Smaller, lighter lens recommendations for the SL2?

[billh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My new SL2 arrived yesterday, and I opened it and held the camera, and the weight and feel of the body seemed OK.  My Q2M uses the same battery so I inserted it and a card, and attached a rental APO 75 Summicron - wow! I left Nikon for Sony to get a lighter weight camera system, and this combination is really heavy. The other lens I rented to try is a Sigma 35mm f1.4. Its better, but still pretty heavy, and I’d rather have an f2.0 or even f2.8 because of the small size and lower weight. I ordered the M adapter to see what using the smaller M lenses is like. One reviewer told me he liked the SL APO Summicrons and the Sigma 45/2.8, 35/2.0 and 24/3.5, and I’m fairly sure that is because of the size and weight of these slower Sigma lenses. Do any of you have recommendations for smaller, lighter carry-around lenses which yield excellent image quality on the SL2. Prime lenses should be sharper (and lighter), and an aperture of f2.8 or even higher is OK because I rarely shoot wide open. 28mm to 70mm or 90mm is the focal range I’m interested in - probably a 28 or 35 and a 70-90mm range. Thank you.

[Photoworks]

the small sigma lenses do well in sharpens. I have the 45mm lens and to me it has a boring look to it. Nothing special. I never use it.

The Summicron-SL 50 is double the size, but I nicer rending wide open.
But if you like to stop down a bit anyway then Sigma can be what you are looking for. the Leica SL lenses are all heavy, once you have a few in the bag you can feel the difference . But Leica has that extra 5% that is magic.

 

PS: the 45mm Sigma is a slower focusing lens.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Photoworks

[Stuart Richardson]

The Sigma 24mm is excellent and light. I think you would be happy with their 35mm or 65mm DG DN lenses. If you think the 75mm is heavy, then I imagine you will think the rest are as well as I think they are all pretty similar on that front. The SL system is not a light system by any means, but I think the SL summicrons balance very well on the body and give the best balance of image quality to size in the system, at least as far as Leica is concerned. The zooms are bigger and heavier and optically inferior (still very good, just not as good as the summicrons). I have found the rendering of the Sigma lenses to be very nice, but I also preferred the 50mm APO to the 45mm 2.8, primarily because the 45mm is still a bit soft at 2.8, especially up close. It is better stopped down. It seems to me that the most attractive Sigma primes are the 24, 35 and 65 DG DN Contemporary line...they have moderately fast speed, very good build quality and perform well on the system. I have found the 24mm to be quite sharp wide open across the frame, and very sharp stopped down. It is better than any M lens in this focal range that I have tried...it seems the lenses made in the last few years are on another optical level to most made even 5 to 10 years ago...

Edited March 19, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[LD_50]

2 hours ago, billh said:

My new SL2 arrived yesterday, and I opened it and held the camera, and the weight and feel of the body seemed OK.  My Q2M uses the same battery so I inserted it and a card, and attached a rental APO 75 Summicron - wow! I left Nikon for Sony to get a lighter weight camera system, and this combination is really heavy. The other lens I rented to try is a Sigma 35mm f1.4. Its better, but still pretty heavy, and I’d rather have an f2.0 or even f2.8 because of the small size and lower weight. I ordered the M adapter to see what using the smaller M lenses is like. One reviewer told me he liked the SL APO Summicrons and the Sigma 45/2.8, 35/2.0 and 24/3.5, and I’m fairly sure that is because of the size and weight of these slower Sigma lenses. Do any of you have recommendations for smaller, lighter carry-around lenses which yield excellent image quality on the SL2. Prime lenses should be sharper (and lighter), and an aperture of f2.8 or even higher is OK because I rarely shoot wide open. 28mm to 70mm or 90mm is the focal range I’m interested in - probably a 28 or 35 and a 70-90mm range. Thank you.

If you left Nikon looking for lighter weight, Leica wasn’t the place to go unless you’re going to shoot M lenses. 

[Lucio]

Lightweight and sharp

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!

[billh]

5 hours ago, Photoworks said:

the small sigma lenses do well in sharpens. I have the 45mm lens and to me it has a boring look to it. Nothing special. I never use it.

The Summicron-SL 50 is double the size, but I nicer rending wide open.
But if you like to stop down a bit anyway then Sigma can be what you are looking for. the Leica SL lenses are all heavy, once you have a few in the bag you can feel the difference . But Leica has that extra 5% that is magic.

 

PS: the 45mm Sigma is a slower focusing lens.

Thanks for this info.

