Moved from M10 to SL2; lens suggestions welcomed

[ardbeg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Aging eyesight and a desire to shoot longer lenses more regularly has prompted my recent conversion from M10 to SL2 after 15+ years using exclusively digital Ms. I am planning to keep some of my accumulated M and R glass but want to replace some pieces with SL lenses. I currently have (too) many lenses including a 28/5.6; nine (yes I know I went a bit nuts) 50mms covering F 1, 1.4 (ASPH), 1.5 (old and new Sonnars), 2 (DR), 2.5 (Hektor), 3.5 (LTM), and even a FED 50; a version 1 90/2; a non-APO 180/2.8 R; a 280/4 APO; and finally a 400/6.8 R. So, given that kit and their various rendering looks (and a desire to pair down especially in the 50mm focal length), any suggestions on which SL lens (or lenses) to consider as I re-organize my inventory? My most used focal lengths are 28, 50, and 280 so the SL 28/2 (when it is released - 2021?) seems like a good choice but I welcome thoughts particularly on the two 50 SL lenses. The only lenses in my inventory I'm likely never to part with are the 28/5.6, the Noctilux, the Zeiss Sonnar ZM, and the 280/4 APO. The rest I would be willing to sacrifice in exchange for one or more SL lenses. Thank you.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

I still use my M lenses exclusively on M bodies, but the first lens I bought for the SL2 was the 24-90. Different, complementary, systems and approaches for me. And the zoom capably substitutes for 6 traditional focal lengths, in a convenient weather sealed package with OIS. The second was the 90-280; even more stunning.  But I did then add the SL75, as I never bonded with the M 75mm frame lines, and I did want one more compact native option.  
 

The SL system offers lots of flexibility to suit a range of possible lens selections for a diversity of needs and preferences.  There are many other related forum discussions.

Jeff

[caissa]

The SL2 offers a huge range of native lenses (about 40) and hundreds of adapted lenses. Enjoy.

[trickness]

75 SL is for me a lifetime lens, it draws in a painterly but very sharp way, really unique. And the 35 SL is a great compliment to it. Both are much more manageable weight and sizewise than the 24-90, plus they're faster, if you like primes. Coming from an M I just couldn't deal with a zoom lens, felt almost kind of gauche - not saying it isn't a superb lens, but primes are law 🙂

[pkwok]

50mm SL lux produces great bokeh with good subject isolation. Though a big lens, it can be hand held for a long time and won't break your neck. IMOP, 24-90mm is a convenient lens, but does not have much character, just a good modern lens.

[Jeff S]

6 hours ago, trickness said:

75 SL is for me a lifetime lens, it draws in a painterly but very sharp way, really unique. And the 35 SL is a great compliment to it. Both are much more manageable weight and sizewise than the 24-90, plus they're faster, if you like primes. Coming from an M I just couldn't deal with a zoom lens, felt almost kind of gauche - not saying it isn't a superb lens, but primes are law 🙂

Different strokes.... no right or wrong.  But I will argue with your point about size, weight and manageability: the 24-90 is much smaller, lighter and more easily managed than carrying around both the 35 and 75 and having to change lenses.  😀  And the zoom focuses closer and adds even more focal length options.  I’ve never had an issue with its speed, particularly given OIS combined with the SL2’s IBIS and ISO capability.  DOF and subject separation can be accommodated by subject/background distance, etc. But I agree, the SL75 is a fine lens, too, as are my M lenses, which have worked well for me on various M bodies for 35 years. Many tools for many purposes.

Jeff

[ardbeg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, pkwok said:

50mm SL lux produces great bokeh with good subject isolation.

Is the rendering intent of the SL Lux different enough from the Lux ASPH M to warrant having both or given I have several fast M 50s (some of which I intend to keep), would the SL 50/2 APO potentially be more complementary to my existing kit?

