Passed on 35mm SL

[aksclix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, Dr. G said:

More sculpture...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Really cool pictures.. any portraits with background blur at f2? Particularly in low light and indoors perhaps 😌 because that is what I intend to use the 28-70 for 

[Advertisement]

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

[Dr. G]

1 minute ago, Jeff S said:

But you didn’t write that you’ve never been a fan of 35mm.

Jeff

It was more because I could "see" better at 50mm - or so I thought.  But I still have the 28-70 f2 and do use it at different focal lengths.  I also have the Canon RF 50 1.2 L and the APO Summicron-SL 50.  Guess which one I like better

[Dr. G]

2 minutes ago, aksclix said:

Really cool pictures.. any portraits with background blur at f2? Particularly in low light and indoors perhaps 😌 because that is what I intend to use the 28-70 for 

See the saxophone photo I posted - that was with the SL2 and the 35 APO.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Dr. G

[aksclix]

4 minutes ago, Dr. G said:

blur...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Sharp and sweet

[Dr. G]

This is low light and outdoors - but with the SL2-S and 35 APO.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[aksclix]

3 minutes ago, Dr. G said:

This is low light and outdoors - but with the SL2-S and 35 APO.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Nice!! 
I am starting to think the Panasonic 50 1.4 S PRO would do just fine.. there has always been a debate between the 35 and 50 anyway.. from the sample images I’ve seen of the pana 50, I think it’s got very similar IQ as that of the Leica 35.. (personal opinion 😁)

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you are more focused on background separation, then it probably does make more sense to get a 50mm 1.4. If 35mm is not your thing, perhaps the upcoming 35mm f2 Sigma will be a better choice. Even more compact, apparently with very good image quality, and a fraction of the price. Or, as Jeff kind of indicated, perhaps what you need is not a lens, but inspiration.

[Dr. G]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

If you are more focused on background separation, then it probably does make more sense to get a 50mm 1.4. If 35mm is not your thing, perhaps the upcoming 35mm f2 Sigma will be a better choice. Even more compact, apparently with very good image quality, and a fraction of the price. Or, as Jeff kind of indicated, perhaps what you need is not a lens, but inspiration.

...and if you really want a 35 that can easily separate the background in low light, (and if the AF is better than when initially released), the Sigma 35 1.2 will easily separate your subject from the background.  It's sharp, renders nicely but is "slightly" large and heavy.

[aksclix]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

If you are more focused on background separation, then it probably does make more sense to get a 50mm 1.4. If 35mm is not your thing, perhaps the upcoming 35mm f2 Sigma will be a better choice. Even more compact, apparently with very good image quality, and a fraction of the price. Or, as Jeff kind of indicated, perhaps what you need is not a lens, but inspiration.

Yea, I wanted Leica glass though and I’ve felt the rendering of Panasonic lenses are more close to Leica than that of sigma.. the Leica 50 is another beast like the 24-90.. will grab it if I get one around 4K perhaps.. I do have a voigtlander 40mm f1.2 with an m adapter. I like it but just looking for AF.. this will be up for sale if I end up getting something in that range.. 

[aksclix]

2 hours ago, Dr. G said:

...and if you really want a 35 that can easily separate the background in low light, (and if the AF is better than when initially released), the Sigma 35 1.2 will easily separate your subject from the background.  It's sharp, renders nicely but is "slightly" large and heavy.

The BG separation you get with Leica 35 f2 is enough for me actually.. I’ll wait for the pana l-mount 35 1.8 which is going to be compact and inexpensive 

[Big John]

I too have the 24-90 but I am thinking of adding the 35SL - as someone pointed out above, there is a real benefit in size/weight.  
Am wondering.....setting aside image, autofocus etc, which is likely to hold value better: 35 SL summicron or 35 M summilux FLE?

[Simone_DF]

45 minutes ago, Big John said:

I too have the 24-90 but I am thinking of adding the 35SL - as someone pointed out above, there is a real benefit in size/weight.  
Am wondering.....setting aside image, autofocus etc, which is likely to hold value better: 35 SL summicron or 35 M summilux FLE?

as of now, I'd say the 35SL. They are not easy to find on the used market, whereas you can find plenty of 35M for a decent price.  

But in the long run, on the other hand, the 35M has a larger user base, and will appeal both M and SL users, plus users of other camera brands, which can drive its price up.

