Switch to Leica SL2-S - Please guide me

[B0tt0mline]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys,

my name is Alex and I was reading this forum since years. Finally I registered an account last week

I sold my LeicaQ 3 years ago, got a Q2 two weeks ago and felt in love again with the Leica haptics.

I always wanted to get a M but I think the SL2-S with M lenses might be the better solution for myself (EVF, IBIS, electronic shutter, much cheaper).

Please help me with these questions:

- For the SL2-S I need to sell my medium format Fuji GFX50R. Do you think there will be a huge difference between the image quality of the Fuji GFX and the SL2-S with M lenses?

- I read several threads here with people using the SL2-S only with M-lenses - is this still an approach you would recommend? I think the size of this setup is really great for myself.

- I read that people are proposing to use the original Leica L to M adapter - is this still the latest information?

- Would you buy the L to M adapter for each lens? Or can it be removed quickly when switching lenses?

- As first lens I want to get a 50mm one. I was thinking of getting a Voigtländer one. They have so many 50mm ones - which one should I get first?

- Which other Voigtländer lenses (or used Leica) lenses are really special and would you recommend (e.g., 21mm and 75mm or 90mm)?

 

Thank you very much,

Alex

 

[jankap]

Do you possess M-lenses already?

[Advertisement]

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

[B0tt0mline]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb jankap:

Do you possess M-lenses already?

No, not yet

[threeseed]

2 hours ago, B0tt0mline said:

- For the SL2-S I need to sell my medium format Fuji GFX50R. Do you think there will be a huge difference between the image quality of the Fuji GFX and the SL2-S with M lenses?

Depends on how the lenses render. But the camera performance is pretty comparable.

 

Quote

- I read several threads here with people using the SL2-S only with M-lenses - is this still an approach you would recommend? I think the size of this setup is really great for myself.

10000% yes. The M experience is really poor if you use lenses other than 35mm or 50mm at f1.4 and slower whereas the SL2 experience is incredible.

Super bright EVF and focus peaking is really easy and powerful.

I use Voigtlander 28mm/50mm/90mm M lenses when I'm walking around and can bring my Sigma 100-400mm if I want to shoot some animals.

 

Quote

- I read that people are proposing to use the original Leica L to M adapter - is this still the latest information?

- Would you buy the L to M adapter for each lens? Or can it be removed quickly when switching lenses?

If you plan on having multiple M lenses that you will regularly switch between then yes otherwise just buy an Urth one.

Because only the Leica adapter can read the 6 digit codes that are present on Leica lenses (and can be easily added to other lenses).
Those codes will automatically switch the lens profile when you attach the lens. Otherwise you will need to select the profile manually every time.

The lens profile not only adjusts vignetting, curvature etc but IBIS only works with a lens profile selected.

 

Quote

- As first lens I want to get a 50mm one. I was thinking of getting a Voigtländer one. They have so many 50mm ones - which one should I get first?

50mm f2 APO. It's in their words their best ever lens and every review has it about 95% as good as the Leica equivalent costing 10x as much.
But maybe hold off on seeing what the 50mm f1.0 is like. It could be killer for night time shooting and perfectly fine stopped down to f2.0.

 

Quote

- Which other Voigtländer lenses (or used Leica) lenses are really special and would you recommend (e.g., 21mm and 75mm or 90mm)?

28mm is their second best lens and 99% as good as the Leica equivalent. This guy has great reviews on all the lenses.

Edited January 13, 2022 by threeseed

[Darrell]

The Leica M to L adapter is absolutely the way to go if you are going to use 6-bit coded M lenses. The camera will know which lens you have mounted and the DNG files will have that info in the meta-data. It makes no sense to buy an adapter for each lens as the adapter is right at home on the body and the lenses mount and dis-mount from it as simply as they would from an M-body Leica camera.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Darrell

[padam]

I would say try before buy if possible.

