Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everybody,

I am a surprised but a proud owner of a leica sl since this weekend. 

I got an offer for the SL just the body, which I couldn't refuse and had only a few minutes to decide me.

I've been using the M for a few years now and preferably with the 35mm or with my favorite focal length the 90mm. 

One year ago I made the choice of all leica, sold my 6d gun slr and bought a CL. First for the size of the CL system and to be able to use my M optics. 

I know many of you use it and love it but even if the image quality is there most of the time, I'm a little disappointed by the native optics of the system.

I use the 11-23mm and 18-56mm zooms and the 18mm. 

I sold the 23mm which didn't excite me and preferred the 18mm for its compactness. 

the tl-35mm, which is not a focal length I use, was not an option. 

I regret having left the Canon EF lenses. 

I'm trying my luck again at leica, hoping it's the right one. 

But here it is, I don't have a native lens and I'm wondering about the choice of a first L lens to take for the SL. 

Even if my first choice would be the SL 90, summicrons are not in my budget, until I decide if I keep or sell my CL system.

TL lenses are obviously a possibility but I don't expect better than with the CL and apparently just with a resolution of 10 million pixels.

So the vario 24-90? But its size...

the sigma? the Panasonic? 

I'm not against your advice!

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If you still have your CL the rather excellent Sigma 56mm 1.4 (plus 23 and 35mm) is coming to L mount. So you'll get an 85mm which is close to the 90 you prefer. It'll be the cheapest solution and it's fast light sharp and well made. I have used it on Sony E mount and it's very very good.

2. All the L mount zooms are good to excellent. The Leica goes to 90mm but is slightly weaker there than at 24mm. The Panasonic has a 24-105 which is a nice range and might suit you. It's lighter and about the same at to 90mm end as the Leica. But....

3. Again I'm going to recommend a Sigma. Just arrived is the new 85mm 1.4 Art in L mount. I haven't used it but reviews are excellent so far. I will be trying one as 85mm is a favorite of mine. I have the old version (for EF) and it's fantastic. the new one is lighter and smaller (a lot smaller). It also has an aperture ring. (yay!) It's cheap enough you might be able to get the SL35mm if you do decide to sell you CL kit.

Gordon

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for the L mount Sigma lenses. Excellent image quality, well built, and affordable, without having to sell a kidney.

The first Sigma lens I ever purchased was the 45mm f2.8 as an everyday walk around lens for my SL (I love the fact that it has an aperture ring!).  Based on that, I went on to buy the excellent Sigma 14-24mm L and the 135mm f1.8 L which I use on the SL and SL2.  The new Sigma 85mm f1.4 L lens is now on my radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

1. If you still have your CL the rather excellent Sigma 56mm 1.4 (plus 23 and 35mm) is coming to L mount. So you'll get an 85mm which is close to the 90 you prefer. It'll be the cheapest solution and it's fast light sharp and well made. I have used it on Sony E mount and it's very very good.

2. All the L mount zooms are good to excellent. The Leica goes to 90mm but is slightly weaker there than at 24mm. The Panasonic has a 24-105 which is a nice range and might suit you. It's lighter and about the same at to 90mm end as the Leica. But....

3. Again I'm going to recommend a Sigma. Just arrived is the new 85mm 1.4 Art in L mount. I haven't used it but reviews are excellent so far. I will be trying one as 85mm is a favorite of mine. I have the old version (for EF) and it's fantastic. the new one is lighter and smaller (a lot smaller). It also has an aperture ring. (yay!) It's cheap enough you might be able to get the SL35mm if you do decide to sell you CL kit.

Gordon

 

Thank you for your response.

For the moment I don't know if I'm going to keep the CL and I don't think I'll invest more than I did in the TL system at the moment.

In order to be able to test the SL and see if it is what I am looking for, the Sigma 85 may be a nice option but I don't see it available yet . 

Does the 45mm sigma, mentioned by Michali, bring out the potential of the SL?

Pete

Edited by Torpille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, michali said:

+1 for the L mount Sigma lenses. Excellent image quality, well built, and affordable, without having to sell a kidney.

The first Sigma lens I ever purchased was the 45mm f2.8 as an everyday walk around lens for my SL (I love the fact that it has an aperture ring!).  Based on that, I went on to buy the excellent Sigma 14-24mm L and the 135mm f1.8 L which I use on the SL and SL2.  The new Sigma 85mm f1.4 L lens is now on my radar.