[aksclix]

It’s a shame I had the 35 SL on my cart for 2 days in BH for $4K and when it finally got sold that’s when I posted here 😌 looks like some of you would’ve grabbed the offer gleefully.. for the GAS I have, I am proud I resisted it 😂

[FlashGordonPhotography]

3 hours ago, Big John said:

I too have the 24-90 but I am thinking of adding the 35SL - as someone pointed out above, there is a real benefit in size/weight.  
Am wondering.....setting aside image, autofocus etc, which is likely to hold value better: 35 SL summicron or 35 M summilux FLE?

Instead of worrying about which lens will hold it's value better why not decide based on which lens you're likely to never want to sell. Then it's *value* takes on another meaning. Go through your catalogue and see how often you naturally shoot your zooms around 35mm. That'll answer the question for you.

A 35mm SL is of little value to me, regardless of price because I rarely reach for a 35mm lens on any camera I own. I shoot my preferred 50mm and crop from 28mm if I need the 35 FOV. Actually I'm finding the SL2 with 50 and 90 plus my Q2 really suits my normal shooting envelope. I have the zoom and like it a lot but I shoot better with primes (makes me think more) and prefer them for my personal shooting. Almost every 35mm prime I've bought I've sold, so that says to me that a 35mm lens is of little value, to me. I keep a cheap but excellent little CV35mm 1.7 for when I want that focal length and look and I have a well worn RX1R2. But I won't be considering a SL35mm or M 'lux. They are both poor investments in my kit.

For many the 35mm focal length is *the go to* for them. They just get it. It's natural and instinctive. They'll often have more than one choosing between character traits of the lens based on subject or how they feel that day.  If that's you get the one you want and shoot with it until you drop. Set your budget and get the one that suits you best.

If it's just to try it or move on then buy used. New glass is rarely going to hold its sale price if re-sold whereas used almost always does.

Gordon

 

[aksclix]

10 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Instead of worrying about which lens will hold it's value better why not decide based on which lens you're likely to never want to sell. Then it's *value* takes on another meaning. Go through your catalogue and see how often you naturally shoot your zooms around 35mm. That'll answer the question for you.

A 35mm SL is of little value to me, regardless of price because I rarely reach for a 35mm lens on any camera I own. I shoot my preferred 50mm and crop from 28mm if I need the 35 FOV. Actually I'm finding the SL2 with 50 and 90 plus my Q2 really suits my normal shooting envelope. I have the zoom and like it a lot but I shoot better with primes (makes me think more) and prefer them for my personal shooting. Almost every 35mm prime I've bought I've sold, so that says to me that a 35mm lens is of little value, to me. I keep a cheap but excellent little CV35mm 1.7 for when I want that focal length and look and I have a well worn RX1R2. But I won't be considering a SL35mm or M 'lux. They are both poor investments in my kit.

For many the 35mm focal length is *the go to* for them. They just get it. It's natural and instinctive. They'll often have more than one choosing between character traits of the lens based on subject or how they feel that day.  If that's you get the one you want and shoot with it until you drop. Set your budget and get the one that suits you best.

If it's just to try it or move on then buy used. New glass is rarely going to hold its sale price if re-sold whereas used almost always does.

Gordon

 

You nailed it.. it’s precisely why I still haven’t gotten the 35SL and why I passed on it.. I didn’t see any value in spending 4K when I have a 24-90 which seems to be working well for me 

[Big John]

14 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Instead of worrying about which lens will hold it's value better why not decide based on which lens you're likely to never want to sell. Then it's *value* takes on another meaning. Go through your catalogue and see how often you naturally shoot your zooms around 35mm. That'll answer the question for you.

A 35mm SL is of little value to me, regardless of price because I rarely reach for a 35mm lens on any camera I own. I shoot my preferred 50mm and crop from 28mm if I need the 35 FOV. Actually I'm finding the SL2 with 50 and 90 plus my Q2 really suits my normal shooting envelope. I have the zoom and like it a lot but I shoot better with primes (makes me think more) and prefer them for my personal shooting. Almost every 35mm prime I've bought I've sold, so that says to me that a 35mm lens is of little value, to me. I keep a cheap but excellent little CV35mm 1.7 for when I want that focal length and look and I have a well worn RX1R2. But I won't be considering a SL35mm or M 'lux. They are both poor investments in my kit.

