FOMO: No native Leica L-mount Lens for my SL2-S :(

[augustwest100]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been joyfully experimenting with my SL2-S as my only camera currently. I have prior experience with film SLRs, DSLRs, Film M’s, Digital M’s. Due to my “experimental” mindset, I now have the following lenses: Sigma 45mm L-mount for walk around with autofocus (family, light travel); Leica M Summicron 35 for walk around without autofocus (street); Sigma 105mm Macro for, well, macro or tele in a pinch).I will get a 21mm voigtlander at some point, just to experiment, it’s not my typical focal length.

Now my options

I can add another M mount lens, or was considering trading my Cron for a Lux.

-OR-

I can add an SL Prime lens, such as 35mm or 50mm

-OR-

I can add the 24-90

 

My logic with the first option is that the M lenses are so light and powerful and can later be used on an M body. My love affair with M bodies is not over - we are just dating other people right now. My logic on the second choice is probably more of a “fear” of having this great new camera  but none of the lenses I currently have are actually native Leica SL Lenses. Am I getting the most out of the sensor that I can with Sigma and M lenses? And my logic of the third option is that if I am going to have a native L mount Leica lens, I should get the 24-90 because for the price, I get like 6 focal lengths for the price of one! I would be willing to spend the money for one of these three options, but could not really spend the money on more than one of these options.

Any help?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LD_50]

The Leica SL lenses are all good. They’re better than the M lenses and the Sigmas optically and in weather sealing, and worse in size, price, and lacking aperture control. The three zooms focus very quickly and are great optically and the 50 Summilux is my most used lens. The Summicrons are awesome and I would likely own a few if they had preceded the zooms.

I would not worry about not having a Leica lens in native mount if you’re content with the results you’re getting from the Sigmas.

Edited March 15, 2021 by LD_50

[Advertisement]

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

[ravinj]

>more of a “fear” of having this great new camera  but none of the lenses I currently have are actually native Leica SL Lenses

I wouldn't call it fear, but I would question the money spent on SL2-S (or SL2 for that matter) and not have at least one SL prime. If you like 50MM FL, get the SL 50 Summicron. You won't regret it and I see quite a lot pop up in mint condition at reasonable prices on a very popular photo forum in the US market.

I now have SL 50 and SL 90. Sold my SL 35 and SL 75 - not that they were bad but rather that my 28-35 "lens" is the Q2 and 75 is not a FL I use a lot. 

My fav is the SL 90.

Like you, I have some of the M lenses that are in my "keep forever" collection and I do enjoy them on both the M10 and SL2.

Edited March 15, 2021 by ravinj

[augustwest100]

31 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

The Leica SL lenses are all good. They’re better than the M lenses and the Sigmas optically and in weather sealing, and worse in size, price, and lacking aperture control. The three zooms focus very quickly and are great optically and the 50 Summilux is my most used lens. The Summicrons are awesome and I would likely own a few if they had preceded the zooms.

I would not worry about not having a Leica lens in native mount if you’re content with the results you’re getting from the Sigmas.

I like the Sigmas for what they do, so far. In other words, the Macro is great for macro. I've never even had a dedicated macro lens before so that's just something to explore. The 45mm is a great replacement for my prior setup in this regard (A sony with the zeiss 55 1.8). It is light and I like the 45mm focal length much better than the 55 zeiss.

Sounds like you are saying that IF I were to add a Leica lens, it should be an SL prime though and not the 24-90?

[OHW]

vor 33 Minuten schrieb augustwest100:

I like the Sigmas for what they do, so far. In other words, the Macro is great for macro. I've never even had a dedicated macro lens before so that's just something to explore. The 45mm is a great replacement for my prior setup in this regard (A sony with the zeiss 55 1.8). It is light and I like the 45mm focal length much better than the 55 zeiss.

Sounds like you are saying that IF I were to add a Leica lens, it should be an SL prime though and not the 24-90?

In my eyes, 24-90 has gained an unjustifiably bad reputation. That's not fair! It's a fantastic lens. In fact 3 primes in one! There are people who would disagree with that but for the vast majority, 24-90 will be great!

[LD_50]

33 minutes ago, augustwest100 said:

I like the Sigmas for what they do, so far. In other words, the Macro is great for macro. I've never even had a dedicated macro lens before so that's just something to explore. The 45mm is a great replacement for my prior setup in this regard (A sony with the zeiss 55 1.8). It is light and I like the 45mm focal length much better than the 55 zeiss.