About a year ago, I have switched to the SL2 from the M240-E. Some people say the M240 is a bit big and heavy, it is nothing like the SL2.

I don't like the SL2 with M lenses. It is big, it is heavy, so using a small lens doesn't really make a difference in making it lighter.
I also despise the dials which get knocked out of place constantly, with the shutter dial on the M it was way better.
I honestly don't understand why people rate the SL2. For instance, I think the Canon R5 has way better ergonomics, despite having many more buttons (and a swivel screen) in a more compact package - pity it doesn't work well with a lot of M lenses, and the files aren't quite as beautiful as the SL2 files (but way smaller in size).

It does deliver the goods with the 75 or 35 Lux, but nevertheless, it is frustrating to handle (the 75 works just as well on the R5, but feels much better)

Fortunately, I sold the M240-E for a very good price and I got the SL2 cheap, so since this switch barely cost any money, it was still worth it overall.
But I am frustrated that Leica could easily make a FF mirrorless camera that handles much more like an M, but they are trying to push people towards L-mount lenses (which of course only make the camera even bigger and heavier...).

Edited January 13, 2022 by padam

[threeseed]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, padam said:

I don't like the SL2 with M lenses. It is big, it is heavy, so using a small lens doesn't really make a difference in making it lighter.

I also despise the dials which get knocked out of place constantly, with the shutter dial on the M it was way better.

SL2 = 835g ... M10-R = 660g. It really isn't a huge difference in practice after a while. And the lenses tend to vary much more wildly in weight.

And the reason SL2 is so great with M lenses is because (a) IBIS, (b) easy to focus a 1.0 or 1.2 lens and (c) easy to compose a 21mm, 40mm, 90mm or 135mm lens.

[padam]

20 minutes ago, threeseed said:

SL2 = 835g ... M10-R = 660g. It really isn't a huge difference in practice after a while. And the lenses tend to vary much more wildly in weight.

And the reason SL2 is so great with M lenses is because (a) IBIS, (b) easy to focus a 1.0 or 1.2 lens and (c) easy to compose a 21mm, 40mm, 90mm or 135mm lens.

The difference in grams do not really matter (you forgot to add the adapter btw...) the SL2 still feels like a brick, not very pleasant.

The M10 feels way better in my hands, I should have bought that one, but I missed it and it is unlikely I will see one again for that kind of money. Oh well.

The way I shoot, IBIS has no benefits, I never had a problem with the M240 because of the lack of IBIS and I have a 21 and a 135 but I always keep getting back to the 35-50-75 range. But I shoot video from time to time, that is why I got the SL2, IBIS works well there, but it is still frustrating to use for that because I don't want to shoot in L-log but the built-in profiles are way too contrasty. (There is also how the joystick works, I could go on and on - and yet I still use it...)

Point is: I really don't think everybody should be jumping to the SL2 line for M lenses for taking stills, the image quality on the M is already lovely.

Yes, much more versatile, but it is nothing like the nimble, hassle-free experience of using an M camera. It is a mirrorless camera, and there are others, which are much smaller and lighter, and just handle better with small lenses, even though they may have image quality issues at the wide-end.

Still waiting for one that combines the two, it is not that hard to do, all the ingredients have been here for many years now...

Edited January 13, 2022 by padam

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, B0tt0mline said:

Please help me with these questions:

- For the SL2-S I need to sell my medium format Fuji GFX50R. Do you think there will be a huge difference between the image quality of the Fuji GFX and the SL2-S with M lenses

I think if you are looking to replace the GFX, the equivalent camera is the SL2, not the SL2-S. With the SL2 S you are going from 50mp to 24mp, which is a substantial loss in resolution, the SL2 is 47mp, so it is a lot more comparable. You have a way to compare...the sensor in your Q2 is the same as the one in the SL2. If you are really happy with the Q2, then you are likely going to be thrilled by the SL2, which is the same sensor with a better viewfinder and better stabilization. There is nothing wrong with the SL2S, but I think based on your other cameras having double the resolution, you might want to stick with the SL2. The SL2S is popular now because it has a bit better higher ISO performance and it is cheaper, but the SL2 is the better of the two cameras from my perspective at least. All that extra resolution means much greater ability to crop, higher fidelity, better tonality, less moire, and it is not as if it is "bad" at high ISO. I find it totally usable to 3200 or 6400, depending on the subject. Even higher if noise is not going to cause problems to the image.

