Sl2 or Sl2-S - Advice Appreciated

[beewee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Reggie said:

the 24mm seems to be closest to what the 45mm provides - even down to the wide open 'glow' at close focus.

This is good to know. The 24 prime peaks my interest and at its price, I’d be inclined to give it a try once I take delivery of the SL2-S.

Despite is lack of popularity, to the point that Leica discontinued the 24/3.8 M, it is my most used lens for hiking/scrambling in the mountains. It’s small size, light weight, and edge-to-edge sharpness (on the M10 at least) sets it apart from just about every other compact full frame system to the point that I loath the fact that the Q2 has a 28mm and not a 24mm lens. For me, 24mm provides a perfect balance between field of view that is very similar to a human eye looking at a landscape vista with both eyes open, while still minimizing the natural distortion from a rectilinear ultra wide angle lens like a 16 or 18mm lens where people on the side of the frame look too distorted. I haven’t really shot the 21/3.4 so I don’t really have a good intuitive sense of that field of view but for me 24mm is a very natural field of view for landscapes with people in a more documentary style of shooting.

I’m glad the Sigma 24mm has a pleasing render. I was starting to get concerned when I saw some images from the 35/2 that looks way too busy and I was wondering if the 24mm would have the same issue.

I think in the medium term, I’d probably get both the 14-24/2.8 for its flexibility, additional field of view, wider aperture, and lack of coma for astro photos and the 24/3.5 has an AF-capable hiking lens in place of the 24/3.8 - assuming the 24/3.5 is as good as the 24/3.8 on the M10 and the 24/3.8. I’ll definitely also give the 24/3.8 M a through evaluation on the SL2-S before getting the Sigma 24/3.5.

[NicholasT]

2 hours ago, Reggie said:

I hope you won't be disappointed with the 35mm I-series but I fear you will be. It does not render like the 45mm does. Sigma appear to have traded off the smooth focus transition and OOF zone of the 45mm for extra sharpnesss in the 35mm which has led to worse LoCA and terribly busy OOF areas. The 65mm is better than the 35mm in these regards and the 24mm seems to be closest to what the 45mm provides - even down to the wide open 'glow' at close focus.

Please let us know how you get on as I haven't been able to get my hands on any of the new I-series yet but I love my 45mm and will probably get the 24mm to complement it.

I'm also a big fan of the 45mm F 2.8. I don't agree with those that find the lens to be "soft".

The 45mm F 2.8 is moderately soft wide open and the rendering of out of focus areas excellent for a lens of its size and price point. I believe Simga achieved the right balance wide open favoring rendering over sharpness. When even modestly stopped down, the Sigma 45mm was plenty sharp and yet retained a very nice transition to out of focus areas.

Re the 35mm I just received this afternoon, so haven't had a chance to test it or to compare it to the 45mm F2.8. I plan to test it over the next week to 10 days (lockdown permitting). If the 35mm doesn't perform at least as well as the 45mm F2.8 then its likely headed back to the dealer.

That said I'm still hopeful. Dustin Abbott a reviewer I find to be generally objective/thorough gives it high marks:

https://dustinabbott.net/2020/12/sigma-35mm-f2-dg-dn-review/

By the way I don't agree with Dustin Abbott's opening remarks about the 45mm F2.8, but based on his solid past track record, I'll let it slide on this occasion

Edited January 19, 2021 by NicholasT

[Advertisement]

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

[Reggie]

57 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Is there are review that states that 35mm "has led to worse LoCA and terribly busy OOF areas"? Thanks!

No - but you can see the lens tip LoCA test of the 35mm is worse than for the 45mm and if you compare the very comprehensive Fred Miranda review of the 45mm vs all the review images of the 35mm lens (particularly the dpreview images), you can see that the 35mm suffers from a lot more fringing in the OOF zones than the 45mm leading to busier OOF areas. 
 

Miranda review of the 45mm

Miranda thread on the new I-series inlcuding links to all review examples so far

Basically, it’s apparent that the design compromises Sigma made for the 45mm are not the same as the ones made for the 35mm. This blog about the 45mm from sigma’s head of product planning is enlightening. 
 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Reggie
added some links

[Reggie]

36 minutes ago, NicholasT said:

By the way I don't agree with Dustin Abbott's opening remarks about the 45mm F2.8, but based on his solid past track record, I'll let it slide on this occasion

Neither do I. It's like he couldn't shake his need for sharpness and admit that there is more to a good lens than edge to edge sharpness at all apertures and focal distances.

 

[eab]

10 hours ago, ravinj said:

>You said it just looks different and perhaps less natural.  Did I read this right? 