Sounds like you are saying that IF I were to add a Leica lens, it should be an SL prime though and not the 24-90?

I love the zooms. I have all three. The 24-90 is really good and I use it. It really depends on whether you prefer primes or zooms and what you need.

The primes are lighter and smaller individually but the zooms do the job of multiple. The primes provide better IQ and larger aperture. 

I would go test the 24-90 and see if you could live with it. 

[AZN]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, ravinj said:

I would question the money spent on SL2-S (or SL2 for that matter) and not have at least one SL prime

Sigh.  I have an extensive collection of Leica R and M lenses and not one SL lens, do they not count?…

[ravinj]

Sigh indeed. If it is already working for you, great. I was responding to OP.

[hansvons]

Reading your list, it seems you are a man of primes. Get your favourite focal lengths as an SL prime, and go happy camping. Otherwise, the 24-90 is a class of its own. It's the best stills zoom I've ever used and much more of a variable prime than a makeshift. Only the F4 on the long end seems not desirable, but in reality, with the SL2-S outstanding ISO performance, a non-issue for narrative shooting. If shallow DOF and flurry background are yours's the 24-90 is the wrong lens. But the bokeh is classy, smooth and not busy, with no fringes around the orbs and shapes. CA is a non-issue too.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

One of the nice things about the SL system is it's adaptability. It really can be used perfectly with so many lenses. Although I am weighed down with SL glass I see absolutely no reason you should *have to have an SL lens*. An architecture or landscape photographer could happily use an SL2 with Canon's excellent TS lenses. Macro photographer can use SIgmas optics. S system shooters can use an SL2 if they want IBIS or a bit more reach. And of course M lenses work best on the SL system compared to any other EVF camera (besides the M and viso).

*If* you are seeking an AF lens then yes, you'll be extremely happy with one of the SL lenses. The SL24-90 is perfect in dynamic environments and is my most used lens in the system. But it's 2kg with a camera strapped to it, if that matters. Same for the 50 Summilux, although that's still my favourite SL lens, despite it's slower AF. If you've ever lusted over an M50APO then any of the Summicrons will help scratch that itch, with AF.

Your camera. Your choice. One camera with one lens lends itself to an infinite number of photographic opportunities. More gear can get in the way. At the same time sometimes that itch needs to be scratched.

Gordon

[Slender]

1 hour ago, AZN said:

Sigh.  I have an extensive collection of Leica R and M lenses and not one SL lens, do they not count?…

Well at least it's Leica right

I remember when the SL601 came out (and that was one of the, if not the, most expensive Leica camera there was). Some dude at one of my local dealer in Paris blew all his cash on it (his words) and then went for a voigtlander 50 1.1 (not even the 1.2 then...). That was a dumb move even my wife agreed with me on that one 😔

I think OP should at least try/rent/borrow some SL glass once to see the light and get a definitive answer to his question about FOMO

Edited March 15, 2021 by Slender

[frame-it]

1 hour ago, Slender said:

Some dude at one of my local dealer in Paris blew all his cash on it (his words) and then went for a voigtlander 50 1.1 (not even the 1.2 then...). That was a dumb move even my wife agreed with me on that one

so did you tell him he was dumb ?

[beewee]

Ergonomically speaking, shooting M lenses on an SL2-S vs SL primes is like shooting two completely different cameras. Different size, weight, feel, style, and work flow. So I think you need to first figure out what you want to get out of the system with using M lenses on an SL.

From my experience, I haven’t been super happy with corner sharpness on wide angle M lenses on the SL and since I’m mostly a wide angle shooter, M lenses on the SL2-S is just the wrong tool for the job. The new Sigmas perform admirably and I’ve been happy with them so far. On a 24 MP camera, the SL primes are a bit overkill. The Sigma primes are plenty sharp for 24 MP so unless you’re going for a specific look that the SL prime offers, then I don’t see the point there too. Although the SL primes are lighter than the 24-90, they are not light compared to the Sigma primes like the 45mm that you have. Coming from an M10 (still have it), I try to avoid big heavy lenses whenever I can so for me the 24-90 is out of the question. It’s just plain too big no matter how good it is for a zoom.

