Papab Posted May 9 Share #1 Posted May 9 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can only keep one, which one with a 35mm attached would you grab for travel and general shooting, and more importantly why? If it was the M10 instead of the M240 would your decision be different? Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joakim Posted May 9 Share #2 Posted May 9 (edited) I would prefer to travel with a M240/M10 because of the smaller size. Specially if we are talking native 35mm lenses. Edited May 9 by Joakim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ajmarton1 Posted May 9 Share #3 Posted May 9 If you are not taking advantage of the AF I would take the M10. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Leicaiste Posted May 9 Share #4 Posted May 9 It depend of the 35mm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stef63 Posted May 9 Share #5 Posted May 9 M240 vs SL2 : SL2 no question for me. M10 vs SL2 : difficult. With only one lens and in the near future no other extra lens, probably the M10 for its compactness. But like @Leicaistealready said "which 35"? A vintage Cron IV or a Summilux FLE? Then the FLE maybe on the SL2 by a small margin. The Corn IV definitely on the M10. If more lenses are on the roadmap, then again which ones? 28 mm to 75 mm : no doubt the M10. Wider or longer then the SL2 comes in as the more appropriate choice. On a general note : If you consider the current M, SL and CL line of cameras and the LTM, M and R lens series (old and new), then Leica has a unique offering in the market that is not seen elsewhere. Especially if you take into account that more than 90 years of history of fine optics is still available on a wide range of cameras with each their specifics and areas of use. But it doesn't make the choice easy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Einst_Stein Posted May 9 Share #6 Posted May 9 (edited) I will take SL, even if I want to carry M lens. The size beyween SL and M body is only the EvF bump, but not a big deal. Edited May 9 by Einst_Stein OR120 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slender Posted May 9 Share #7 Posted May 9 Advertisement (gone after registration) SL2(s) you got super low light, very precise framing and video on top of that... and dual SD if you fancy a layer of security on top what's not to like? Which 35 for both tho? Michael Markey, OR120 and Cobram 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Yellow_78 Posted May 9 Share #8 Posted May 9 Hi there! I've owned the m240 and the m10 in the past. Currently I have the SL2-s and can say without bias I would definately take it out other than the other two if it were up to me. Size doesn't bother me so I'm good there. The high ISO, IBIS and ability to switch over to video if need be is what gets me. It's so versatile and I can use my M lenses if I want a smaller form. Plus, the grip is a bonus for me. Feels so nice and ergonomic! My 2c! Michael Markey, Cobram, Kim Dahl and 1 other 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
setuporg Posted May 10 Share #9 Posted May 10 The new vintage Voigtlander 35/2.0 makes the M package so small (and all silver) that I’d rather use that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Gough Posted May 10 Share #10 Posted May 10 SL2s everytime. OR120 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IkarusJohn Posted May 10 Share #11 Posted May 10 Just one M lens, then I'd take the M camera. The SL is a great universal mount for all Leica and Leitz lenses, and it's a great camera too. But if you're taking one M lens, why bother? If you need video, your M240 will do that; but more importantly the M240 is smaller, lighter and perfect for manual focus with the rangefinder. I find my M10-D far faster and more intuitive than my SL using M lenses. It would be good to know which 35. Some M lenses work better on the SL than others ... One lens with the SL? 24-90 ... but that's not what you asked. setuporg 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jaapv Posted May 11 Share #12 Posted May 11 40 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said: Just one M lens, then I'd take the M camera. The SL is a great universal mount for all Leica and Leitz lenses, and it's a great camera too. But if you're taking one M lens, why bother? If you need video, your M240 will do that; but more importantly the M240 is smaller, lighter and perfect for manual focus with the rangefinder. I find my M10-D far faster and more intuitive than my SL using M lenses. It would be good to know which 35. Some M lenses work better on the SL than others ... One lens with the SL? 24-90 ... but that's not what you asked. +1 . But the same could be said of a CL with a 21/23/24/25 mm lens.Even smaller, even lighter and with comparable image quality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IkarusJohn Posted May 11 Share #13 Posted May 11 56 minutes ago, jaapv said: +1 . But the same could be said of a CL with a 21/23/24/25 mm lens.Even smaller, even lighter and with comparable image quality. Or the TL2, with a 28 Summaron-M (same field of view as 42mm in 135 format). jaapv 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Max EPR Posted May 21 Share #14 Posted May 21 The M is more fun and smaller; the SL2 with SL lens' is stabilized, sharper, easier, slightly bigger, heavier, 2 SD cards, longer lasting battery Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chris_tribble Posted May 21 Share #15 Posted May 21 (edited) For a city outing and one prime 35 lens, the M every time. I had the M10 and 35 Summicron asph with me for my last trip to London and it was such a good experience - both being back in the smoke and using an M again. I’ve loved the SL2 and the 24-90 in the hills during this interminable lock down, but the M is an urban animal! Evidence below 🙂 https://www.flickr.com/gp/ctribble/gU568G Edited May 21 by chris_tribble Paul925 and LocalHero1953 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SonomaBear Posted May 21 Share #16 Posted May 21 Travel: I always take my Q Light carry not far from home: SL with M lenses Serious travel/hiking: SL with 24-70 Good luck! setuporg 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
setuporg Posted May 22 Share #17 Posted May 22 (edited) 3 hours ago, SonomaBear said: Serious travel/hiking: SL with 24-70 Why would you hike with a heavy load?:). Q2 is made for hiking. Edited May 22 by setuporg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Q Posted May 22 Share #18 Posted May 22 Yeah for travel or city outings, Q or M without a doubt. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IkarusJohn Posted June 7 Share #19 Posted June 7 (edited) On 5/22/2021 at 3:48 PM, setuporg said: Why would you hike with a heavy load?:). Q2 is made for hiking. Rugged, weatherproof and one lens with a useful range. Not sure I’d take a 28mm lens with me when heading into the hills … Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! Edited June 7 by IkarusJohn setuporg and rpittal 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
setuporg Posted June 7 Share #20 Posted June 7 16 hours ago, IkarusJohn said: Rugged, weatherproof and one lens with a useful range. Not sure I’d take a 28mm lens with me when heading into the hills … True, you need a longer lens for many landscapes, but carrying a huge weight up the mountain is no fun either. An M10R with WATE+APO 50 one of 90/135 could be more fun/versatile... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.