Don't Use Third Party Lenses on SL2 Body?

[Flyer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I thought it would be interesting to capture opinions on using third party lenses on Leica bodies.

I personally can't afford to buy a Leica lens and use the latest Sigma's, I hope one day to be able to afford a pure Leica lens unil then I still enjoy the SL2-S and can still capture nice detail and maybe iys more relevant with the M range as you want that "Leica look"? opposed to the sharper L range lenses?

This guy on You Tube insists that only top Leica lenses should be used, is he right?

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

Your body, your choice

[Richardgb]

How to politely say this?

It has to be said that photographers would generally think of the Leica 'look' when the topic of Leica's products arises, and many on this forum have said 'glass' is what really counts. So, in some ways spending a wad of cash on an expensive (Leica) body and looking to economise on the lenses does seem to be putting the cart before ther horse. Now, I realise that in the digital era the quality of the sensor and associated processor would play its part in the image-quality chain, but primarily if the lens is 'poor', then no amount of electronic wizardry can change the image. In other words, Leica glass plus third-party body may be where money should be 'invested'.

But really... are lenses-other-than-Leica so poor, is Leica somehow immune to producing less-than-perfect lenses or bodies for that matter? There's been plenty of evidence on this Forum over the years to say otherwise. And let's not forget Leica's collaborations over the years with Minolta and Panasonic - surely it's been a two-way street to the mutual benefit of both parties, or why else get involved? Then there are the true independents who make Leica-compatible equipment (usually lenses), e.g. Cosina, Sigma, and Zeiss, whose respective virtues have also been aired here.

[darylgo]

I wouldn't give it a second thought.  Learning about lenses is a long process.  Buy what you can, learn it's strengths and weaknesses.  Oftentimes I can duplicate the look of a lens in software, which is getting better.

[Sjz]

I have followed him on YouTube for over a year finding his insights interesting and passionately conveyed.  He creates fabulous images and that is what counts.

I don’t always agree with him, but then I take very few portraits and my use cases are different.

My only non-Leica lens is a Sigma Art 14-24 DG DN and other than it being a pain with filters - I am always impressed with the results.  It spends more time on the SL2 than the 35 or 90-280.  The 24-90 grabs the majority of the time on the body but I don’t regret buying the Sigma it is VERY sharp and even at 14mm the distortion is controlled (if you keep it level).

 

[jaapv]

54 minutes ago, Flyer said:

I thought it would be interesting to capture opinions on using third party lenses on Leica bodies.

I personally can't afford to buy a Leica lens and use the latest Sigma's, I hope one day to be able to afford a pure Leica lens unil then I still enjoy the SL2-S and can still capture nice detail and maybe iys more relevant with the M range as you want that "Leica look"? opposed to the sharper L range lenses?

This guy on You Tube insists that only top Leica lenses should be used, is he right?

 

No, he is wrong, but I can see where he is coming from. But what is there to stop you from using M and R lenses on an adapter? There are some superb bargains out there.

[Dennis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's about budget first (I guess), then weight and size.

Having full budget, SL2-S + 35 SL APO 

Lower budget, SL2-S + 35 DG DN Contemporary Sigma

I would happily shoot with both. One has obviously a better result, but in exchange of size and weight. Hey, 5.5k is not the same than 10k.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jackbaty]

58 minutes ago, Flyer said:

I thought it would be interesting to capture opinions on using third party lenses on Leica bodies.

I personally can't afford to buy a Leica lens and use the latest Sigma's, I hope one day to be able to afford a pure Leica lens unil then I still enjoy the SL2-S and can still capture nice detail and maybe iys more relevant with the M range as you want that "Leica look"? opposed to the sharper L range lenses?

This guy on You Tube insists that only top Leica lenses should be used, is he right?

Is he right? He's the opposite of right. To suggest that someone shouldn't buy a Leica because they can't (or don't want to) spend $5,000 on a lens to go with it right out of the gate is some snobby, elitist nonsense and it infuriates me.

