SL vs M (if you could only keep one)

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't go by Internet blogs. Many are uninformed and witless. It is hard for an outsider to pick out the validity. If you look through this forum, there a threads on the subject. It is a very good lens by all accounts, personally I would go for the Sigma version if the price difference is significant.
Sigma builds excellent to superb lenses and Leica has used their designs from time to time in the past.

[Advertisement]

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

[Photoworks]

9 hours ago, mucius said:

Both SL2 cameras are available with the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-70mm f/2.8 ASPH. lens. Does anyone know this lens? I've seen some reviews that are not that good, some claiming that it is actually a Sigma lens. It's an attractive option as 24-90 is more than twice the cost, upward of $5,000. I am a new user trying to transition to Leica. Any insight would be appreciated, thank you.

Both lenses are very good and have different qualities. I use both for different situations.
For what I see in my shots is that the 24-70 performed less then stellar in macro shots, but very good in any other occasion.

[robb]

I have always loved all Leica's.  M and R in the past.  But if I could keep only one it would be an SL2 with SL and M glass.  To me it gives me M smallish form factor with capabilities out of this world.  No contest to me.  

Robb

[Chris Nebard]

On 12/16/2021 at 2:42 PM, jaapv said:

Don't go by Internet blogs. Many are uninformed and witless. It is hard for an outsider to pick out the validity. If you look through this forum, there a threads on the subject. It is a very good lens by all accounts, personally I would go for the Sigma version if the price difference is significant.
Sigma builds excellent to superb lenses and Leica has used their designs from time to time in the past.

Yes, the Leica 24-70 f2.8 is a lovely lens. I bought it packaged with the SL2-S and the M-L adapter. Mine is a bit “dusty” - I have a couple of tiny specks on the inside of the front element, but, it is a zoom and most if not all will suck in dust after a period of normal use. It is quite big but I love the results I get from it on the SL2-S, at all apertures and throughout the range. I covered a wedding with it only last week and it did a lovely job.
 

Going back to the original poster’s question, I traded in my M262 (which I’d had from new) for the SL2-S/24-70 - great camera but I don’t regret it one bit. I can use M lenses for my M/F fix when I feel I need it. M lenses and the fantastic (value for money, optically excellent) Sigma DG/DN Contemporary primes completely transform the use of the camera - for me. It won’t be the same for everyone but if I had to choose just one camera, between an M and my SL2-S, it would be the SL2-S - but I’d insist on a couple of those Sigmas and M lenses because it gives me, personally, the best of both worlds. 

Then there’s my old Q typ 116. Just beautiful…….🤣

[tom0511]

Am 16.12.2021 um 15:11 schrieb mucius:

Both SL2 cameras are available with the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-70mm f/2.8 ASPH. lens. Does anyone know this lens? I've seen some reviews that are not that good, some claiming that it is actually a Sigma lens. It's an attractive option as 24-90 is more than twice the cost, upward of $5,000. I am a new user trying to transition to Leica. Any insight would be appreciated, thank you.

I believe it is a Sigma design, with some optimization (optics? (I don't know), more solid built, better weather protection).

I have shot in during my summer vacation and have not any real weakness, I believe it is a good lens, more portable than the 24-90, and faster up to 70.

The 24-90 is maybe slightly better, but the 24-70 is very good as well. I own both and carry the 24-70 more often because of smaller size/weight.

Conclusion. IMO the 24-70 IS a good lens, even if it is not a Leica design 

Edited December 18, 2021 by tom0511

[FlashGordonPhotography]

It is a rebadged Sigma lens. Sigma designed. Sigma built. Leica badges. There is no real world difference to the Sigma version, apart from possibly different lens coatings (unconfirmed) and quality control (also unconfirmed). The SL24-90 is a modified Panasonic design but made exclusively for/by Leica.

Being a Sigma designed and manufactured lens doesn't matter. Many many lenses from mainstream brands are made by some one else (Tamron for Pentax and Nittoh/Fujifilm for Hasselblad for example). All that matters is if the lens is good.

The 24-70 is a very good lens, optically. It's also smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 24-90. The 24-90 is the better lens. It has slightly less aberations, is corrected for fringing and LoCa a bit better and has improved transitions from in to out of focus. Sharpness is similar with the 24-90 holding up in the corners better, especially wide open. If the 24-90 is a 9/10 then the 24-70 is an 8-8.5. You're looking a two excellent lenses. Whether the improved corners and CA is worth a couple of grand is up to you.

Sigma make a few gems for the L mount. The 14-24 is outstanding. The 150-600 is a fine super tele-zoom and the longest L mount option.

If it were me, I would choose the 24-90 if I were shooting primarily zooms and the 24-70 if I shot a mix of primes with zooms there when I wanted convenience.

Gordon

[jplomley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

IMHO, you take the SL route to shoot the Summicron L primes. No other reason, as there are much better systems out there with regards to lens selection and AF performance.

[2M6TTLs]

ANY SL. SERIES BEATS M FOR ME ( I HAVE BOTH ).  REASONS....

     1. The viewfinder  

      2.  Versatility and lens choice

     3.   Better close focus / Macro options 

     4.   Weather sealing 

    5.   Image stabilization 

    6.  No worry about finder going out of alignment

 

  The  24-70 in practice  is well up to Leica standards optically and much better built than the Sigma 24-70 regardless of who makes it.

[BernardC]

14 hours ago, jplomley said:

No other reason, as there are much better systems out there with regards to lens selection and AF performance.