[threeseed]

1 minute ago, Stuart Richardson said:

The SL2S is popular now because it has a bit better higher ISO performance

It's 2-3 stops which is significant and at all ISO levels the grain is more film-like and the colour accuracy stays consistent.

Unless you need the extra resolution by default the SL2-S is by far the better camera.

[Jon Warwick]

3 hours ago, B0tt0mline said:

- For the SL2-S I need to sell my medium format Fuji GFX50R. Do you think there will be a huge difference between the image quality of the Fuji GFX and the SL2-S with M lenses?

- As first lens I want to get a 50mm one. I was thinking of getting a Voigtländer one. They have so many 50mm ones - which one should I get first?

 

You're losing quite a bit of resolution at 24mp (SL2-S) vs 50mp (Fuji), but whether that matters will partly depend on the print size you want to output.  If smallish at 20"x16", which is already native resolution for a 24mp sensor, you might not see a large difference at all.  Moire and false colors might crop up more often, however, with the 24mp.

Re: Voigtlander, I have the 50mm APO Lanthar, and i am very pleased with it in terms of both image quality and build quality. No experience of the alternatives.

[B0tt0mline]

Thank you very much for all the answers so far.

I will try it in my local Leica store in the next days. 

Overall the M is still more charming for me, but the SL2-S has so many advantages that it seems to be the better solution.

Would you also pick 2-3 Voigtländer lenses instead of the L 24-70mm lens? Very subjective question - i know

 

[padam]

5 minutes ago, B0tt0mline said:

Thank you very much for all the answers so far.

I will try it in my local Leica store in the next days. 

Overall the M is still more charming for me, but the SL2-S has so many advantages that it seems to be the better solution.

Would you also pick 2-3 Voigtländer lenses instead of the L 24-70mm lens? Very subjective question - i know

If you'd like to try and shoot video as well, I would probably have the Panasonic 24-105mm lens in addition to the primes (and an ND filter).

 

[B0tt0mline]

vor 1 Minute schrieb padam:

If you'd like to try and shoot video as well, I would probably have the Panasonic 24-105mm lens in addition to the primes (and an ND filter).

 

Thanks for the great tip!

I am not a video shooter

[padam]

7 minutes ago, B0tt0mline said:

Thanks for the great tip!

I am not a video shooter

As you can see in this video, just as useful for stills

I always end up using the 105 end, so better for me than a 24-70, and you also get a decent macro capability as well, which you won't have with rangefinder lenses (even with a close-focusing adapter).

But definitely an addition, not a replacement. Other recommendations:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/322039-advice-please-for-24-70-or-24-105-zoom-for-new-sl2-s/

Edited January 13, 2022 by padam

[threeseed]

20 minutes ago, B0tt0mline said:

Overall the M is still more charming for me, but the SL2-S has so many advantages that it seems to be the better solution.

Would you also pick 2-3 Voigtländer lenses instead of the L 24-70mm lens? Very subjective question - i know

 

I still lust after the M11 as well. Maybe one day I can afford both systems 

The amazing thing about SL2 is you can pick up a (relatively cheap) 28mm/35mm Ultron and use it for street photography like these guys.

And combine it with the Sigma 24-70mm or Leica 24-90 for everything else.

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, threeseed said:

It's 2-3 stops which is significant and at all ISO levels the grain is more film-like and the colour accuracy stays consistent.

Unless you need the extra resolution by default the SL2-S is by far the better camera.