Leica makes kick-ass cameras. I would buy and use Leica cameras even if they were only capable of mediocre image quality, because I love using them. The lovely images are just a bonus

And the idea that air-quote "3rd party" air-quote lenses are never worth using with a Leica because they're air-quote "bad lenses" air-quote is hogwash.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 14 by jackbaty

[Photoworks]

in the YouTube series or Ramsey rumbling and in this is video too can be taken with a grain of salt.

He is stuck on SL because he claims that the Newer SL2 is terrible in video. but like in many of his video it is operator error. he just picks it up and see what he gets without knowing what is what.

I already had lenses and got the SL2 because I like the way it worked. and the freedom it give me. I have added many lenses since them.

What he does not understand is that I company size like Leica does not produce million of lenses, and each lens takes about 4 years to be developed according to Peter K.

Even Leica understands that Panasonic and Sigma produce quality lenses and often in categories that Leica has not put on the market yet. Panasonic even has Leica certified lenses :-)

at the end Leica lenses are probably better adjusted for there cameras, not only optically but also in power consumption and AF performance. 

I will slap any lens I like on it. Modern and Vintage. Shift, Tilt, zoom and prime cinema.

[Slender]

The smart money is in the lenses, how hard is this to understand? If you can afford a perishable electronic (leica) camera, "do yourself a favor" a splurge that money on nice lenses. They are a far longer lasting investment.

 

Sure, sigma and voigtlander make decent, very good lenses. But buying these and a SL body new and not going all out on even a second hand leica Lens (R, L, SL, M you name it it doesnt matter) it just regrettable.

Same with tripods. Get yourself something nice once every 40 years (I sugest Gitzo GT2545 Traveveler :)) rather than something lame every 2 or 5 years. It will far outlive any camera you put on it. Same go for lenses --- okay the track record of heavily electronic based lenses is yet to equal M or R ones but I am sure you understand this.

[darylgo]

14 minutes ago, Slender said:

The smart money is in the lenses.

Perhaps, but I would put my money in a true investment before seeking it in lenses.  I buy my lenses to shoot, I put money in the stock market to appreciate.  

[P1505]

Use the lens that gives you the look you want. And the one that’s enjoyable to use.

I have everything from Leica M to Sigma Art and they are all fantastic.

The smart money may be in the lenses, but the smartest money is in the experience.

Use what you enjoy using.

[Richardgb]

8 minutes ago, P1505 said:

Use the lens that gives you the look you want. And the one that’s enjoyable to use.

I have everything from Leica M to Sigma Art and they are all fantastic.

The smart money may be in the lenses, but the smartest money is in the experience.

Use what you enjoy using.

Surely the smartest money should be aimed at achieving the desired result...

[nicci78]

According to Dr Kaufmann himself. TL and SL lenses are also perishable. He honestly don’t how long we can use those lenses 10 years 20 years ? 
Only M lenses are forever. 
L-mount lenses are full of electronics. Once the last chip is gone, the lens will also. 
 

According to Sigma CEO : cameras and lenses use almost the same amount of electronics. So it makes perfect sense to keep making cameras. Just to gain the experience. Even if they are losing a lot of money with them. 
It is just to stress out how similar lenses and bodies are. 

So thinking that lenses will really out last cameras, is not a sure thing. What’s true : we got bored of a camera before a lens. So we tend to keep the lenses more. But I am pretty sure that if we are willing to stick with the same body, it can last as long as any  AF lens. 

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Excellent! Another model turns photographer telling me what gear I should use. I'm sure his vast experience of 2 years will help me no end. After all I've only been at this professionally for 30 years. At least now I know where it all went wrong.....

What a load of BS!. If I shoot with a Leica lens the only person who can tell is me. All modern lenses are so good that it's almost impossible to judge an image and tell what glass it was shot on. 95% of the worlds great images aren't shot on Leica glass.

Leica SL glass is fabulous. No doubt about that. Mostly class leading. But the difference to top SIgma glass is tiny. And Panasonic, Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Zeiss and  Voigtlander. In some cases the third party glass is better or Leica don't even make an equivalent. I sold my Noctilux because I prefer the CV 50mm 1.2 in every way. I leave my excellent SL16-35 at home when I travel because the Sigma 14-24 suits me better. You'd be hard pressed to find a better 35mm than the Zeiss 35 1.4 for M mount.

