SL2/Sigma Art/ RF Canon, Nikkor Z

[RG75]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have you ever compared SL2 lenses with Sigma Art Series, Canon, RF Series (without mirror) or Nikon Z Series lenses?

what is better? what is worse?

[Advertisement]

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

[tom.w.bn]

What are your criteria for comparing? If you divide DXO points by the price, you just have to buy Nikon Z camera and lenses.

[mmradman]

Optically modern lenses tend to be good regardless of brand, of course the brand marketing wants you to believe that theirs is the best of the best. 

Some modern lenses that are fast and optically well corrected also tend to be big in size, heavy or both big and heavy - probably most applicable to Sigma.  The question is what is it you need/want/can afford to pay/have stamina to carry around.  Having the "best" lens could be counterproductive if you are not comfortable to carry big boat anchor round your neck all day. 

[SonomaBear]

Each lens has a "unique flavor" -- so enjoy what you desire.  Leica M lenses, especially the "Mander" designs, are special to my eye.  

Some of my old Canon EF lenses have better warmth than the new ones, again To My Eye.

For portraits n my Leica SL (601) I use a 90mm Tele-Elmarit (M), 90mm Summicron (M), 85mm Canon EF 1.8, Panasonic 24-105 f/4, or Canon 70-200 f/2.8 -- sold a portrait recently that was a crop from a 28mm Summilux f/1.7 on a Leica Q.  Run with what you brung!!!

Flavors!  I find most "Modern" lenses just too surgical for many occasions.  So RG75, set you goals by knowing your desired results, then match a lens!

Welcome to this forum...

[RG75]

1 hour ago, SonomaBear said:

Each lens has a "unique flavor" -- so enjoy what you desire.  Leica M lenses, especially the "Mander" designs, are special to my eye.  

Some of my old Canon EF lenses have better warmth than the new ones, again To My Eye.

For portraits n my Leica SL (601) I use a 90mm Tele-Elmarit (M), 90mm Summicron (M), 85mm Canon EF 1.8, Panasonic 24-105 f/4, or Canon 70-200 f/2.8 -- sold a portrait recently that was a crop from a 28mm Summilux f/1.7 on a Leica Q.  Run with what you brung!!!

Flavors!  I find most "Modern" lenses just too surgical for many occasions.  So RG75, set you goals by knowing your desired results, then match a lens!

Welcome to this forum...

The original question was probably wrong.

I intend to develop my photography practice towards more architecture, landscape with long exposure and nature.  I'm reaching the limits of the M focal lengths (M10 today after M6 and M3) and I want to explore focal lengths with fields wider than 28 mm (the wide-angle viewfinder for 16-18-21 mm could be a solution towards wide angles, to keep my M10; but is it practical? I'll have to try it out...) but it wouldn't solve the problem of long focal lengths and telephoto lenses.

So it's time to ask questions and to get a headache ... take a look at the current offer, compare, etc...

The SL2 corresponds to expectations, but the combination of the budget for the camera and the desired objectives would require too much effort... for the moment ....So, I explore the others brands

It's probably a bit subversive (here among Red Dot fans, of which I am one) to have questions about Canon, Nikon and Co... 

I like the idea of moving towards "hybrid - mirroless - full-frame" systems. 
From there, I have some fundamental or decisive criteria:

- a quality electronic viewfinder (the clarity and quality of the SL2 was very attractive ...) to "replace" that of the rangefinder that I know I will have to abandon ...
- a set of "luminous" lenses with the new frames dedicated to hybrids/mirrorless lenses
- a clear, logical menu... unlike a complex gas plant...
- a "good" ergonomics
- the new eye detection and tracking features look attractive
- effective FA 

Which is not one of the decisive criteria: 
- the million-pixel RAW race; overall, the 24 MPx of the M10 are good enough for me...
- the race for frames/second/gusts ... 
- today, I don't know anything about video ...

 

Announcements and rumors about new/future cameras don't simplify things ....

If you have experiences to share, advices....

PS : by experience, I have noticed that setting objective criteria allows to put some order in a choice ... but the final decision is quite often more irrational or even unreasonable (the passion for the M I love, for example !!!)

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have the M10, SL2, SL, S1R, Nikon Z7 and a bag of Sigma Art lenses. I do not have any RF lenses but several EF lenses.

You could add the Visoflex to your M. Then the WATE ( a true zoom BTW) and longer lenses (like an R80-200?) become feasible. If you can work methodically this is the way to go. Fast it isn't but the results are great.

As for the Arts vs Nikkor vs M vs SL. They all make great lenses. Only the SL lenses draw like Leica lenses though. The Nikkors are sharp across the frame. The slower zooms are small and surprisingly capable. The Art lenses deserve their reputation. Personally, the SL glass is as good as it gets and I prefer it to the Nikon and Art lenses (the exception is Sigmas 14-24 which is so very good).

However I would not buy a Nikon Z or Canon R. The right camera is the Panasonic S1. It's an L mount so you can add Leica glass or an SL2 body later and keep system compatibility. It's 24MP sensor is absolutely brilliant and class leading in high ISO. It has better IS than the Nikon. It has the same viewfinder resolution as the SL2. Sigma and Panasonic are making some great lenses for it that aren't available on other mounts (except Sony FE). Having the ability to add SL lenses is worth picking the S1 without it being the right camera for you. A lot of the tech in the Panasonic is also in the SL2 like the viewfinder and IBIS system. It has the tri flip screen for landscapes. Handling and usage is fabulous. It feels great in the hand. Low light AF is fantastic.

