Passed on 35mm SL

[aksclix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, paul.bridges.3388 said:

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.

yes, when I was contemplating buying the 35SL, I was thinking about portraits up close since the min focusing distance on 35 is great. Now, I am thinking my purpose might as well be achieved with the TL 23mm f2.. which is far lighter and compact and a third of the price! I don't lose much in terms of bokeh here I think.. in fact I would get enough keeping my subject sharp and in focus.. it can double up as a nice compact walk around lens too.. 20MP is sufficient for most needs

[Advertisement]

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

[aksclix]

2 hours ago, NicholasT said:

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  

yes, I really like the size of the 35 and other SL primes as they all seem to be identical in size.. (except the 1.4 50)

honestly, there can never be a right or wrong with these.. just a matter of personal preference IMO

[Jeff S]

28 minutes ago, aksclix said:

yes, I really like the size of the 35 and other SL primes as they all seem to be identical in size.. (except the 1.4 50)

 

Yes, the Summicrons share the same barrel dimensions, as well as some internal components.  This has been detailed by Peter Karbe in his long presentation on SL (and M) lenses, and discussed in various threads here. Ordinarily, Karbe explained, the SL 35 would have been the smallest of the current three Summicrons, so the extra space gave him the opportunity to better optimize performance (space allows for design freedom, which is why some fast, compact M lenses are engineering marvels). He said the SL 35 is his best lens. But that doesn’t necessarily make it the best choice for anyone else.

Jeff