Long-term of Leica SL Lens

[Schittra]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

I start to like my Leica SL and used it more often than my M10. I have 24-90, which I normally use. I also put M lenses (35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 90/2) in low light or carry light. Now I am interested in getting the real native SL Lenses, i.e., 75/2 or 50/2 or 50/1.4. I wonder about the durability or long-term of this electronic gears. The M class can serve me over a decade or even 2. But the SL lenses without aperture ring made me worried. I got 24-90 as used one - so it's not too expensive. But investing in the SL prime lens will not be cheap.  My SL is 4 years old. I bought the used one but still as great. I don't think the SL lens will appreciate the value as much as M lenses does. But I am not interested in investing for electronic gear anyway. 

Thank you very much. 

[LeicaR10]

Schittra,   Based on my 5 years of experience with the SL system that I use for my business that entails hiking to remote geographic areas in very difficult terrain and weather for my clients, I never had a problem with any of the SL zooms.  The SL and SL lenses I have found to be very robust and mechanically very well built.  Personally, I can not see why you would want to buy the primes when you have the superb SL 24-90 that IMO equals the primes in IQ.  Plus with your current SL and zoom that has IBIS and close focusing, IMO, you would be wasting your money.  Everyone has their own wants and needs for buying camera gear.  With Leica many photographers, they suffer from Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS)...this included me.  I have been to rehab for GAS many times...and always relapsed.  I finally gave up and accepted there is no cure for GAS...unless your wallet dictates otherwise....LOL.  In my senior years and 5,000+ miles of hiking and doing professional landscape photography globally, I use what I need and get superb results for my corporate and private collectors. Last, I have found one treatment that helps with GAS...Go out and create excellent photographs with content that makes the viewer; Stop, Look, Think and hopefully Feel something about that moment in time.  This will help you with GAS...until the next attack occurs.   I hope this helps.  r/ Mark

[natthayu]

Apo-Summicron-SL primes are of the best quality I've ever seen, in terms of overall sharpness and optical correction, far superior to VE-SL 24-90 at any focal length and all M lenses to my eyes. This is a very personal opinion as I usually prefer neutral, highly corrected and sometimes clinical lenses (e.g. I always prefer Apo-Summicron-M 50 to Summilux-M 50 Asph. That's not saying the Summilux is a bad lens. It's superb and I've enjoyed shooting it for years.)

The rendition style of Apo-Summicron-SL primes is very close to Apo-Summicron-M 50. If you are looking for the best lens possible with such rendition approach, and if you can get a well-built one, Apo-Summicron-SL series won't disappoint you. My Apo-Summicron-SL 50 has some skews while my 35 shows perfect results.

If you are happy with results from your VE-SL 24-90, the good chance is that you don't need SL primes.

However, as LeicaR10 said, GAS is hard to cure.

Edited April 20, 2020 by natthayu

[chasdfg]

Hi Schittra,

I can see where you're coming from because I myself had the same reservations. I explored Leica S lenses and the S system as a whole sometime last year and looked into buying some S glass used along with an S007. It was then I read that earlier S lenses has issues (AF motor problems) and the hassle and cost of repair. These came up again when I considered building an SL kit as I also recently purchased an SL used. I came to the conclusion that Leica has likely learnt from the mistakes and issues of the S system. The SL is modelled after the S after all (button layout, lens designs). The SL is a solid camera and I haven't heard of major issues with the lenses either, so from a reliability perspective there should be nothing to worry about. Regarding lens performance, the S and SL lenses perform as well if not better than many M lens offerings. There is no issue there either and in my mind they are right up there with the best lenses I have ever used.