[billh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

The Sigma 24mm is excellent and light. I think you would be happy with their 35mm or 65mm DG DN lenses. If you think the 75mm is heavy, then I imagine you will think the rest are as well as I think they are all pretty similar on that front. The SL system is not a light system by any means, but I think the SL summicrons balance very well on the body and give the best balance of image quality to size in the system, at least as far as Leica is concerned. The zooms are bigger and heavier and optically inferior (still very good, just not as good as the summicrons). I have found the rendering of the Sigma lenses to be very nice, but I also preferred the 50mm APO to the 45mm 2.8, primarily because the 45mm is still a bit soft at 2.8, especially up close. It is better stopped down. It seems to me that the most attractive Sigma primes are the 24, 35 and 65 DG DN Contemporary line...they have moderately fast speed, very good build quality and perform well on the system. I have found the 24mm to be quite sharp wide open across the frame, and very sharp stopped down. It is better than any M lens in this focal range that I have tried...it seems the lenses made in the last few years are on another optical level to most made even 5 to 10 years ago...

Thanks Stuart.

[billh]

40 minutes ago, Lucio said:

Lightweight and sharp

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!

This is the Sigma 24mm?

[Lucio]

7 minutes ago, billh said:

Questo è il Sigma 24mm?

Exactly Billh, a beautiful surprise

[Photoworks]

3 minutes ago, Lucio said:

Exactly Billh, a beautiful surprise

how is the Biography?

[aksclix]

All of sigma DG DN contemporary lenses are perfect choices for your needs.. Panasonic 85 is lighter than sigma 85 C lens.. and much cheaper too

[billh]

1 hour ago, aksclix said:

All of sigma DG DN contemporary lenses are perfect choices for your needs.. Panasonic 85 is lighter than sigma 85 C lens.. and much cheaper too

Thank you!

 

[LD_50]

4 hours ago, Priaptor said:

I do agree 100%.

I went the SL2 route for the outstanding results from the combo of camera and the amazing lenses. I am not here to preach to others about mating the SL line with non-Leica lenses but I continue to be wowed by the SL2 with Leica lenses. Everyday I shoot with my SL2 I just can't believe how much I love the experience as well as what I see in post. 

However, to the OP point, having a lighter system has some merit. I was literally about to press the button on the 35 mm SL APO lens (obviously not a lightweight)  when Leica announced the 35 mm M APO, which gave me some food for thought and I left the orphaned 35 SL APO in the cart until I could do some soul searching. 

Yeah I want an amazing APO prime to compliment my 24-90 Leica all around lens and that I have decided is "a" 35mm APO. However, would it be nice to have a lighter SL2/35mm APO combo that "may" equal the amazing SL APO 35mm for those days of wanting a lighter camera? Of course BUT the price difference is 3K+ with adapter and losing autofocus. One day will I go back to an M series and have the best of both worlds, maybe, but not soon.

For full disclosure I do have a Q2 which I purchased a year ago for a "lightweight" wide alternative but have to admit that I am so enamored by the SL2 that I hardly reach for the Q2 and am willing to sacrifice the weight. While I like 28 I don't love shooting at 28.

So I too am left with a decision. I do love shooting between 21-24, would like a light weight option for those days I just want a light weight option and love the SL2 as my main camera. So I was thinking of waiting for the M 35 APO as my "light weight" alternative to the Q2 (yes I get the difference in focal length) or get the readily available and stunning 35 SL APO and an M SEM 21 3.4 until Leica releases some SL wide alternatives while selling my Q2?

Sorry for the stream of consciousness BUT Leica threw me for a loop with their release of the stunning 35 mm M APO and potential for a smaller footprint SL2 combo. 

I would choose the SL APO over the M lens myself and maybe add another 35 M lens if you need the small size at times. . But I do own an M 35 ASPH FLE already, as well as the 16-35 and 24-90 zooms. 

[Stuart Richardson]

6 hours ago, Priaptor said:

Don't know how I missed your post. The 24 mm would be my preference. You state it better than any M you have tried. Which ones have you tried? This may make choice simple. 

Thanks

I have the 25mm Biogon ZM, the 18mm Distagon ZM, and used to have the 21mm Biogon. More recently, I borrowed the 21mm Super Elmar M (I compared it directly...the Sigma is sharper across the frame, though with slightly less contrast on center, but it still has high contrast. For me, this means the Sigma is better, as evenly sharp performance is better than a very sharp center that gets softer at the edges). This was on the SL2...the 21mm Super Elmar may be better on the M. The copy I tried was also somewhat decentered, so a good factory copy may be better. I also have the 28mm Elmarit V3 and used to have the 28mm Summicron ASPH v1. I am a huge Leica fan....but it is hard to argue with your own eyes. The 24mm is just a very very good lens. Rather sharp from edge to edge at 3.5 at 47mp, made from metal, weather sealed, autofocus, focuses almost to the macro range, light, small and good looking...I am not sure what else one can ask for for a 550 dollars...a level of performance that would have been unheard of in most lenses more than 10 years old.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[Stuart Richardson]

That is my eventual plan too...have the Leica for 35mm, stick to Sigma for the wider, less used focal length. I figured I would try it, and so far, I see no reason to replace it...especially when Leica does not have a native prime in this focal length.