Surprisingly, the L-Mount is second only to Sony in terms of lens selection these days. One could argue that it has a better selection of high-quality lenses, but that really depends on which specific lenses you need. As many have pointed-out before, if you need a specific lens, don't buy a system that doesn't offer that lens. Leica is far from the only brand to delay releases in the past two years.

For AF speed, it's still EOS or F-mount, provided that you use one of their professional bodies (1D-X, D6).

[LocalHero1953]

14 hours ago, jplomley said:

IMHO, you take the SL route to shoot the Summicron L primes. No other reason, as there are much better systems out there with regards to lens selection and AF performance.

Or you take the SL route for its handling....or its low light image quality.....or EVF....or....or....

There are lots of elements that contribute to my choice of cameras and systems. I can't think of a single one where the out-and-out bleeding edge performance will make me chose one rather than another. It's all a question of the balance of qualities that satisfy, and understanding just where on the spectrum of, say, AF performance a system is 'good enough'.

Many people buy into Leica because of its high price and consequent expectations that it will excel in all areas. They are disappointed when it fails to excel in one particular area, but don't recognise how well it performs consistently across the board.

[Jeff S]

On 12/19/2021 at 5:58 PM, jplomley said:

IMHO, you take the SL route to shoot the Summicron L primes. No other reason, as there are much better systems out there with regards to lens selection and AF performance.

I’ve taken a different approach, pairing my SL2 with only the SL24-90 and 90-280. These are superb lenses, designed to work well on the SL body.  My M bodies serve complementary needs when I prefer a compact and simple approach without IBIS, AF, weather sealing, etc.  I’m in the process of selling my SL75, which has mostly been on the shelf since new. It’s a stellar lens, but I end up choosing my M cameras with primes.

One of the key benefits of the SL system IMO is its flexibility to accommodate many different user needs and approaches. Some will prefer adapted M (or R) lenses, some will choose among the many high quality L alliance or other third party options,  some will stick to the SL Summicrons or zooms, or any number of other combinations and shooting approaches depending on individual styles and goals.

Jeff

[Jeffra]

On 12/19/2021 at 7:00 PM, 2M6TTLs said:

ANY SL. SERIES BEATS M FOR ME ( I HAVE BOTH ).  REASONS....

     1. The viewfinder  

      2.  Versatility and lens choice

     3.   Better close focus / Macro options 

     4.   Weather sealing 

    5.   Image stabilization 

    6.  No worry about finder going out of alignment

 

  The  24-70 in practice  is well up to Leica standards optically and much better built than the Sigma 24-70 regardless of who makes it.

This is exactly my thinking as well. Sold my M10 and couldn't be happier with the SL2. SL is where it is. No interest in ever purchasing an M again. 

[John Smith]

1 hour ago, Jeffra said:

This is exactly my thinking as well. Sold my M10 and couldn't be happier with the SL2. SL is where it is. No interest in ever purchasing an M again. 

OOF.

Edited December 21, 2021 by John Smith

[Jeffry Abt]

2 hours ago, Jeffra said:

Edited December 21, 2021 by Jeffry Abt

[Jeffry Abt]

2 hours ago, Jeffra said:

This is exactly my thinking as well. Sold my M10 and couldn't be happier with the SL2. SL is where it is. No interest in ever purchasing an M again. 

 

I think that the SL 2 is a first class camera.  I like it for many reasons, but the M 10 is aclassic. I will never sell it. I may trade in the SL 2 for newer versions but I am keeping the M10,  it is almost perfect

Edited December 21, 2021 by Jeffry Abt

[augustwest100]

Use the M when you feel like using your right eye, and use the SL series when you feel like using your left eye! 😁

I always find myself chasing the latest red ball (or red dot!), but with the M240 and the original SL out there, and with the other “aging” variations of digital M’s, I think it is possible for someone to be able to mix and match with both systems now. And remember, despite what the internet may suggest, you don’t need to acquire everything at once. There are people on this forum I’m sure that acquired their gear over a lifetime. There are no right choices and wrong choices, only good lessons and better lessons!

 

[Jeffra]

Interesting how people ask to compare an autofocus camera with a manual rangefinder...that said, I find the flexibility of the SL (AF or manual glass) over the M a huge advantage. M camera focusing is becoming tedious for me as my eyes age. The large evf and af capability of the SL is a blessing. 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Jeffra

[didier]

On 12/19/2021 at 11:58 PM, jplomley said:

IMHO, you take the SL route to shoot the Summicron L primes. No other reason, as there are much better systems out there with regards to lens selection and AF performance.

I took it as a second platform for my M glass, particularly for fast Lenses.

I also enjoy it with the wonderful rendering of the SL lux 50

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[chris_tribble]

On 12/21/2021 at 5:35 PM, Jeffry Abt said:

 

I think that the SL 2 is a first class camera.  I like it for many reasons, but the M 10 is aclassic. I will never sell it. I may trade in the SL 2 for newer versions but I am keeping the M10,  it is almost perfect

I’d strongly recommend the M10-R as your long term M keeper.  The sensor is a real step up as is the shutter.  I’m seriously considering this as my last M as I can’t envisage any additional improvements that will be added without damaging the aesthetic or functionality …

[threeseed]

For me the M series works if you're shooting 35 or 50mm with f1.4 and slower or you're zone focusing.

Otherwise the SL paired with M glass is a far less compromised and more consistent shooting experience.

And for me the weight/size really isn't all that much bigger than a M with grip.