I am relatively cost conscious (if that can be said about anyone shooting Leica), so what bothered me was resale value. Anything connected to the digital camera realm, with electronics and all, suffer the same fate. Take a digital M for example. A digital rangefinder has no alternatives, but the cameras don't hold their value. Leica S lenses don't hold their value either (made worse by the presence of Hasselblad and Fuji GFX). I don't expect the SL system to be any different. Take a look at the used prices of the 24-90, 50 Summilux SL and the 90-280mm. The SL is an "under appreciated" system of sorts - the SL is a very modern camera and it is the best performing mirrorless camera for M lenses (M240 and M9 aside), but how many people up the SL to shoot M glass as an EVF-M? A Leica will sell because it is a Leica, but for many the cost is prohibitive and the size is bothersome and the biggest issue is the competition this system faces. I'm sure Leica recognises that..if based purely on lens performance alone, the SL lenses should cost more than M offerings. Buying lenses used seems to be a safe bet but to find a popular, high performing lens like the 35mm Summicron-SL used...that's the tricky part (but also points to the safer SL lens options to buy used - i.e. the smaller and more "portable" Summicrons, especially 28-50mm)

[tom0511]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Schittra:

Hi

I start to like my Leica SL and used it more often than my M10. I have 24-90, which I normally use. I also put M lenses (35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 90/2) in low light or carry light. Now I am interested in getting the real native SL Lenses, i.e., 75/2 or 50/2 or 50/1.4. I wonder about the durability or long-term of this electronic gears. The M class can serve me over a decade or even 2. But the SL lenses without aperture ring made me worried. I got 24-90 as used one - so it's not too expensive. But investing in the SL prime lens will not be cheap.  My SL is 4 years old. I bought the used one but still as great. I don't think the SL lens will appreciate the value as much as M lenses does. But I am not interested in investing for electronic gear anyway. 

Thank you very much. 

I dont expect any S or SL lens to hold its "financial" value long terms as good as M-lenses. On the other side I do trust that S and SL lenses are soo good, that they can make me happy in a long term in regards of optical performance. Durability....is good I believe but need for repair can allways happen. For example some SL lenses get stiffer focus over time.

My take is this: I only buy a SL lens if I believe that I want to use it a lot and long term. Also wonder for which lens you need AF and for which not. For example I find AF in a portrait lens more important than in a wide angle or 35mm lens.

50/1.4 SL you can sometimes find for good used deals.

[scott kirkpatrick]

The SL zooms have more moving parts than the SL primes, so I am sure that problems will occur, but I have not seen much complaining on this forum, whose major purpose seems to be as a place to complain.  Roger Cicala took apart a 24-90 SL zoom a while ago (LensRentals probably owns dozens of them) and pronounced it solid.  The recent SL primes are probably more "future-proof" as they resolve well beyond the requirements even of the latest 48-64 MPx cameras.  And if you are concerned about resale values, buy "pre-owned lenses" from a store that warranties them for a year  They will have declined to a fairly stable value.  Lenses hold their price better, after an initial decline, than bodies, because new bodies keep coming along every few years.  Even S lenses, which have been in the field for 10 years now, seem to be stable at better than half of their original price.

Edited April 22, 2020 by scott kirkpatrick

[Pentium]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 hours ago, natthayu said:

Apo-Summicron-SL primes are of the best quality I've ever seen, in terms of overall sharpness and optical correction, far superior to VE-SL 24-90 at any focal length and all M lenses to my eyes. This is a very personal opinion as I usually prefer neutral, highly corrected and sometimes clinical lenses (e.g. I always prefer Apo-Summicron-M 50 to Summilux-M 50 Asph. That's not saying the Summilux is a bad lens. It's superb and I've enjoyed shooting it for years.)

The rendition style of Apo-Summicron-SL primes is very close to Apo-Summicron-M 50. If you are looking for the best lens possible with such rendition approach, and if you can get a well-built one, Apo-Summicron-SL series won't disappoint you. My Apo-Summicron-SL 50 has some skews while my 35 shows perfect results.

If you are happy with results from your VE-SL 24-90, the good chance is that you don't need SL primes.

However, as LeicaR10 said, GAS is hard to cure.

I'm curious about the apo 50 SL  -- what do you mean "has some skews" ?  I, too have the 35mm apo sl ...was curious on your thoughts...Thanks!