This guy is trying to make a name for himself on youtube. Easiest way to do that is to be controversial. Good luck to him and his 915 subscribers but I won't be wasting time on him because he has no idea what it takes to be a working photographer. Sure lenses are more important than the camera but that doesn't mean the camera choice is unimportant. What it does mean is that both are less important than pretty much everything else in the photography chain.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lct]

3 hours ago, jackbaty said:

Is he right? He's the opposite of right. To suggest that someone shouldn't buy a Leica because they can't (or don't want to) spend $5,000 on a lens to go with it right out of the gate is some snobby, elitist nonsense

... to say the least. I don't count my Leica lenses anymore but i'm glad to use non Leica lenses as well. Ask my step-son what he thinks of such ridiculous statements. I lent him my M8.2 with a 7art 35/2 and he takes superb photos with that combo. 

[ahl]

Hi there,

I sold my M-240 to get the SL2 that I use mainly with my collection of M lenses. I now have IBIS on my M lenses after I realised that I was not hand holding as well as I thought. I find at my age that the weight of the Leica L lenses are a handicap.

SL2 body + M lenses for me is the best combination ,as long as you use the Leica adapter. What a joy: small size and weight of my outfit, easy focusing of my 1.0 Nocti. Perfect haptics of the body. My results with manual focusing have been very satisfying so far . 

I also bought a Sigma 45mm 2.8 because of the M like design, small size and autofocusing . It has proved to be a revelation at  f 4.0. It is even better than I had predicted .

The L Leica lenses are fantastic but the M ones are just as capable and you can find sh bargains. Sigma and Panasonic make some very good lenses that will give you good results if you ignore  the test charts and examine the photos at normal viewing distance.  Do not be sucked in by the snobbery of some Leica aficionados, just look at their results! 

So do not worry about the opinions of others:  buy the best quality you can afford  , when you can afford it and if finances are tight get prime lenses and realise you do not need many. The secret is to enjoy what you have and get the best out if it rather than envy the Pros.

If you can afford it , buy Leica throughout because you really need the file quality and how many of us can truly say this. Resist GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) which with Leica is a dangerous and expensive route to pursue.

 

 

[P1505]

1 hour ago, Richardgb said:

Surely the smartest money should be aimed at achieving the desired result...

Yes. I was rushing  For me the desired result is the experience. Nobody cares about my images. But I care about the fun I have. It’s why I don’t shoot Sony.

[caissa]

It is known since many years that it is “wise” to buy Leica lenses. Why ? As an investment ? No certainly not. It will not help you to make money. But the lenses keep their value, so you will not lose money. With other lenses you usually lose money after a few years. And you have the pleasure to use these excellent lenses. But for some they are too big and heavy - well, then simply buy other stuff.

So if you can afford it, buy the expensive original lenses. But other lenses will also make “good” photos. In the worst case you need to stop down a little. 

What I find very interesting is to buy old R and M lenses. They usually work very well. And keep the value (more or less). But some are in the meantime collectors items and I would not buy them. E.g. the R zoom 2.8/35-70 . Usually just for collecting. Not useful for photography - too delicate to handle.

And then there are the lenses that Leica never produces. At least then you need to buy other lenses. A problem ? Not really.

This fellow started this Leica Club. But Facebook is really the poorest place for this. You need to accept all the ridiculous cookies, and they make a lot of money with selling information about you.

Maybe he is a clever Leica user, but a stupid internet user.

Edited January 14 by caissa

[BernardC]

This reminds me of taking my nephew to an art gallery for the first time. He was much younger then, but I'm still the same age...

We ended-up talking about how paintings looked different during different periods. Some are huge, some are relatively small. Some are sharp and detailed, some are soft. Some have intense saturated colours, some are more pastel. We were lucky enough to see two Richters. Sure enough, they were painted in very different styles, one being  blurred/smudged, and one sharply defined.

He understood that there is no right way to express yourself visually. Every painting or picture tells you what it wants.

I hope that this YouTube presenter learns the same lesson; he will pick lenses based on the images that he wants to create, not on the brand name.