It is not that many stops if you downscale the 47mp to 24...you only really see it at the highest ISOs. I would certainly agree that if you primarily photograph at 3200 ISO or higher, then it is worth it, but most people photograph between base ISO and 1600, unless they are really driven by dark light and slow lenses. Again, it is up to the photographer, but certainly for my work the SL2S is no replacement for the SL2. I do a lot of large prints, however. Regarding color accuracy, I have found the SL2 to do very well with that, as well as having a lack of any banding. I have the S3 as well, and I think the SL2 is quite a bit better at high ISO's, as it has no color contamination or banding.

Attached below are the SL2 and S3 both at ISO 50000, with moderate sharpening and noise reduction of just 15 luminance and 25 color in Lightroom. The SL2 file has a bit more grain, but it does not have the ugly banding of the S3 or the magenta/green color contamination. This is a totally extreme scenario, shooting both at the highest possible ISO. If you pull it back to even 6400 ISO, both cameras appear nearly grainless in small to moderate prints or web images.

Again, I am not saying that the SL2S does not have less grain at 100%, but I think trading all that resolution for a boost in the highest ISO performance is not worth it for everyone. Unfortunately I do not have the SL2S here to add to the comparison, but the point was less that the SL2 was better at high ISO (it isn't), but more that it does very well with it, compared to anything other than the most recent sensors.

(In the below photos, the S3 is first. It shares a sensor with the M10R, though it has two 35mm size sensors stitched together). The SL2 is the one without the magenta tinted blacks and green tinted whites.

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!

Edited January 13, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[frame-it]

5 hours ago, B0tt0mline said:

For the SL2-S I need to sell my medium format Fuji GFX50R. Do you think there will be a huge difference between the image quality of the Fuji GFX and the SL2-S with M lenses?

the M lenses 50mm and above, and also R lenses deliver beautiful results with the GFX50R

[LocalHero1953]

Former M240, SL and SL2 owner here, and current SL2-S owner.

I never saw 2-3 stops different from SL2 to SL2-S - perhaps just 2.

I shoot a lot in low light and high ISO and I neither crop heavily nor print large, so I need high ISO performance and I don't need the SL2's resolution; I also find the colour of the BSI sensor in the SL2-S at high ISO to be better, more usable, natural. These are all decisions you will have to make for yourself, depending on what sort of photography you do.

Weight is another subjective matter. I find the SL series body heavy compared to the M series, even with M lenses on the SL. There are no absolutes here: the SL is heavier than the M with M lenses, but only you can say if it is noticeable or important.

With regards lenses, my personal preferences are for (a) Leica lenses (b) lenses native to the body. So while I accept that there are great lenses from others, in both M- and L-mount, I prefer to exploit the full capabilities of the SL series with Leica L lenses - and those Summicron primes are stunning (as is the 90-280 zoom - the other zooms aren't too bad either 😊). The L lenses balance well on the SL body.

Of course (given my comments on weight) using L lenses will be heavier than M lenses, but I guess I have sort of written down the SL and L lenses as my heavy system, and I'm prepared to live with that. I would find it too heavy to carry around as my everyday camera. I use it for events, portraits etc, and use the CL system for my travel and social stuff - much lighter than the M!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jankap]

4 hours ago, B0tt0mline said:

Thank you very much for all the answers so far.

I will try it in my local Leica store in the next days. 

Overall the M is still more charming for me, but the SL2-S has so many advantages that it seems to be the better solution.

Would you also pick 2-3 Voigtländer lenses instead of the L 24-70mm lens? Very subjective question - i know

 

You know, that with M-mount lenses of any brand you don't have AF?

For the SL I would look for Sigma or Panasonic lenses, if Leica ones cost too much money. The originals for the L-mount, no adapters!

Zooms or primes? A zoom with a small range is helpfull of course. But today you can do a lot with cropping in post also.

Edited January 13, 2022 by jankap