If IQ and resolution is of utmost importance, then get a SL2 + SL prime. But if you’re going for a certain look then pick the lens that gives you that look. If you prioritize ergonomics/workflow, then pick the lenses that give you that. All in all, any of the Sigma DG DN lenses and Leica SL lenses will give you good enough image quality at 24 MP. Unless you’re moving to 50-100 or higher MP, then maybe you’ll gain some with the SL primes but for an SL2-S, I don’t think you’ll see much benefit but you’ll certainly notice the extra weight on your camera and less weight in your bank account.

Edited March 16, 2021 by beewee

[LocalHero1953]

4 hours ago, beewee said:

Ergonomically speaking, shooting M lenses on an SL2-S vs SL primes is like shooting two completely different cameras. Different size, weight, feel, style, and work flow. So I think you need to first figure out what you want to get out of the system with using M lenses on an SL.

From my experience, I haven’t been super happy with corner sharpness on wide angle M lenses on the SL and since I’m mostly a wide angle shooter, M lenses on the SL2-S is just the wrong tool for the job. The new Sigmas perform admirably and I’ve been happy with them so far. On a 24 MP camera, the SL primes are a bit overkill. The Sigma primes are plenty sharp for 24 MP so unless you’re going for a specific look that the SL prime offers, then I don’t see the point there too. Although the SL primes are lighter than the 24-90, they are not light compared to the Sigma primes like the 45mm that you have. Coming from an M10 (still have it), I try to avoid big heavy lenses whenever I can so for me the 24-90 is out of the question. It’s just plain too big no matter how good it is for a zoom.

If IQ and resolution is of utmost importance, then get a SL2 + SL prime. But if you’re going for a certain look then pick the lens that gives you that look. If you prioritize ergonomics/workflow, then pick the lenses that give you that. All in all, any of the Sigma DG DN lenses and Leica SL lenses will give you good enough image quality at 24 MP. Unless you’re moving to 50-100 or higher MP, then maybe you’ll gain some with the SL primes but for an SL2-S, I don’t think you’ll see much benefit but you’ll certainly notice the extra weight on your camera and less weight in your bank account.

You would be right if the SL primes were just about resolution - but (IMO) they're not. On any camera you will get the benefit of their APO characteristics and how they manage sharpness and focus before and behind the focal plane.

Also, as someone who had the SL since launch, the SL2 for 2 months and now the SL2-S, I picked the SL2-S for those elements of IQ that are not about resolution (which is not so important to me): colour, noise (levels and patterns), highlight management, shadow recovery.

[Slender]

9 hours ago, frame-it said:

so did you tell him he was dumb ?

I said a dumb move, not a dumb person as a whole 🙄. We all get inapropriate GAS from time to time. But yeah now you see all those €7500rrp SL601 pilling up in stores and on summilux.net for less than 2000euros and nobody wants to hear about the 1.1 version of that 50 now that there is a (supposedly better) 1.2.

Some of those 601 well used, they had a meaningfull life of service.... but the vast majority looks to have shot very few frames.

In 2021 SL is now the most affordable way to shoot interchangeable lens FF Leica, ain't that amazing? Thank you all the Noctilux and limited edition M people.

[augustwest100]

I appreciate all the feedback here! Nice to hear differing opinions from people who really care about the products and about photography in general. 

I think that by buying the SL2S with the Sigma 45mm and the Macro 105 (and eyeing the Sigma 24-70 or 28-70), I am saying to myself that I value overall weight and price over resolution and image quality. With the M bodies, I valued the unique shooting experience along with the low weight, but was willing to buy M lenses over some less expensive alternatives. Some of my favorite M photos are not even completely in focus!  

What I like about the SL2S is that you can make it one thing or another. Small enough with M lenses, and usable enough for autofocus with the Sigmas without becoming to heavy or too expensive, though weight and cost are relative I suppose. 

I haven’t had enough experience yet with my Cron on the SL2S to say for sure, but the focus experience is...different. Not better or worse at this point. The rangefinder focusing method was simple and sublime, but not perfect for me. The zoom in and focus method of EVF cameras is more accurate but also more jarring to me, like teleporting to a spot for an instant and then teleporting back to take the picture.

I will try to report back one day after having some time to use these lenses!