Edited April 20, 2020 by Pentium

[natthayu]

12 hours ago, Pentium said:

I'm curious about the apo 50 SL  -- what do you mean "has some skews" ?  I, too have the 35mm apo sl ...was curious on your thoughts...Thanks!

On SL2, set focus point to the middle, with focus distance around 30 metres, and shot a planar object, the right corners were sharper than left corners and the extreme corners were blurry until f/8. Even at f/8, the extreme corners couldn’t compete with my 35. I didn’t saw this behavior on MTF chart.

However, when I set focus point to extreme corners on left, I could get sharp corners even at f/2 which I‘d expect. I repeated this for several times, using both manual and auto focus and got the same result.

Edited April 21, 2020 by natthayu

[Pentium]

12 hours ago, natthayu said:

On SL2, set focus point to the middle, with focus distance around 30 metres, and shot a planar object, the right corners were sharper than left corners and the extreme corners were blurry until f/8. Even at f/8, the extreme corners couldn’t compete with my 35. I didn’t saw this behavior on MTF chart.

However, when I set focus point to extreme corners on left, I could get sharp corners even at f/2 which I‘d expect. I repeated this for several times, using both manual and auto focus and got the same result.

Thank you for the explanation!

[Jared]

On 4/19/2020 at 5:04 PM, Schittra said:

Hi

I start to like my Leica SL and used it more often than my M10. I have 24-90, which I normally use. I also put M lenses (35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 90/2) in low light or carry light. Now I am interested in getting the real native SL Lenses, i.e., 75/2 or 50/2 or 50/1.4. I wonder about the durability or long-term of this electronic gears. The M class can serve me over a decade or even 2. But the SL lenses without aperture ring made me worried. I got 24-90 as used one - so it's not too expensive. But investing in the SL prime lens will not be cheap.  My SL is 4 years old. I bought the used one but still as great. I don't think the SL lens will appreciate the value as much as M lenses does. But I am not interested in investing for electronic gear anyway. 

Thank you very much. 

M lenses can last decades with no maintenance.  However, that is unusual. More often than not they will need, at a minimum, lubrication.  Spare parts, however, are usually not required. There just isn’t all that much to wear out. As a result, independent repair technicians can often bring an M lens up to working order even forty or fifty years after it was last used.

The same is probably not true of SL lenses. They have electronics that will oxidize, crack with temperature cycles, etc. A decade or two of use without need for repair seems likely. Multiple decades? I expect motors to fail. And even manual focus uses the motors, so that means lens failure. Will Leica still have parts?  Ten years later, probably. Twenty or thirty? They won’t be able to buy the motors themselves, and even parts sitting on the shelf will fail.

I would think in terms of a twenty year life span being typical for these lenses.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I bought a Canon 85mm 1.2L in 1991, which I sold in 2009. Battered, worn and ugly, it worked perfectly and probably still serves its new owner well. I have may AF lenses older than my SL lenses. Their repair rate has been, anecdotally for me, as low or lower than my M lenses. This is unsurprising as my mechanical watches require regular servicing and my automatic ones just need a new battery. It’s far more likely I’ll need to have a rangefinder recalibrated than any problems with an SL lens unless I drop it (which I unfortunately have done, at great expense).

I have shot over 150 weddings and countless commercial jobs using the SL24-90, adding other lenses as they became available. My 24-90, bought on release day, still feels solid and functions flawlessly and I expect it to keep doing so into the future. It’s been to 4 continents. It’s sat in the bottom of small boats, light planes and long trips on corrugated dirt roads. On my last big trip to Myanmar I added a 50mm SL Summilux and 90mm Summicron SL to the trip and they were my most used lenses. On that trip I managed to roll an S1R and 50mm SL down a flight of twenty steps before someone caught it (there were 300 more if they hadn’t). Apart from a dented hotshoe both camera and lens were perfectly fine. Not even a scratch on the lens. Thoroughly tested and no issues including lens alignment.

I have no problems thinking that the SL native lenses are of the highest build quality and ready for many many years of valiant service,

Gordon