SL2 or SL2-s

[cirke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Yes. 

Thanks
I have never used APS-C lenses on FF

[LocalHero1953]

1 minute ago, cirke said:

Thanks
I have never used APS-C lenses on FF

To add some detail to my answer.

The 55-135 will give you exactly the same image on the SL2 as you would have had on the CL, because you are looking at the same APS-C image contained within a full frame sensor. So moving from a CL to the SL2 you do not have to adjust your mindset to worry about focal lengths, angle of view etc. You are effectively buying a large, heavy full frame camera but getting the same images out of it as a tiny CL.

Note, though, that an imaginary 55-135 SL lens, if it existed, (i.e. designed for full frame) would cover the whole of the sensor, and so give you a wider view of the scene - behaving apparently as a wider angle lens.  

[cirke]

The store made me a good offer to take back all my Sony  gear in exchange for an SL2 and a 75 APO Summicron + second battery.

3 Sony Lenses against 1 Leica lens 🙂 

[augustwest100]

9 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Yes. 

Isn't the 55-135 a TL lens, and therefore would need to be used in crop mode? Thus, wouldn't it be more like an 80-200 lens in practical use in crop mode?

[augustwest100]

8 hours ago, cirke said:

The store made me a good offer to take back all my Sony  gear in exchange for an SL2 and a 75 APO Summicron + second battery.

3 Sony Lenses against 1 Leica lens 🙂 

what gear did you have? Curious what people are offering for Sony gear!

[cirke]

1 minute ago, augustwest100 said:

what gear did you have? Curious what people are offering for Sony gear!

- A7R3  + 2nd battery
- SONY 35/1.4 ZEISS SEL FE
- SONY 50/1.4 ZEISS SEL FE
- SONY 85/1.4 G Master SEL FE

all from April 2018

I get 

- SL2 + 2nd battery
- 75 APO summicron

and I have to pay additionally 4000 euros

 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, augustwest100 said:

Isn't the 55-135 a TL lens, and therefore would need to be used in crop mode? Thus, wouldn't it be more like an 80-200 lens in practical use in crop mode?

The OP is coming from a CL so knows what the lens will look like on that body. It will look exactly the same when he uses it on a SL2, because the sensor will be in crop mode. The question of adjusting your mindset to think about apparently different focal lengths only comes in when you go the other way: using a full frame lens on a crop sensor. In this case, the sensor in use is exactly the same size.

The reason we have these circular threads about 'what's the focal length on this body vs that body' is because we forget the focal length doesn't change. It's the physical image size and so angle of view that changes when you change from one sensor size to another - and this doesn't happen when you use the SL2 in crop mode.

Your second sentence could only be relevant if expressed as "a 55-135 lens which is capable of covering a full frame sensor would appear like a 80-200 lens if used on a crop sensor".

 

[augustwest100]

51 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The OP is coming from a CL so knows what the lens will look like on that body. It will look exactly the same when he uses it on a SL2, because the sensor will be in crop mode. The question of adjusting your mindset to think about apparently different focal lengths only comes in when you go the other way: using a full frame lens on a crop sensor. In this case, the sensor in use is exactly the same size.

The reason we have these circular threads about 'what's the focal length on this body vs that body' is because we forget the focal length doesn't change. It's the physical image size and so angle of view that changes when you change from one sensor size to another - and this doesn't happen when you use the SL2 in crop mode.

Your second sentence could only be relevant if expressed as "a 55-135 lens which is capable of covering a full frame sensor would appear like a 80-200 lens if used on a crop sensor".

 

I think I'm about to prove your circular thread argument right here: so I think I understand what you are saying. I have a full frame 55mm on my Sony A9. If I put the A9 in APS-C mode, the image I see will approximate the equivalent image that you would see on an 80mm lens, but will give up megapixels in the process. If you put a TL lens on the SL, the same thing will not happen? I'm confused. I was kinda hoping that the 55-135 TL on an SL2 in crop mode would have more "reach" albeit with less megapixels. Kinda like having a small image that does not take up the whole sensor and  you need to crop out the part that doesn't have an image.

Maybe we are saying the same thing? I'm thinking of a time back when I was in Costa Rica with a Sony A7r II. I did not use it in crop mode because I figured why lose the pixels when I could just do it in post. Practically speaking, however, all my raw files from that shoot look like they are of bushes and trees. You have to crop in pretty far to see the animal that I was photographing. So, in that case, had I chosen crop mode, my image would have lost pixels, but would have been closer in to the subject of the photo. That is really what I am asking about with the 55-135. Will the image be "closer in" when using it in crop mode as compared to a full frame 55-135mm lens. In other words, if I inherently knew from experience with that focal length what it should look like in frame would it look closer than that?

Argh I'm proving your point in my reply! I'm going to change my name to "The Circle"

[cirke]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The OP is coming from a CL so knows what the lens will look like on that body. It will look exactly the same when he uses it on a SL2, because the sensor will be in crop mode. The question of adjusting your mindset to think about apparently different focal lengths only comes in when you go the other way: using a full frame lens on a crop sensor. In this case, the sensor in use is exactly the same size.

The reason we have these circular threads about 'what's the focal length on this body vs that body' is because we forget the focal length doesn't change. It's the physical image size and so angle of view that changes when you change from one sensor size to another - and this doesn't happen when you use the SL2 in crop mode.

Your second sentence could only be relevant if expressed as "a 55-135 lens which is capable of covering a full frame sensor would appear like a 80-200 lens if used on a crop sensor".

