Keeping my SL2, but I think I’m done with autofocus - M glass is my joint

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looking at my SL work over the past couple of years, I have a handful of shots with my SL glass, and a ton (like 85%) with M glass. It’s not because of the weight, and certainly it isn’t because of the image quality - the SL glass is insanely gorgeous. I took my 35 SL down to Chinatown for celebrations yesterday and I felt so disconnected - no matter what settings, whether face detection, or using back button focusing, I just felt like autofocus  always was getting in my way, taking too long to decide what to focus on, or not doing exactly what I wanted it to. I switched to manual focusing but I don’t find it enjoyable because of the focus throw, takes too long to dial in. I could zone focus, but then I think why am I using this big lens when I could have M glass with me?

I’m not bagging on the SL autofocus in particular, I am just feeling an aversion to autofocus in general. I went back and forth between SL and M glass at the same focal lengths this morning and every time I went to to M glass it was like “ahhhhhhh….” Even if the focus wasn’t spot on, in fact the ability to control what was in and out of focus was a huge strength of the M glass. The SL shots, yep, nailed focus every time, but I felt less in control creatively. I’m struggling to envision a usage scenario where I would ever prefer or need autofocus - I don’t shoot sports or any fast movement, and I hate handing over control to a computer. Does anyone else have similar feelings or experiences, and if so, what did you end up doing? 

The SL2 is such a  beast with M glass, my 75 Nocti and 50 1.4 Lux M shots are just gorgeous wide open, and stopped down its an incredible street camera. I fear I’d regret selling the beautiful SL glass, but 9 times out of 10 I grab the M glass. 

 

 

[Planetwide]

You can turn AF off...

[Advertisement]

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

[trickness]

41 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

You can turn AF off...

Deeply helpful advice, you obviously read my post closely. Kudos for putting in the effort!

Edited February 13, 2022 by trickness

[Stef63]

For some type of photography (99% of my work) AF is not an added value.  I totally understand that in these cases MF is much more logical and in most cases faster than AF.  I have one AF lens on my SL2 and 15+ MF M and R lenses.  Guess what lens is seldom used?

So yes I understand your feeling.  The problem now for me is that in a lot of circumstances  my M11 makes more sense than my SL2.  If it wasn’t for ibis the SL2 would not make any sense anymore .. 

[tritentrue]

Went 100% for L-mount (SL2 & SL lenses) in late '20, realized the weight made it impractical (for me) to carry more than two lenses at a time.  Switched back to 100% M-mount (M10-R & Leica M lenses) in mid '21, eventually missed having the option of using AF lenses.  Recently changed to a mix (SL2-S, CL, M, R, & TL lenses + 1 Sigma L-mount lens).  

For shooting certain subject matter (e.g. birds, which I do a lot of) AF doesn't always allocate the focal plane on the right part of the subject's contours.  With MF, I have absolute control and nothing to blame but myself if I miss.

Finally happy . . . I think . . . for now . . . 

[trickness]

11 minutes ago, tritentrue said:

Went 100% for L-mount (SL2 & SL lenses) in late '20, realized the weight made it impractical (for me) to carry more than two lenses at a time.  Switched back to 100% M-mount (M10-R & Leica M lenses) in mid '21, eventually missed having the option of using AF lenses.  Recently changed to a mix (SL2-S, CL, M, R, & TL lenses + 1 Sigma L-mount lens).  

For shooting certain subject matter (e.g. birds, which I do a lot of) AF doesn't always allocate the focal plane on the right part of the subject's contours.  With MF, I have absolute control and nothing to blame but myself if I miss.

Finally happy . . . I think . . . for now . . . 

Thanks! Yeah that’s the thing I think if you have the right used case scenario it makes sense. Shooting birds definitely seems like an endeavor that is made easier with auto focus! I think because most of my stuff is street photography which is all zone focusing, or portraiture which doesn’t require fast focusing, I’m struggling to find the proper use case scenario for these lenses. They are gorgeous in terms of output… And certainly I can use them for portraiture. But I’m finding the ability to nail the exact area of focus I want, along with the exact area of out of focus I want in a photograph is challenging with anything but manual lenses.

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

58 minutes ago, Stef63 said:

For some type of photography (99% of my work) AF is not an added value.  I totally understand that in these cases MF is much more logical and in most cases faster than AF.  I have one AF lens on my SL2 and 15+ MF M and R lenses.  Guess what lens is seldom used?

So yes I understand your feeling.  The problem now for me is that in a lot of circumstances  my M11 makes more sense than my SL2.  If it wasn’t for ibis the SL2 would not make any sense anymore .. 

do you have any Noctilux lenses? I find the SL2 to be a godsend with the 75, I imagine it would be far more challenging to be precise on a rangefinder (call me a purist, but I would never buy an M to use the EVF)

[frame-it]

7 minutes ago, trickness said:

but I would never buy an M to use the EVF

nailed it in half a sentence.