[Jared]

23 hours ago, ardbeg said:

Aging eyesight and a desire to shoot longer lenses more regularly has prompted my recent conversion from M10 to SL2 after 15+ years using exclusively digital Ms. I am planning to keep some of my accumulated M and R glass but want to replace some pieces with SL lenses. I currently have (too) many lenses including a 28/5.6; nine (yes I know I went a bit nuts) 50mms covering F 1, 1.4 (ASPH), 1.5 (old and new Sonnars), 2 (DR), 2.5 (Hektor), 3.5 (LTM), and even a FED 50; a version 1 90/2; a non-APO 180/2.8 R; a 280/4 APO; and finally a 400/6.8 R. So, given that kit and their various rendering looks (and a desire to pair down especially in the 50mm focal length), any suggestions on which SL lens (or lenses) to consider as I re-organize my inventory? My most used focal lengths are 28, 50, and 280 so the SL 28/2 (when it is released - 2021?) seems like a good choice but I welcome thoughts particularly on the two 50 SL lenses. The only lenses in my inventory I'm likely never to part with are the 28/5.6, the Noctilux, the Zeiss Sonnar ZM, and the 280/4 APO. The rest I would be willing to sacrifice in exchange for one or more SL lenses. Thank you.

It is always hard to know what lenses to recommend without knowing much about your photography, but I’ll put in my thoughts anyway.

First, given your desire to take more telephoto shots than you could with your M I would recommend the 90-280.  It is exceptional.  Only problems with it are size and cost.  If size and cost worry you, get the Panasonic 70-200 f/4.  Very good lens, manageable, still gives plenty of subject isolation at f/4, and much less expensive than the 90-280 (but with less reach).

Now that the telephoto is out of the way...I think I would have to recommend the 35mm Summicron SL. My only concern is that you don’t already own a 35mm, and you are coming from an M system. Given the almost universal adoption of 35mm lenses on M bodies, I suspect you just don’t like that focal length.  But it’s just such a wonderful lens, and maybe it’s time to mix things up a bit? You could wait for the 28mm, of course, but we don’t know when that will be available or what it will be like.  Personally, I have never liked shooting at 28mm, but you mentioned it is your most used focal length.  We may just have different styles here.

If you can’t bring yourself to buy a 35mm, my second choice would be the 16-35mm. It would get you that 28mm length you love, plus the ability to experiment at wider angles. The quality is every bit as good as any modern Leica prime.

Finally, I’d compliment whichever two lenses you end up with by adding the Sigma 45mm DG DN. Nothing special about this lens in terms of image quality, but there is nothing wrong with it either, and there is something to be said for having a small, light, inexpensive AF lens for your SL2. It is inexpensive enough that you won’t even notice it if you buy it alongside a Leica lens.  I find myself using this lens a lot despite owning both the 35mm and 50mm Summicron SL lenses.  It’s not as good as either of the Leica’s, but when just out for a walk or when trying to minimize gear it’s a no brainer. 

[trickness]

11 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Different strokes.... no right or wrong.  But I will argue with your point about size, weight and manageability: the 24-90 is much smaller, lighter and more easily managed than carrying around both the 35 and 75 and having to change lenses.  😀  And the zoom focuses closer and adds even more focal length options.  I’ve never had an issue with its speed, particularly given OIS combined with the SL2’s IBIS and ISO capability.  DOF and subject separation can be accommodated by subject/background distance, etc. But I agree, the SL75 is a fine lens, too, as are my M lenses, which have worked well for me on various M bodies for 35 years. Many tools for many purposes.

Jeff

Of course, we all like what we like. And we all photograph differently.

I find with primes, or just one prime in my bag, my photos are better. I have a tool that I know instinctively, I move without even looking though the viewfinder as I feel how close I need to be to get what I want. Options can be tools for creativity or distractions, I like the purity of a fast, small, fixed length lens. I tried the 24-90 and after using M's for years, it just felt wrong to me, big, not particularly fast, the whole zoom thing felt awkward. But I have seen some lovely pictures taken with it - just depends on what touches your soul as a creative tool I guess. 

 

[Jeff S]

23 minutes ago, trickness said:

Of course, we all like what we like. And we all photograph differently.