Downsides? It's not a sports camera and like most DSLRs it has many many buttons. At least the S1 buttons are really good to use and in the right spot. Any menu besides Leica's suck. The S1 included.

For architecture at the highest level you want tilt shift lenses. You can use the Canon or Nikon ones on the S1 via an adaptor as if they were native. If it's not for regular income you could get the spectacular Sigma 14-24 f2.8. It need a bit of correction but it's reasonably easy. There's a 100-400 on the way as well. It's take your M lenses (without Leica profiles though) via an adaptor and the manual focusing aids are the best in the business. With the S1 you'll have the option of either the Art or SL lenses depending on your need and budget. Why choose when you can have access to both?

Gordon

Edited July 6, 2020 by FlashGordonPhotography

[tom.w.bn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 3 Stunden schrieb RG75:

The original question was probably wrong.

I intend to develop my photography practice towards more architecture, landscape with long exposure and nature.  I'm reaching the limits of the M focal lengths (M10 today after M6 and M3) and I want to explore focal lengths with fields wider than 28 mm (the wide-angle viewfinder for 16-18-21 mm could be a solution towards wide angles, to keep my M10; but is it practical? I'll have to try it out...) but it wouldn't solve the problem of long focal lengths and telephoto lenses.

So it's time to ask questions and to get a headache ... take a look at the current offer, compare, etc...

 

There are some m-mount lenses with 18mm, 15mm, 12mm and even 10mm(?). Live view is your friend here. Lack of lenses can't be the real reason.

[Ko.Fe.]

Canon L RF lenses have improved sharpness and other characteristics comparing to already good L EF lenses. But 50 1.2 L RF lens size is just way too much. In the opposite 24-105 L RF seems to be more compact than EF version.

Sigma... is known for AF issues. Panasonic FF new camera is awesome on pictures it gives, but it is overbuild behemoth, IMO.

Nikons, I don't know anything about Z and their lenses.

I might get Canon RP soon with M to RF adapter and 35 1.8 RF later on (sharp lens) with 24-105 F4 L RF (sharp and universal lens) and this should be it.

We have Canon building, service nearby. I used it at it is superior to remotely located service for Leica (which simply next to bad service, IMO).

But if country OP is in have Leica service and AF speed is not important, Leica might have some advantages. I guess :).

[robert_parker]

The Sigma 14-24mm Art Zoom was used by Jono Slack in recent tests that have been published here http://www.slack.co.uk/leica-sl2

[RG75]

I switched to the SL2 and will try to tame the beast... I must say that the simplicity of the M always pleases me: an iris adjustment directly on the lens, a speed dial that falls directly under the finger, a more delicate focusing for the longest focal lengths (90 and 135 mm)... simple, essential and effective.

I'll have to find my bearings and change my habits of several decades (not to mention the video I don't know).

Do you have any tips (especially for focusing and AF modes), mistakes to avoid when switching from M to SL? 

Question of detail, is it possible to display only the histogram when playing back a single image, so without all the shooting information ?

[tom0511]

AF: I recommend to choose the AF point manually and use S-AF if you are coming from the M.

Or for portraits in GOOD light face detection.

[caissa]

I think the question is a bit strange. It implies that lenses can be compared. Maybe even “scientifically”.

Since I have the SL I was able to compare Leica and Zeiss lenses with the same camera. I see that they are different, but I know it is not possible to simply say this is the best. L vs Z was a big fight in earlier decades. With some experience I know when each lens is probably best, giving me the results I am looking for. No simple rules (as in marketing). No clear winner ...

Now the fight/comparison is on between L and RF and Nikon Z and Sigma. Most can not even be used on the same camera/sensor. So there will definitely not be a simple “best”. So the question is the problem.

The method is to take pictures and compare the actual results - for example the pics in a gallery. And with this method currently the Leica SL lenses are at the top (for me).

Just remember what many users do, they use mediocre zooms with relatively low resolution, but put them on a camera with highest possible pixel count (60 MP).    In German “Da staunt der Laie und der Fachmann wundert sich.”  🤩🧐🤓😂

Edited July 21, 2020 by caissa

[SJH]

I made a similar post in another topic a moment ago but currently I have an SL2, Q2, MA and M10R. Historically all my lenses for my M’s have been Leica and when I bought my SL2 I also acquired the Q2 over buying the SL35 (I also bought the 24-90), my logic being I’d have a second body, same sensor and a 28 1.7 and 35 F2 for the same price as the SL35 roughly. However, in answer to your original post I then bought the Sigma 35 1.2 for a third of the price of the SL for when I need 1.2 and it really is an outstanding lens. Patrick’s article on FindingRange also swayed me on this one when he preferred the Sigma to the SL35, Hugh also did a very good review (as ever) on his channel as well as the Sigma 45mm 2.8. So yes my first Sigma really is fantastic and I’m extremely pleased with it but my next lens for the SL2 is likely to be the SL50 which will also cover 75mm given the resolution now on the SL2. 

[Hendo]

I have tried the Sigma L mount 35/1.2, SL 24-90 and Canon RF 24-105/70-200. The build quality of the SL 24-90 is extremely exceptional, the build quality of the RF 70-200 is exceptional, the build quality of the 24-105 and the Sigma 35/1.2 is very good. The image quality in the SL 24-90 and RF 70-200 is very, very high (microcontrast, color, sharpness, distortion). For the other lenses it is very good, but not like the SL 24-90 or RF 70-200. The Sigma 35/1.2 has an inferior autofocus on the SL system in my opinion, but its ok. If money is taken out of the equation I would have recommended SL lenses 100 out of 100 times.