For many the 35mm focal length is *the go to* for them. They just get it. It's natural and instinctive. They'll often have more than one choosing between character traits of the lens based on subject or how they feel that day.  If that's you get the one you want and shoot with it until you drop. Set your budget and get the one that suits you best.

If it's just to try it or move on then buy used. New glass is rarely going to hold its sale price if re-sold whereas used almost always does.

Gordon

 

Cheers.  I really like 35mm, if I had only one focal length, it would be 35mm.  Just deciding which to get  

 

[aksclix]

@Dr. G could you also post a couple of shots with your canon 28-70 f2?

[paul.bridges.3388]

12 hours ago, aksclix said:

You nailed it.. it’s precisely why I still haven’t gotten the 35SL and why I passed on it.. I didn’t see any value in spending 4K when I have a 24-90 which seems to be working well for me 

Personally, I struggled with the 24-90 indoors on the SL. How would you manage this?  Both the physical size and the aperture were limiting. That’s what drove me to add a 35M - indoor environmental portraits. And spectacular they were too.

Now I have the SL2-S with the Summicron-SL 75/2.  I’m contemplating adding the 35/2 because I’ve been so impressed by the AF improvements on the SL2-S. Versus the zoom, the prime gives me one less thing to worry about when shooting. It has the aperture benefit for separation / light and throw in a reliable iAF too. Versus the 35M, it gives me far more keepers - especially when shooting my family.

For me, there are benefits to keeping it Leica - be it rendering, microcontrast, etc. Whether they’re material or simply perceived in my shots is unclear to me.

Just a few random thoughts there: apologies they’re not more, er, focused.

Edited December 30, 2020 by paul.bridges.3388

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

14 hours ago, Big John said:

Cheers.  I really like 35mm, if I had only one focal length, it would be 35mm.  Just deciding which to get  

 

For me. Always the native option. Especially if it's as good as the SL35 is.

Gordon

[NicholasT]

On 12/28/2020 at 8:31 PM, aksclix said:

Ok, I have been on the fence about getting a 35mm SL for 2 reasons.
1) I have the 24-90 and I am not convinced the 35mm f2 is worth an additional 5K USD while I  can shoot 35mm at f3.2 using my 24-90.. I had the 35mm f2 used for 4K USD  in my cart on B&H website but just couldn’t convince myself to hit the buy button.

2) I have a Canon 28-70 f2 as well albeit with an RP body.. I intend to swap it out for an R6 for the IBIS.. I LOVE THIS LENS and I do not want to part with it.. I only wish it had the IS. Leica 35mm f2 would’ve duplicated this particular range for me..

does anybody have both these lenses and can offer any comparisons?  I have seen some online galleries of 35mm f2 Leica and 50mm f1.4 Panasonic s pro.. they both match in image quality from what I can tell.. so another reason why I couldn’t bite the bullet and go for the 35mm Leica.. 

I need convincing with compelling images and not just recommendations 😁

I've struggled with some of the same issues and have come to somewhat different conclusion.

I've owned Leica 24-90 and ultimately sold it in favor of Sigma 24-70mm F 2.8 Art. Sigma doesn't quite match the IQ of the Leica but its awfully close. On the other hand unlike the Leica its a constant F 2.8, it weighs 30% less and needless to say costs a fraction of the SL 24-90.

I loved the output of the Leica SL 24-90 but I found that using that lens all day was not a comfortable proposition ( my limit was about 2-3 hours). With Sigma all day is no problem.

More importantly going back to the question at hand I find that the SL primes are in another league. The OOF separation (3D quality) coupled with the rendering of the colors and transitions is simply unmatched in any zoom be it one made by Leica or others. Furthermore the handling / weight etc of the SL primes is far more balanced on SL / SL2. It just feels right.

Having made that decision I applied the same logic to the rest of my lens choices. Save the money (and the weight) on Sigma or Panasonic zooms and apply the savings on whatever combination of SL primes suits one's personal shooting style and preference.

I also believe that in the long run SL primes are likely to hold their value better than Leica zooms but others may disagree with that conclusion.

I realize all of the above doesn't quite respond to your original question, but figured it might provide some additional food for thought or confusion  

Edited December 30, 2020 by NicholasT