I find with primes, or just one prime in my bag, my photos are better. I have a tool that I know instinctively, I move without even looking though the viewfinder as I feel how close I need to be to get what I want. Options can be tools for creativity or distractions, I like the purity of a fast, small, fixed length lens. I tried the 24-90 and after using M's for years, it just felt wrong to me, big, not particularly fast, the whole zoom thing felt awkward. But I have seen some lovely pictures taken with it - just depends on what touches your soul as a creative tool I guess. 

 

Sure.  I find even the SL Summicrons big and heavy.  If I want compact primes, I stick to my M system (currently M10 and MM). The SL 35, for instance, is absolutely massive compared to my M Summicron.  And I far prefer the RF experience; don’t even own the Visoflex. Thankfully I’ve been able to accommodate my aging eyes through combined use of eyeglasses and a +.5 diopter. The SL system is complementary for me; completely different experience, used in different circumstances and environments. I don’t like the SL2/EVF experience nearly as much as the using the Ms, but I primarily limit M use to 28/35/50  focal lengths.  Whatever works.

Jeff

[ardbeg]

4 hours ago, Jared said:

It is always hard to know what lenses to recommend without knowing much about your photography, but I’ll put in my thoughts anyway.

First, given your desire to take more telephoto shots than you could with your M I would recommend the 90-280.  It is exceptional.  Only problems with it are size and cost.  If size and cost worry you, get the Panasonic 70-200 f/4.  Very good lens, manageable, still gives plenty of subject isolation at f/4, and much less expensive than the 90-280 (but with less reach).

Given I have the 280/4 APO R, I assume from you recommendation that the the long end of the SL zoom sufficiently surpasses the older prime to warrant the overlap? Regarding use case, I got the 280 (and the 400/6.8 for that matter) paired with an old APO teleconverter R for wildlife (birds and buffalo in the US Midwest mainly).

4 hours ago, Jared said:

Now that the telephoto is out of the way...I think I would have to recommend the 35mm Summicron SL. My only concern is that you don’t already own a 35mm, and you are coming from an M system. Given the almost universal adoption of 35mm lenses on M bodies, I suspect you just don’t like that focal length.  But it’s just such a wonderful lens, and maybe it’s time to mix things up a bit? You could wait for the 28mm, of course, but we don’t know when that will be available or what it will be like.  Personally, I have never liked shooting at 28mm, but you mentioned it is your most used focal length.  We may just have different styles here.

It is true I used to own a 35 Cron ASPH M lens (along with a 24 Elmar). I never connected with the 35 from a shot visualization standpoint and despite shooting a lot of 24mm in my film SLR days, I similarly did not mesh with the 24mm on the M. Thus, I ended up in the middle with a 28 Summaron which addressed the semi-wide street / landscape use cases but certainly isn't as versatile as a faster 28. Given you comments, I will at least demo at a nearby Leica shop the 35 SL as the experience on the SL2 could (like the different experiences of the 24 on SLR versus M) change my opinion on 35s.

Moving from wide/semi-wide to standard, given my obvious bias for 50s, are the rendering intents of either the 50 Lux or Cron SL different enough from the various M 50s to warrant getting a 50 on the SL as well?

Edited August 6, 2020 by ardbeg

[FlashGordonPhotography]

7 hours ago, ardbeg said:

Is the rendering intent of the SL Lux different enough from the Lux ASPH M to warrant having both or given I have several fast M 50s (some of which I intend to keep), would the SL 50/2 APO potentially be more complementary to my existing kit?

Yes. Maybe. And the two SL lenses are different from each other. I have both the SL lenses plus half a dozen M 50's.

The SL 50 Summicron (SL50/2) is most like the 50 APO Summicron M *if* you have to have an M comparison. It's stunning wide open and has almost zero aberrations. Apparently the SL35 is better but I tried a 35 (not my focal length) and I didn't see any real world difference to the SL50/2.