I wouldn't call it less natural, but rather some people MAY find it less natural. I don't. Many times when I show pictures of US SouthWest with that unique red tint in the landscape people who haven't been there think it is unreal. I like details. I also like being able to crop and it has come in handy more than once. Scaled to same size, there isn't really anything "different" b/w SL2-S vs SL2. As I said, I don't do high ISO, so for me, shooting at ISO 12,500 or 50,000 is not my use case. Colors and looks can be tweaked to taste. I am sure there is a need for ISO 25,000 somewhere for someone, just like there is a need to go 0-60 in 2.5 seconds

>I am hoping that I can find a reasonable solution with either with M lenses or Sigma

While M lenses work very well on the SL2, it is hard to beat M10 (and I am sure M10-R) when the primary use case is M lens. I don't feel there is anything special or unique about SL2 or SL2-S. But certainly M10/M10-R and Q2 fall into my uniqueness category with no equivalent (size/weight/iq/pleasure in using).

>I have heard that Leica is working on a 24-70 ( or similar fl) which is more compact

Let us see. The 24-90 is a beast, I got rid of it. Summicrons 35/50/90 are great, but again, try putting them mounted on any of SL/2/S against the Q2 or M10/R with 50 M APO and you will know which one to carry!

Again, as they say "YMMV". Good luck with your next step, but IMHO you already have the best of the best in your collection today.....

EDIT: ....so your decision is likely not going to be based on better IQ but other factors.

Hi Ravinj,

Thank you for clarifying, I think i understand your point now, as the level of detail captured in some images can be startling.  Some times I amazed at the beauty and vividness of a scene that nature presents, and a high resolution camera MAY have a better chance of capturing.  I have taken some pictures of birds and other wildlife with my Sony and an the F4 600mm prime and the level of detail is crazy.  It is one of the reasons I am not planning on selling the Sony.  

Thank you for your candor with regards to the SL2,  i have come to understand how unique and elegant the M series is, good food for thought.

 

 

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, Reggie said:

No - but you can see the lens tip LoCA test of the 35mm is worse than for the 45mm and if you compare the very comprehensive Fred Miranda review of the 45mm vs all the review images of the 35mm lens (particularly the dpreview images), you can see that the 35mm suffers from a lot more fringing in the OOF zones than the 45mm leading to busier OOF areas. 
 

Miranda review of the 45mm

Miranda thread on the new I-series inlcuding links to all review examples so far

Basically, it’s apparent that the design compromises Sigma made for the 45mm are not the same as the ones made for the 35mm. This blog about the 45mm from sigma’s head of product planning is enlightening. 
 

DPR has a review of the 35mm f/2 DG DN: link. It is no Summicron-SL , but it may be interesting for some.

Edited January 20, 2021 by SrMi

[Reggie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

DPR has a review of the 35mm f/2 DG DN: link. It is no Summicron-SL , but it may be interesting for some.

Apologies for the apparent off topic drift but while I'm a fan of Sigma's value for money, I don't believe that all their offerings are up to scratch, particularly when they chase lens resolution at the expense of rendering. Here's the sample image from the DPR review linked above which demonstrates the LoCA and OOF fringing in one shot. (100% crop from that image posted below). 

It wil be interesting to get NicholasT's take on this lens as I don't think any Leica users have posted their experience of the latest I-series lenses.

The bottom line is that you can build a nice mixed kit of FF lenses for the SL2-S and replace your crop TL lenses with FF Sigma lenses for no additional outlay but be sure ahead of time that the Sigma ones you're basing your kit on are the 'good' ones.

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!

Edited January 20, 2021 by Reggie

[eab]

I have no problem with the topic drift as I think the lens discussion is probably more important than the body discussion but you have to start somewhere.  My only comment is that there are probably others in the forum that would benefit from the discussion as they have checked out of this thread as it is probably not very interesting to them as they have made their decision.  

With regards to my decision, I am still weighing my options and at this point leaning towards the SL2.  I feel much better informed now thanks to all your collective input.  One of the questions I am struggling with is will I really achieve objective of M like IQ  and handling in the SL2. 

I will update this thread when I make my decision.

Thanks to everyone for their input and time, I really appreciate it.

[Jeff S]

22 minutes ago, eab said:

One of the questions I am struggling with is will I really achieve objective of M like IQ  and handling in the SL2. 

 

Rental could reduce the struggle and provide practical feedback.

Jeff

[Alistairm]

5 hours ago, eab said:

 One of the questions I am struggling with is will I really achieve objective of M like IQ  and handling in the SL2. 

