorter, so I’d be looking at 50mm lenses and above.  I think I would recommend the 75mm APO-Summicron-SL or the 90mm APO-Summicron-SL.  Both are relatively small and light for what they are (though they will seem big compared to the M glass you are used to).  Both focus quickly.  Both are superb optically. The 90mm has an edge over the 75mm optically, but the difference is very slight so I’d choose whichever focal length was the better match for my needs. Both are quite useful for street, portraiture, and landscape use.  I’d probably lean towards the 75mm in your place (following item 3 in my list above), but it also depends how you see the world.  Most people coming from M systems are much more comfortable with 90mm lenses than 75mm lenses just because of how framing lines were handled in the M for many years.  I’m assuming you’re a former M photographer just because of your current set of lenses. Either would be a good choice.

.

Edited April 12, 2020 by Jared
Add more info

[Arrow]

I can tell you, what I did, after I bought the SL. First, I had in mind to use it mostly with the Noctilux 50 0.95. Well, then I pondered getting a native lens. That was the 24 - 90 zoom. Then came the 90 Cron L. Then the 90 - 280. And then ..... the ..... Summilux L 50!

Since you have the SL, the 24 - 90 could be everything you need alongside your 50 Lux M. Yet, the Lux L is different from the Lux M, has got autofocus and is a great lens. 

For most things, I could live with the Lux L 50 and the Cron L 90. The zooms give extra reach on the wide and long end. 

[Jim B]

On 4/12/2020 at 1:21 AM, Schittra said:

Thank you. DOn't you suggest for 90/2?

Well you already have the m90apo. 
You have all the focal lengths covered with your m lenses. The 75mm will give you a nice length for auto focus, and general purpose. Also between normal and not too tight.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Jim B

[Rezinator]

I fought the urge for a long time of getting the 24-90 (was using m lenses), but once I did, the entire system really made sense. The 24-90 is fantastic, weather sealed and balances well on the SL. I don’t notice the extra weight in my camera bag. 
I kept my Sonnar 50/C as my low light m lens with excellent rendering on the SL.