The SL 50mm Summilux (SL50/1.4) is more *like* a M50 Summilux but without the aberrations. Very little fringing and no wavy focus plane for the SL variant. Not quite as biting as the SL50/2 but also a bit less clinical. I do love the SL50/1.4 but there's no getting around its size. It's a beast. After 15 years with an M it'll be a shock. It balances well but camera and lens are 2kg. As a lens though I *slightly* prefer it to the SL50/2.

The 90-280 may well replace your R lens. It's a bag of primes. There's also the Sigma 100-400 which looks very good. Downside is it's slow at 400. If f6.3 isn't a big deal at 400 (I'm happy with that) it's worth considering. The 90-280 is not only sharp but draws so very very nicely, especially for a zoom.

On the wide end we're short some primes but have several outstanding zooms (SL-16-35, Panny 16-35 and Sigma 14-24) and a quirky option. I use the Q2 as my 28mm. Same resolution. Same battery. Same weight as the upcoming lens on its own (mostly) and f1.7.

Currently, if I'm just carrying a small SL kit, it comprises of the SL2, SL50/2, Sl90/2 and a Q2. I extend by replacing the Q2 with the SL16-35 and 90-280. And add the 24-90 only if i know I need the flexibility (or as a travel backup).

Gordon

[Guest]

The OP doesn’t mention how important AF is to him - if it really isn’t, I see little reason in adding an SL 50mm lens to the Ms he already has.

[T25UFO]

1 hour ago, AndyGarton said:

The OP doesn’t mention how important AF is to him - if it really isn’t, I see little reason in adding an SL 50mm lens to the Ms he already has.

He did mention ageing eyesight and moving from digital Ms to the SL2, so I guess AF is a consideration.  He seems to like 50mm, so maybe another is no bad thing.

My SL experience is limited to three lenses.  Bought the 24-90mm first and agree it is stunning, but I just couldn't get used to such a huge lens when using at the 24mm end.  I suppose my experience is similar to @Jeff S when he compares the massive SL 35 to the much smaller M 35.  I ended up using an M 24mm on the SL because of the massive 24-90mm!

The SL 50mm Summilux is a fantastic lens.  Shoot all day at f1.4 and everything in perfect focus.  It is large but that doesn't seem out of place for a fast AF 50mm.

The SL 75mm is my favourite, and with the SL2 high resolution you can easily crop up to 100mm without any loss of quality.  If I were building a new camera system from scratch I would probably combine this lens with the SL 35mm, but at the moment I tend to use a two camera system, pairing SL 75mm with Q2.  The Q2 and M10-Mono (with 50mm APO) also make a good pairing.

[ardbeg]

7 hours ago, AndyGarton said:

The OP doesn’t mention how important AF is to him - if it really isn’t, I see little reason in adding an SL 50mm lens to the Ms he already has.

AF is semi-important (after 15 years of M shooting my manual focus skills are decent) but AF for candid shots of fast moving children/pets would be helpful. On the longer lens side, currently I do mainly semi-stationary wildlife but AF would be very nice for birds in flight as an example. I do a lot of landscape so the weather sealing is also of interest.

[Jared]

On 8/6/2020 at 12:44 PM, ardbeg said:

Given I have the 280/4 APO R, I assume from you recommendation that the the long end of the SL zoom sufficiently surpasses the older prime to warrant the overlap? Regarding use case, I got the 280 (and the 400/6.8 for that matter) paired with an old APO teleconverter R for wildlife (birds and buffalo in the US Midwest mainly).

It is true I used to own a 35 Cron ASPH M lens (along with a 24 Elmar). I never connected with the 35 from a shot visualization standpoint and despite shooting a lot of 24mm in my film SLR days, I similarly did not mesh with the 24mm on the M. Thus, I ended up in the middle with a 28 Summaron which addressed the semi-wide street / landscape use cases but certainly isn't as versatile as a faster 28. Given you comments, I will at least demo at a nearby Leica shop the 35 SL as the experience on the SL2 could (like the different experiences of the 24 on SLR versus M) change my opinion on 35s.

Moving from wide/semi-wide to standard, given my obvious bias for 50s, are the rendering intents of either the 50 Lux or Cron SL different enough from the various M 50s to warrant getting a 50 on the SL as well?