Well, the quality is there but the handling different obviously, as EVF vs RF. Last trip down the coast with my family I took the SL2, 24-90, 0.95 Noctilux and M Telyt 135. I used the M lenses more than the SL zoom. They’re fabulous on the SL2. Very quick to focus, IBIS and wonderful rendering. And the camera feels balanced, even with smaller M lenses. I love my M10R, but if I had to reduce to one camera only I’d have no hesitation choosing the SL2.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Alistairm

[NicholasT]

1 hour ago, Alistairm said:

Well, the quality is there but the handling different obviously, as EVF vs RF. Last trip down the coast with my family I took the SL2, 24-90, 0.95 Noctilux and M Telyt 135. I used the M lenses more than the SL zoom. They’re fabulous on the SL2. Very quick to focus, IBIS and wonderful rendering. And the camera feels balanced, even with smaller M lenses. I love my M10R, but if I had to reduce to one camera only I’d have no hesitation choosing the SL2.

+1

Also based on EAB use case SL 24-90 or (smaller 28-70 if its introduced) can be used extensively while on the road in camper or during brief stops or shooting from vehicle and M lens or compact Sigma I series can serve as the preferred option when out exploring for the day in city or elsewhere. 

M or Q2 are clearly the lightest most compact options. However keeping things in perspective Q2 weighs 720g, M with small lens anywhere from 850g to 950g and SL2 with smaller lens (Simga 45mm or small M lens) comes in at around 1100g. As was mentioned in a prior post if one is hiking in the backcountry even 20% difference matters a lot over a long day on the trail, but in most other scenarios it's a relatively small difference.

M and SL2 offer different shooting experiences. Personally I thoroughly enjoy both. I currently only own SL2 with SL, M lens & third party lens and no M camera (budgetary considerations). If one greatly favors the shooting experience with one camera over another, then there really is not much more to say. 

If on the other hand one is attracted to the handling and other advantages of SL2 ( IBIS, easier focus wide or long with M lens) etc. the size / weight of SL2 shouldn't be a major consideration (except in corner cases like shooting landscape on long hikes in remote areas). The are so many lens options from M lens, TL lens, Sigma and Lumix which can achieve almost any combination of portability vs IQ and these choices are increasing with every L mount alliance announcement.

I know many will disagree because SL/SL2 appears to have a reputation of being a beast. The fact that SL 24-90 was the first lens to be introduced with the original SL did not help matters. I believe it ingrained in our collective minds the notion that the SL was big and heavy. On the other hand walking around for a day with SL 24-90 let alone the 90-280 cannot objectively be compared with same experience shooting SL2 with almost any M lens for example. 

In most use cases what it really comes down to is what lens one chooses to pair with one's preferred camera, be that an M camera or SL/SL2. 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by NicholasT

[eab]

6 hours ago, Alistairm said:

Well, the quality is there but the handling different obviously, as EVF vs RF. Last trip down the coast with my family I took the SL2, 24-90, 0.95 Noctilux and M Telyt 135. I used the M lenses more than the SL zoom. They’re fabulous on the SL2. Very quick to focus, IBIS and wonderful rendering. And the camera feels balanced, even with smaller M lenses. I love my M10R, but if I had to reduce to one camera only I’d have no hesitation choosing the SL2.

I really enjoy using my M but somedays I prefer to just take a camera with a smaller zoom, like today.  It was a little colder and windy today and I live near a harbor and a little weather was rolling in.  There are times when I can not zoom with my feet as I have not figured out how to walk on water  But on days like this I really hate changing lenses as it is windy out and my fingers are cold and stiff and I always am afraid I will drop a lens so I took my Sony with a 28-70 zoom and had a nice day.  I like the Sony but the buttons and dials are small and I find myself shooting in manual a lot, especially when it is later in the day and the clouds are coming and going and I am trying to keep the shutter speeds fast enough and the ISO low.  I know, I am whining a bit but that is one of the reasons I want to try the SL2.  When we are traveling we are out in the weather so this is not an isolated use case for me.  And honestly I love these kind of conditions and the photo opportunities they provide.  So like you, I love my M but if I could only have one camera it would not be the M.    Buy the way I have every intention of using my M lenses on the SL2 if I purchase one.    Sorry for the long lead up but I can't count the number of times I have been in less ideal conditions and have found operating my camera distracting.  

5 hours ago, NicholasT said:

+1

Also based on EAB use case SL 24-90 or (smaller 28-70 if its introduced) can be used extensively while on the road in camper or during brief stops or shooting from vehicle and M lens or compact Sigma I series can serve as the preferred option when out exploring for the day in city or elsewhere. 