What level of quality are we at with sigma 45mm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have had really good luck with the Sigma 45mm as a “carry around” lens on my SL2.  It is inexpensive, light, compact, and produces great results. No, it isn’t as bightingly sharp as the Summicron SL lenses straight out of camera, but I certainly don’t feel like I am struggling to get what I want after post processing.  Resolution is there even if contrast is a touch low. All lenses are compromises.  You trade off size, cost, speed, vignetting, distortion, weight, contrast, and resolution against each other to come up with something that works well. The Sigma gives up a bit of contrast and speed but that pays dividends in terms of weight, cost, and size.  It’s a good lens. Edited by Jared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2020 at 5:17 AM, Jared said:

I have had really good luck with the Sigma 45mm as a “carry around” lens on my SL2.  It is inexpensive, light, compact, and produces great results. No, it isn’t as bightingly sharp as the Summicron SL lenses straight out of camera, but I certainly don’t feel like I am struggling to get what I want after post processing.  Resolution is there even if contrast is a touch low. All lenses are compromises.  You trade off size, cost, speed, vignetting, distortion, weight, contrast, and resolution against each other to come up with something that works well. The Sigma gives up a bit of contrast and speed but that pays dividends in terms of weight, cost, and size.  It’s a good lens.

Hi Jared,
Thanks a lot for you feedback, very useful indeed
I will try it next week 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, chris_tribble said:

I’d second the Sigma 45 as a first L mount lens.  It continues to delight. A lot of recent images here are SL + Sigma 45:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ctribble

Hello Chris, 

tank you for the link, very nice pictures :)
love these of the Solway coast with M10...

cheers

Pete

Edited by Torpille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I went through the same considerations coming from an M system. 
Having weighted practical, focal length, weight-size considerations, i chose the 24-90 f2.8-4 SL. The IQ on the SL is top notch vs my M primes such as 35 Lux FLE (the bokeh wins definitely) and 90 cron asph apo. It also has OIS which is good on the SL without the IBIS. There is 3D pop in the shots with the zoom.

The zoom provides versatility and IQ rivals the M primes on the SL and a Used can be had for quite a good price. 

 

 

Edited by northernlights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tim,

the vario 24-90mm is a great tool and for me still very expensive even bought used  and not to take out of the studio. 

As i like to walk a lot, i still need a light package. 
I think a M lens 35mm could be a great altenative to the sigma 45mm.

i will try this option next week on the streets of Vienna.

Cheers

Pete

 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete,

interested to hear how it goes. I like M lenses on the SL, but AF can be quicker than it will be with the M lens. Now a 35 cron asph on an M10 for street... that’s another story...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chris_tribble said:

Pete,

interested to hear how it goes. I like M lenses on the SL, but AF can be quicker than it will be with the M lens. Now a 35 cron asph on an M10 for street... that’s another story...

Can you tell me how you find focusing the M lenses? Do you have to open up to focus and then stop down for each exposure? Do you have to zoom to focus, or is the standard EVF view good enough?

Rangefinder has clear advantages for M lenses - but the SL I assume is better for off-center subjects. Wondering if SL focusing with M lenses is fast enough to shoot things like people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Torpille said:

Hi Tim,

the vario 24-90mm is a great tool and for me still very expensive even bought used  and not to take out of the studio. 

As i like to walk a lot, i still need a light package. 
I think a M lens 35mm could be a great altenative to the sigma 45mm.

i will try this option next week on the streets of Vienna.

Cheers

Pete

 


 

 

The 35mm (summilux in my case) M is fantastic. As are the Crons. They are however way better on the leica M’s. With the SL, the advantage is being mirrorless, having AF and availability of zoom options. If i had a choice, i would always choose an M lens anytime because the SL is only 147g more than the M (Denser) although it is larger and the compactness is allows for long walks, being less obtrusive. But the AF is really useful after having using the 24-90. I almost forgot the convenience i used to have with the nikons, canons.  

Edited by northernlights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, gotium said:

Can you tell me how you find focusing the M lenses? Do you have to open up to focus and then stop down for each exposure? Do you have to zoom to focus, or is the standard EVF view good enough?

Rangefinder has clear advantages for M lenses - but the SL I assume is better for off-center subjects. Wondering if SL focusing with M lenses is fast enough to shoot things like people. 

My experience with lenses at 50 or wider on the SL is that moving subjects and  infinity or near infinity can be an issue, even with magnification (close focus on stationary subjects, by contrast, is good) , and that it’s slower to focus an M lens on the SL2 overall. The Frame / Focus (or vice-versa) process with an M is almost instantaneous. It’s not on the SL where I’ve got to push a button to get magnification.  OK I could stop down and zone focus, and do I this from time to time, but I love shooting wide open with Ms, and love being able to select focus point and frame simultaneously.  

I got the SL2 so I’d have the option of using my M lenses alongside zooms and AF lenses. This it does superlatively well. I wouldn’t choose it as the sole means for using M lenses however. That’s what an M body is for.

hope that helps...

Edited by chris_tribble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with both of the comments above. As a rule I use the SL2 & CL2 for AF lenses & use M lenses on my M bodies, especially when I want to slow things down. Each system has its unique benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, gotium said:

Can you tell me how you find focusing the M lenses? Do you have to open up to focus and then stop down for each exposure? Do you have to zoom to focus, or is the standard EVF view good enough?