I don’t know whether the 90-280 is optically better than your current 280 APO R, but the AF is certainly a lot better as is the image stabilization (better than IBIS alone).  Not enough focal length for Pelagics, of course, but it will be a heck of an improvement on your current lens for usability and at least its equal optically.

Honestly, I was just responding to your desire for a longer lens than is generally practical on an M10.  The 90-280 is an exceptional zoom, even if it isn’t as fast as some Canon and Nikon primes.  Plus, it covers everything from 90mm (where the M starts to become truly impractical) on up to focal lengths for closer wildlife.  I have even started to use it for astrophotography with good results. You’d want more focal length for full-on birding, though. That will likely require some waiting—till Sigma decides to port over a couple of their telephotos.

Do try the 35 to see if you get along, but if you don’t, no worries.

As to 50mm’s for the SL2... Both the native SL Leica 50’s are excellent, but if you are used to different lenses having different character, well, you won’t get much from either of Leica’s offerings.  The 50 Summicron SL behaves very much like the 50 APO in M mount.  That is, it just gets out of the way and let’s you take the pictures you (hopefully) visualized.  You won’t get many/any surprises—no glow, little vignetting, no falloff in sharpness towards the corners, no flare or ghosting that you can use artistically.  The results, good or bad, will simply be determined by the light, the composition, the exposure, and the depth of field.  Nothing else.  Personally, I love that, but it may or may not be to your taste.  Both Leica SL 50’s behave very similarly to my eye at apertures where they overlap.  I find the Summilux 50 to be quite a bit bigger and heavier than I want in a 50mm prime, but if you don’t mind the bulk the extra aperture does let you play around a little more with depth of field.  By the way, the Panasonic 50mm f/1.4 is, apparently, every bit as good as the Summilux, and just about as big and heavy.  You could save some money there if you didn’t mind mixing brands. 

Do try the 35mm, but I expect you will come back to the 50mm. The Summicron SL 50 is really good. It would be my first choice at that focal length since I find the 1.4 aperture to have too narrow a depth of field to make me happy, and I don’t tend to go crazy for bokeh balls.  Much easier to handle than either the Leica or Panasonic f/1.4 lenses.

[CharlesL]

Regarding eyesight, you may find mirrorless zoom focus easier than rangefinder focus. So first, get an adapter and try your M lenses on SL2.

 

 

[MarkinVan]

All 3 Zooms are like a prime at what ever focal length you set them at.

The SL 35 Summicron F2 prime makes the SL2 a walk around camera and the results are outstanding.

The weight difference is noticeable.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[budjames]

I agree that M lenses on the SL2 using the Leica M-adapter is a no brainer if you are coming from an M. The SL2 focus peaking is so much faster than trying to use the Visoflex on my M10. I can finally nail focus on my Nocticlux M 50mm f0.95 when mounted on my SL2.

If you are looking for new lenses, the SL primes are awesome as are any of the Leica zooms. I love the Leica SL 35mm. 

If you are looking to save some money on L lenses, Sigma and Panasonic have some nice options for the non-purist.

I just purchased the Leica SL Vario-Elmarit 16-35mm zoom. Wow! This blows away anything that I used to use on my previous Canon pro DSLRs or Fuji X systems. Leica definitely raises the bar for zooms that are tack sharp with minimal vignetting or distortion, but they are expensive. Buy once, cry once!

Regards,
Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

[Sanford]

I think you have received a lot of good advice from other members. I went to the SL2 for the same reason you did and started with my existing M and R lenses. (21 3.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 50 APO, 90 APO, 100 2.8 R). All  work fabulously. Focus tools help immensely as does IBIS.

I recently purchased the SL75 and SL35. Both are superb and produce images that are wonderful. I can’t say they are superior to the M glass, just different. Others may argue, so this is just my opinion.

Since you seem to lean towards 50mm. I would suggest the 50mm SL 2.0. It would provide you with a 50mm that renders very well and takes advantage of all the SL has to offer.

Happy shooting.