M or Q2 are clearly the lightest most compact options. However keeping things in perspective Q2 weighs 720g, M with small lens anywhere from 850g to 950g and SL2 with smaller lens (Simga 45mm or small M lens) comes in at around 1100g. As was mentioned in a prior post if one is hiking in the backcountry even 20% difference matters a lot over a long day on the trail, but in most other scenarios it's a relatively small difference.

M and SL2 offer different shooting experiences. Personally I thoroughly enjoy both. I currently only own SL2 with SL, M lens & third party lens and no M camera (budgetary considerations). If one greatly favors the shooting experience with one camera over another, then there really is not much more to say. 

If on the other hand one is attracted to the handling and other advantages of SL2 ( IBIS, easier focus wide or long with M lens) etc. the size / weight of SL2 shouldn't be a major consideration (except in corner cases like shooting landscape on long hikes in remote areas). The are so many lens options from M lens, TL lens, Sigma and Lumix which can achieve almost any combination of portability vs IQ and these choices are increasing with every L mount alliance announcement.

I know many will disagree because SL/SL2 appears to have a reputation of being a beast. The fact that SL 24-90 was the first lens to be introduced with the original SL did not help matters. I believe it ingrained in our collective minds the notion that the SL was big and heavy. On the other hand walking around for a day with SL 24-90 let alone the 90-280 cannot objectively be compared with same experience shooting SL2 with almost any M lens for example. 

In most use cases what it really comes down to is what lens one chooses to pair with one's preferred camera, be that an M camera or SL/SL2. 

 

Nicholas, 

I know you know, 24-90 in the truck would be great ( in fact I like that the focal length is wider than normal, a teleconverter that would fit on the 24-90 and the 90-280 would be awesome ) it would just sit in the cab with me and I could hop out and take the snap. Then when we are in town headed out to dinner put on the 35mm Summilux M or one of the autofocus Sigmas and have something reasonably sized.  As far as the weight goes as long as I am not out all day I am good with it.  Sometimes I find lighter bodies harder to steady ( I probably need to work on my technique a bit).  The choice is not the M or the SL2 it really comes down to the Sony vs SL2.  I would keep the Sony for BIF and Wildlife, there are times when the reason for a trip is just that.  But 95% of the time I use the Sony for tasks that could easily be handled by the capabilities of the SL2 and I might find it more enjoyable and maybe like the output a bit more.

I agree with you that the lens flexibility really makes the SL2 compelling.  I could travel with the M and SL2 and a mix of M lenses and autofocus zooms/primes and I suspect I would be a happy camper....

 

[SonomaBear]

On 1/18/2021 at 9:56 PM, Alistairm said:

"How good and how cheap are these Sigma Art series lenses?"

The Sigma 85/1.4 for my SL is as good as they get and is reasonably priced.

The Sigma 45/2.8 is just about the perfect "carry-everywhere" lens.  It almost replaces my Q

I still use my M glass so I am used to having an aperture ring -- another Sigma advantage for the SL

 

[NicholasT]

7 hours ago, eab said:

I really enjoy using my M but somedays I prefer to just take a camera with a smaller zoom, like today.  It was a little colder and windy today and I live near a harbor and a little weather was rolling in.  There are times when I can not zoom with my feet as I have not figured out how to walk on water  But on days like this I really hate changing lenses as it is windy out and my fingers are cold and stiff and I always am afraid I will drop a lens so I took my Sony with a 28-70 zoom and had a nice day.  I like the Sony but the buttons and dials are small and I find myself shooting in manual a lot, especially when it is later in the day and the clouds are coming and going and I am trying to keep the shutter speeds fast enough and the ISO low.  I know, I am whining a bit but that is one of the reasons I want to try the SL2.  When we are traveling we are out in the weather so this is not an isolated use case for me.  And honestly I love these kind of conditions and the photo opportunities they provide.  So like you, I love my M but if I could only have one camera it would not be the M.    Buy the way I have every intention of using my M lenses on the SL2 if I purchase one.    Sorry for the long lead up but I can't count the number of times I have been in less ideal conditions and have found operating my camera distracting.  

Nicholas, 

I know you know, 24-90 in the truck would be great ( in fact I like that the focal length is wider than normal, a teleconverter that would fit on the 24-90 and the 90-280 would be awesome ) it would just sit in the cab with me and I could hop out and take the snap. Then when we are in town headed out to dinner put on the 35mm Summilux M or one of the autofocus Sigmas and have something reasonably sized.  As far as the weight goes as long as I am not out all day I am good with it.  Sometimes I find lighter bodies harder to steady ( I probably need to work on my technique a bit).  The choice is not the M or the SL2 it really comes down to the Sony vs SL2.  I would keep the Sony for BIF and Wildlife, there are times when the reason for a trip is just that.  But 95% of the time I use the Sony for tasks that could easily be handled by the capabilities of the SL2 and I might find it more enjoyable and maybe like the output a bit more.