[michali]

Earlier this week I purchased the Sigma 24mm f3.5. So far I'm very pleased with it, as with my other Sigma lenses build quality is good, excellent handling, nice size & great IQ.

The aperture ring is a big plus for me. Maybe I'm old school, but I love these lenses with aperture rings, less fiddling about with buttons & dials on the camera. I also recently acquired the Sigma 65mm f2, another excellent lens from Sigma. You also don't need to sell a kidney to be able to afford these lenses & they deliver excellent results. 

 

 

[Reggie]

Don’t dismiss the Sigma 45 either. As Stuart says, it’s a little soft close up wide open but razor sharp by f4. It’s a well understood ‘feature’ of this lens caused by under corrected spherical aberration. The upside to this is that the focus transition zones are extremely smooth (at any aperture) as are the OOF areas with no fringing or CA which creates a unique (among compact, light lenses) rendering. Playing to the glow created by the under corrected SA can also yield very dreamy, romantic and flattering images.

The 24mm Sigma seems to be the closest to the 45mm in rendering quality. The 35mm and 65mm lenses are sharper but I’m not a fan of the occasional LoCA, CA and fringing in OOF areas which can creep in and make backgrounds look ‘busy’ (the 35 is the worst offender in this regard)  

And although it’s heavier, larger and more expensive than the Panasonic 85 f1.8, the Sigma 85 f1.4 is a superb lens and performs much better than the Panny (sigma has zero LoCA vs the Panny and renders very nicely). There are plenty of forum members using it with everyone singing its praises apart from a wedding photographer who likes it but is seeing too much flare and loss of contrast in backlit shots. However, it’s still a lot lighter than the SL 75 or 90.

A Sigma 24, 45 and 85 makes an excellent kit and if you feel the need for some Leica glass and a 35mm focal length then the SL 35’s reputation goes before it. 

[Daniel C.1975]

I have the Sigma 24 3.5 in addition to my Leica 35 and 75. It is a beautiful, light and very sharp lens. The rendering seems a bit more on the classical side.

It was thought as a gap filler until the Leica version is available, but I am not so sure anymore if I need to do the upgrade.

Only downside is that one can’t fix the aperture ring. I prefer to adjust the aperture on the camera, so I keep the lens on A, but I regularly knock the ring to f22 when mounting it. No Desaster but a small annoyance.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Daniel C.1975

[billh]

On 3/19/2021 at 9:34 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

I have the 25mm Biogon ZM, the 18mm Distagon ZM, and used to have the 21mm Biogon. More recently, I borrowed the 21mm Super Elmar M (I compared it directly...the Sigma is sharper across the frame, though with slightly less contrast on center, but it still has high contrast. For me, this means the Sigma is better, as evenly sharp performance is better than a very sharp center that gets softer at the edges). This was on the SL2...the 21mm Super Elmar may be better on the M. The copy I tried was also somewhat decentered, so a good factory copy may be better. I also have the 28mm Elmarit V3 and used to have the 28mm Summicron ASPH v1. I am a huge Leica fan....but it is hard to argue with your own eyes. The 24mm is just a very very good lens. Rather sharp from edge to edge at 3.5 at 47mp, made from metal, weather sealed, autofocus, focuses almost to the macro range, light, small and good looking...I am not sure what else one can ask for for a 550 dollars...a level of performance that would have been unheard of in most lenses more than 10 years old.

My M adapted came yesterday, and I compared my M APO 70 Summicron with the SL APO 75, and there is a considerable difference in the SL versions favor. The Noctilux wide open did provide an pretty image. I appreciate your comments on the Sigma 24 - Maybe that and the 65, of the 24 and the Sigma 70mm f2.8 Macro? There are so many combinations using the Sigma 24, 35, 45, 65 and Macro 70....I will initially buy at least one of the SL primes - probably the APO75 since I tend to use that focal length more than the wide lenses. You guys have been a great help. Thanks very much to everyone!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Reggie]

7 minutes ago, billh said:

 There are so many combinations using the Sigma 24, 35, 45, 65 and Macro 70....I will initially buy at least one of the SL primes - probably the APO75 since I tend to use that focal length more than the wide lenses. You guys have been a great help. Thanks very much to everyone!

If you get the SL75 and you want a macro then it's logical to get the Sigma 105 Macro (it's much better than the 70 macro), skip the Sigma 65 and get the 45 and 24 for a great four prime kit.