 

Then somehow it would be better , the middle of the sensor , no vignetting ?

[LocalHero1953]

24 minutes ago, augustwest100 said:

I think I'm about to prove your circular thread argument right here: so I think I understand what you are saying. I have a full frame 55mm on my Sony A9. If I put the A9 in APS-C mode, the image I see will approximate the equivalent image that you would see on an 80mm lens, but will give up megapixels in the process. Correct. If you put a TL lens on the SL, the same thing will not happen? The TL lens can never cover the whole SL sensor in the first place, so there is no image 'to be equivalent to', and you are not 'giving up pixels'. I'm confused. I was kinda hoping that the 55-135 TL on an SL2 in crop mode would have more "reach" albeit with less megapixels. Incorrect! Kinda like having a small image that does not take up the whole sensor and  you need to crop out the part that doesn't have an image. Correct

Maybe we are saying the same thing? I'm thinking of a time back when I was in Costa Rica with a Sony A7r II. I did not use it in crop mode because I figured why lose the pixels when I could just do it in post. Practically speaking, however, all my raw files from that shoot look like they are of bushes and trees. You have to crop in pretty far to see the animal that I was photographing. So, in that case, had I chosen crop mode, my image would have lost pixels, but would have been closer in to the subject of the photo. That is really what I am asking about with the 55-135. Will the image be "closer in" when using it in crop mode as compared to a full frame 55-135mm lens. In other words, if I inherently knew from experience with that focal length what it should look like in frame would it look closer than that?

Argh I'm proving your point in my reply! I'm going to change my name to "The Circle"

See my comments above. You are discussing all this from the perspective of a full frame user. The 55-135TL lens, and the OP who asked the question, are not.

You are taking a useful rule of thumb (multiply by 1.5) for how to consider the specific case of a full frame lens when its image is cropped to APS-C, which in reality just divides the angle of view by 1.5. That rule of thumb is not true physics/optics, though. If the lens focal length is the same, and the image size is unchanged (the angle of view is unchanged) then there are no 'equivalent focal lengths' to consider. 

Edited February 8, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

13 minutes ago, cirke said:

Then somehow it would be better , the middle of the sensor , no vignetting ?

No vignetting arising from the camera, certainly. If there was no vignetting arising from the 55-135 on the CL, then there should be no difference on the SL.

Edited February 8, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[Slender]

13 hours ago, cirke said:

Then somehow it would be better , the middle of the sensor , no vignetting ?

It's not the sensor that creates vignette, its the lens. Should be well corrected anyway and that is more visible on wide lenses anyway.

What is your next move for something wider if I may ask?

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, Steven said:

Argument for the SL2 is:
-the crisp high resolution images. 

Arguments for the SL2-S is: 
- cheaper, more money for lenses
- will get updates (notably on AF performance) before the SL2
- incredible low light perf, especially against the SL2
- usable for professional video use
 

SL2 is also less prone to moire (higher resolution sensor) and produces usable resolution images for APS-C lenses.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

Are there really people who buy a 6000 pro body to mount APSC lenses on it ? Not making fun, just being curious. 

I do not, but I read about several LUF members who do it.

I think some like to occasionally have a very lightweight AF setup. Leica's APS-C lenses are very good.

[cirke]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

Are there really people who buy a 6000 pro body to mount APSC lenses on it ? Not making fun, just being curious. 

Of course not but I have already a CL with 3 lenses and I’ll try them on the SL2

ill wait for the CL2 to decide if I keep or not them

 

[Slender]

I loooooveeeeeedddd trying the 18TL on SL2 (in silver, so sexxxy). Felt so great, looked very good (images and combo). Definitively on my list.

Sure, it would be silly to shell out 5300 pounds for SL2(s) and only toying around with APS-C or chinese lenses on it. But in a cute, almost humoristic, complement to a 24/90 or SL50lux, the TL primes fit a great bill for every day carry and street snapshots. 20+ MP still is more than the M9 I spent many years with.

The Voigt. VM 40 1.2 is on my radar, too. Too bad the Leica LtoM adapter cost about half as much.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Slender

[Simone_DF]

7 hours ago, Slender said:

The Voigt. VM 40 1.2 is on my radar, too. Too bad the Leica LtoM adapter cost about half as much.

If it is just for that one lens, why don't you go for a third party one? You can easily find them for 1/10th of the price. 

[Slender]

13 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

If it is just for that one lens, why don't you go for a third party one? You can easily find them for 1/10th of the price. 

Sure, but don't they cause issues like faster battery draining and so on? I could always code the Voigtlander as a Noctilux 50 1.2 🤪

[frame-it]

48 minutes ago, Slender said:

Sure, but don't they cause issues like faster battery draining and so on?

faster battery draining ? from a mechanical lens ? fascinating..

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Slender]

5 minutes ago, frame-it said:

faster battery draining ? from a mechanical lens ? fascinating..

Duh. From the fact that Leica SL2 is infamous for draining itself faster with non Leica things attached to it. It is not clear if it's an issue body to body or if FW 2.0 fixed this with Sigma and Panasonic L lenses. Ever heard of the "low power no 4k or burst for you" message that takes the whole screen?

Hence my question (not an affirmation) if third-party MtoL adapter can provoke this or not? And besides if I want to use regular Leica M lenses again with SL2 in the future the branded ring will pay itself (metadata, aperture evaluation, coding for lens correction and IBIS).