I agree with you that the lens flexibility really makes the SL2 compelling.  I could travel with the M and SL2 and a mix of M lenses and autofocus zooms/primes and I suspect I would be a happy camper....

 

Hopefully Leica will figure out a way to improve AF to the point were SL2 or future SL3 can be considered a worthy alternative to Sony when it comes to shooting BIF and wildlife.

In the meantime, while you've not made a final decision it looks like you're narrowing down your camera / lens options and that you're down to a relatively short mental shortlist.

As you indicated in earlier post, we ventured somewhat off topic ( SL2 versus SL2-s ) but when it comes right down to it these choices are rarely that simple. Your comments about your M camera and Sony prove the point. Your new camera selection is made within the context of what you currently own and what you are considering retaining or selling. 

What I find particularly positive about the collective exchange that you initiated, is that the discussion hasn't just centered around preference for one piece of gear over another, but rather it has centered more on the reasons behind individual selections.

Ultimately that feels like the right conversation to be having and who knows it may also benefit others who wander inadvertently into what they thought would be a narrowly focused comparison between two SL cameras  

Happy shooting!

PS I was not able to locate your instagram account. Can you repost the link? Thanks.

Edited January 21, 2021 by NicholasT

[eab]

That would be ideal, but then we would need the right lens as well.    With the Sony you can do the 100-400, 200-600, 400 @ f2.8 and the 600 @f4 all with or without the teleconverter.  

As you said the choices are not simple, I really enjoy taking all types of pictures in all kinds of locations.  When we are out and about in the camper, Its not like I can go home and get a different camera and set of lenses, I have to bring it with me.  There is another complication which is at play as well, emotion and feeling.  I take pictures not only to capture where I have been or what I have seen (this has been especially relevant during the last year, one of the things I love about Apple photos is every morning when I look at my phone it shows me a selection of photos from my online collections.  It always makes me smile.).  But there is also the act of shooting itself, tuning in to where I am and observing, that is when I really enjoy the M, it is simple and in some ways more reliable I don't pay as much attention, it only focuses on what I want it to with no green boxes jumping all over the place or getting hung up on a little twig in the frame.   I am definitely quicker focusing the M ( within certain FLs) then I can manually focus using magnification in the EVF, I will admit it is often more accurate though.  

The best part is I can take my time and make a decision that is well considered. I also learn a lot about myself and what is important not just about gear but why we do what we do, in this case, why do I like to take pictures.  Photography has a lot of facets and I am really enjoying learning and practising

It has been a very informative, productive and enjoyable conversation for me and thanks to all those who have participated.

I am relatively new to photography up until very recently I was a spray and pray kind a guy.  I am trying to become more intentional if that makes sense.

My instagram link is:

 https://www.instagram.com/moabout/

Thanks again,

Eric

[eab]

Update —— I pulled the trigger and purchased an SL2 and Vario 24- 90.  Obviously, I have not shot with it much but I really do love what I am seeing, there is something definitely different about the output when I compare it to my Sony.  if it is in my head, than in some ways that is all that matters, but I think there is something there.  Thanks to everyone for their input....

[ravinj]

Make sure to test the weather seals on the SL2 like I did today:

 

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!

 

[eab]

Hopefully i will be able to get out tomorrow.  We are suppose to be getting some snow......  We had a good snow a couple of days ago but the flakes we huge and heavy.  I took a shots but I knew it wasn’t going to go in my favor....

 

[NightPix]

I am struggling with the same decision you were several months ago - SL2 or SL2-S? I currently have a stable of Sony lenses for my a7iii and a7riii, but I’m just not that happy with the Sony images (except the a7iii for astro, where it’s awesome). I bought a Q2M to scratch my b&w itch, and the shooting experience, menus and  and IQ blew me away. So now I want to expand my Leica footprint, but I’m struggling between the SL2 and the SL2-s, just as you did. The a7iii takes care of my night time shooting (along with the Q2M for moonlit nightscapes) so *really* low light shooting is not a big consideration ( I do sometimes shoot early and late in the day with the a7riii), and I find myself cropping my a7riii files sometimes. So, now that you’ve had some time with the SL2, are you happy with you decision? Has noise been an issue? What issues (or advantages) have you found that you weren’t expecting? I learned so much from reading your thread (twice!) and I’d really appreciate hearing how things turned out. Thanks!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jrp]

What is wrong with the Sony’s now that they have some cracking G Master lenses.