Thanks again for the feedback.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

12 hours ago, Slender said:

I said a dumb move, not a dumb person as a whole 🙄. We all get inapropriate GAS from time to time. But yeah now you see all those €7500rrp SL601 pilling up in stores and on summilux.net for less than 2000euros and nobody wants to hear about the 1.1 version of that 50 now that there is a (supposedly better) 1.2.

Some of those 601 well used, they had a meaningfull life of service.... but the vast majority looks to have shot very few frames.

In 2021 SL is now the most affordable way to shoot interchangeable lens FF Leica, ain't that amazing? Thank you all the Noctilux and limited edition M people.

I made a lot of money off the CV 50mm 1.1. It was a true character lens. When I had saved enough I got a Noctilux because it was better, except it really wasn't 10K better at all. I really should have kept that 1.1. The differences were slight and not always in the Leicas favor. But the Noctilux paid for it self and I sold it for almost what I paid for it and bought the CV50mm 1.2 which I vastly prefer to either of the other two. But it's a very different lens. Much more modern and much sharper than either of the others. The CV50mm 1.1 was supposed to be a poor mans noctilux and it actually does that brilliantly. But like a Noct, it a hard lens to have as your only 50. The 50mm 1.2 is a lens that can be your only 50 and I prefer it to my Summilux and have another 1/2 stop to play with.

Gordon

[beewee]

21 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

You would be right if the SL primes were just about resolution - but (IMO) they're not. On any camera you will get the benefit of their APO characteristics and how they manage sharpness and focus before and behind the focal plane.

Hence the “unless you’re going for a specific look that the SL prime offers” below:

On 3/15/2021 at 9:31 PM, beewee said:

The Sigma primes are plenty sharp for 24 MP so unless you’re going for a specific look that the SL prime offers, then I don’t see the point there too.

 

[Slender]

10 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I made a lot of money off the CV 50mm 1.1. It was a true character lens.

Sure, I am not denying any of this. I took wonderful moments through crappy lenses that sells for 30-80euros on half functioning Topcon cameras... Loved it. My opinion was and remains that, if you can shell out 7500 euros on a perishable digital cameras, it is also -perhaps- wise to consider sparing a bit of that for good, durable lenses as well. By durable I dont mean physically -- those cosina offerings really are nice both optically and mechanically --- but let's be honest, I am talking about the "poor man pays twice" proverb... or our french version of "le bon marche, c'est toujours trop cher". Meaning that if I go out tomorow and get a Voigtlander 50 1.2 (I think I would prefer 40 for a buy like this but....) instead of the lens I truly covet since its launch: SL 50 1.4 "because I can have it tomorow".... well chances are the "real" goal will remain up there in my head regardless of how good what I got instead is. And eventually I would buy another lens yet again

Edited March 17, 2021 by Slender

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[augustwest100]

4 hours ago, Slender said:

Sure, I am not denying any of this. I took wonderful moments through crappy lenses that sells for 30-80euros on half functioning Topcon cameras... Loved it. My opinion was and remains that, if you can shell out 7500 euros on a perishable digital cameras, it is also -perhaps- wise to consider sparing a bit of that for good, durable lenses as well. By durable I dont mean physically -- those cosina offerings really are nice both optically and mechanically --- but let's be honest, I am talking about the "poor man pays twice" proverb... or our french version of "le bon marche, c'est toujours trop cher". Meaning that if I go out tomorow and get a Voigtlander 50 1.2 (I think I would prefer 40 for a buy like this but....) instead of the lens I truly covet since its launch: SL 50 1.4 "because I can have it tomorow".... well chances are the "real" goal will remain up there in my head regardless of how good what I got instead is. And eventually I would buy another lens yet again

You are probably right about this. What I was thinking generally was that the SL2-S for me is a way to experiment with multiple systems in one camera. This way, I do not need to re-learn all the basic menus and settings. In this scenario for me, I seem to tend towards the Sigma AF lenses so that I can afford true M lenses later on. I am not sure why that is, but probably is because I know in the back of my mind that eventually I will pick up another M body, because the one thing I miss right now is the experience of looking through actual glass at the actual world. 

In a larger metaphysical sense, though, you are certainly correct. Coveting future “stuff” generally leads to more unhappiness, while respecting and enjoying stuff you already have generally leads to more happiness. Now I have to go online and check the prices of a used Leica M10P...