Rangefinder has clear advantages for M lenses - but the SL I assume is better for off-center subjects. Wondering if SL focusing with M lenses is fast enough to shoot things like people. 

I found that focus was quite a bit faster on an M body when shooting between 28mm and 50mm.  Obviously, you din’t need to open up for focus then stop down again when using an M.  On the SL or SL2 you would sometimes need to (depending on aperture, subject distance, and light).  The SL/SL2 is better for focusing longer lenses or for ultrawides. The narrow depth of field at 75mm and above is challenging for a rangefinder, and uktrawides are awkward just for composition on an M body.

I don’t think I would recommend shooting moving people with an SL/SL2 excepts with an autofocus lens. It can be done, of course, but the hit rate is likely to be lower than with an M.

Oh, one other side note... In situations where there is plenty of time for focusing, the SL/SL2 is more accurate for critical focus than the M.  First, it can account for focus shift on lenses that have it (usually between f/1.4 and f/2.8). Second, it can account for field curvature since you can magnify view on whatever part of the frame you wish, not just the central patch. And if you like to shoot wide open at 75mm or above the SL/SL2 or Visoflex is a huge improvement on the M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Torpille
      I would like to share my experience with the Leica CL after one year of use.
      The first idea was to find a replacement for my Canon 6D after 6 years of loyal service.
      Why change to a Leica CL, you ask? 
      - To gain in size and weight and really take my camera everywhere.
      - to benefit from EVF technology
      - to make full use of the lenses of my Leica T, which I love but is not the most efficient camera available.
      - to use my M lenses much more easily than with the T.
      - to finally have a single ecosystem
      The observation is simple: the CL is an excellent daily camera especially with the Zoom 18-56 mm, when the light is there ...
      - The EVF is of good quality.
      - The image quality is very good, as is the ISO management.
      - The weight and size are very nice.
      - The Thumb support greatly improves ergonomics and allows to limit the movement of the focus slider.
      - Only the autonomy is a real weak point and 2-3 batteries are essential.
      - Wifi is very slow and for my part almost unusable, I don't have enough patience !
      Concerning the TL lenses, I am more reserved :
      The Elmarit-18mm was part of the kit, I will discard it because I'm not too comfortable with this focal length, but the image quality is good and I recommend it to anyone who likes to shoot with 28mm.
      The Zoom 11-23 is very good, the color rendering is excellent, but for specific and occasional use. I only use it very rarely. 
      For my use, the zoom 18-56mm  at my preference on the CL, the quality is good, and the weight perfect. It is really the ideal partner of this camera because it is very versatile.
      I don't need the 55-135mm zoom and haven't tried it. (Same for the Elmarit TL 60mm)
      The fact remains that, at this stage, a luminous lens is missing, a real all-purpose optic, usable indoors and for street photography :
      I used the TL-35mm for a few months, but I didn't keep it. The lens is heavy and the 50mm is not my favorite focal length. But clearly the image quality is superb.
      The Summicron TL- 23mm, which I had with the T, I didn't have a very good experience with it and I sold it.
      But here it is, 35mm is still my favorite focal length and one year after selling the TL-23mm, I ended up buying one to give it/me another chance.
      What motivated me besides the very low price at which it is possible to find it in new condition, is the fact that it is possible to use it with the SL, of course with a reduced resolution but what a result!
      So much so that I don't think I'll go for the Sigma 45mm for the SL.
      Whether with the CL or the SL, we are very close to the Summicron-M 35mm.
      This brings us to the use of the CL with the M lenses :
      The use is simple and efficient, the quality of the images is up to the M.
      An advantage is also that an M 50mm becomes a 75mm, ideal focal length for portraits.

      On the other hand, I much prefer the ergonomics provided by the SL for the use of the M optics (the EVF and the joystick really make the difference).

      To sum up, I will continue to use with pleasure the Leica CL with the 18-56mm zoom and the 23mm to have a light and luminous equipment
      if needed and hope to have a software improvement of the WIFI.
       

       
    • By badmuts32
      For sale my TL summicron 23 mm lens. Slight traces of use. Glass is in excellent condition, no scratches no haze. I have used the lens on my CL camera. This lens is for sale because I also own the TL 11 - 23 lens and the SL 24 - 90 lens. It is a private sale, so no warranty. 
    • By HJKrahtz
      Weiß jemand warum mit der M keine Doppelbelichtung möglich ist. Welche Programme sind hilfreich, um damit eine Doppelbelichtung zu erreichen/2 Fotos gezielt übereinander zu positionieren. Mit jeder DSLR ist es bekanntlich kein Problem gezielt Doppelbelichtungen durchzuführen.
    • By Ciamprob
      Leica SL typ 601 - Vario Elmarit Sl 1:2,8-4/24-90 ASPH
×
×
  • Create New...