 

[Ken Abrahams]

Well done for arriving at a conclusion about auto focus "getting in the way", Trickness. Knowing the source of any dissatisfaction in ones photography can then be rectified and in your case its about lenses.

 I do not own any Sl lenses and only M glass for the SL, its always been like that. If I was engaged in event photography work I would probably buy a Sl or Sigma lens to keep up my image count. I did a fair it of that work a few years ago using M glass and found that my focus was a bit out when using flash. The idea of opening up the lens in order to see and focus accurately with the 35 lens and then stopping back down, took some time with subjects where as I am sure auto focus photographers would have rattled off six frames. I discovered that the 35 Summicron asph was focus shifting so I had to change my focusing system.  

Luckily I am not doing that sort of work now. Having control of focal points and depth of field choices is paramount for me, although I am sure there are work arounds for the auto focus lenses.

Best

Ken   

[IkarusJohn]

4 hours ago, trickness said:

Looking at my SL work over the past couple of years, I have a handful of shots with my SL glass, and a ton (like 85%) with M glass. It’s not because of the weight, and certainly it isn’t because of the image quality - the SL glass is insanely gorgeous. I took my 35 SL down to Chinatown for celebrations yesterday and I felt so disconnected - no matter what settings, whether face detection, or using back button focusing, I just felt like autofocus  always was getting in my way, taking too long to decide what to focus on, or not doing exactly what I wanted it to. I switched to manual focusing but I don’t find it enjoyable because of the focus throw, takes too long to dial in. I could zone focus, but then I think why am I using this big lens when I could have M glass with me?

I’m not bagging on the SL autofocus in particular, I am just feeling an aversion to autofocus in general. I went back and forth between SL and M glass at the same focal lengths this morning and every time I went to to M glass it was like “ahhhhhhh….” Even if the focus wasn’t spot on, in fact the ability to control what was in and out of focus was a huge strength of the M glass. The SL shots, yep, nailed focus every time, but I felt less in control creatively. I’m struggling to envision a usage scenario where I would ever prefer or need autofocus - I don’t shoot sports or any fast movement, and I hate handing over control to a computer. Does anyone else have similar feelings or experiences, and if so, what did you end up doing? 

The SL2 is such a  beast with M glass, my 75 Nocti and 50 1.4 Lux M shots are just gorgeous wide open, and stopped down its an incredible street camera. I fear I’d regret selling the beautiful SL glass, but 9 times out of 10 I grab the M glass. 

 

 

+1

The SL is really good with manual focus lenses.  I’ve never gelled with AF - it just focuses on the wrong thing, I find..  With the 24-90  I use the back button then manually adjust.  But the SL really shines with M and R lenses - effectively, an M mount with an EVF …

Edited February 14, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[trickness]

1 hour ago, Ken Abrahams said:

Well done for arriving at a conclusion about auto focus "getting in the way", Trickness. Knowing the source of any dissatisfaction in ones photography can then be rectified and in your case its about lenses.

 I do not own any Sl lenses and only M glass for the SL, its always been like that. If I was engaged in event photography work I would probably buy a Sl or Sigma lens to keep up my image count. I did a fair it of that work a few years ago using M glass and found that my focus was a bit out when using flash. The idea of opening up the lens in order to see and focus accurately with the 35 lens and then stopping back down, took some time with subjects where as I am sure auto focus photographers would have rattled off six frames. I discovered that the 35 Summicron asph was focus shifting so I had to change my focusing system.  

Luckily I am not doing that sort of work now. Having control of focal points and depth of field choices is paramount for me, although I am sure there are work arounds for the auto focus lenses.

Best

Ken   

I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way, but I feel like when I am actually focusing the lens with my left hand and easing into the focal point I am very connected with the physical and mental act of taking the photograph. When using auto focus I feel disconnected somehow… Curious if you can relate to that?

[SrMi]

I do not understand why so many people have problems with AF on SL2/SL. Are you guys using multi-field instead of field focusing?
My SL2 is always in MF mode. I consider BBF a faster manual focusing: I move the focusing rectangle where I want to focus and press the back button.
The advantage of L-mount lenses is that they have the automatic aperture stop down. 
That said, I enjoy using M lenses more.

 

[Ken Abrahams]

44 minutes ago, trickness said:

I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way, but I feel like when I am actually focusing the lens with my left hand and easing into the focal point I am very connected with the physical and mental act of taking the photograph. When using auto focus I feel disconnected somehow… Curious if you can relate to that?

I hear what you say and can relate to that nuance of “connecting”. My experience with auto focus is limited however I believe what you are saying about the manual photographer completing the capture process. I am an old 1980’s kind of photographer who picked up digital photography from 2012. I missed the focussing aspect with the Fuji X100 so I bought into Leica M in 2013. It just felt natural for me to develop skills to focus or capture subjects as part of the process. To develop a rhythm when approaching the shot. I just thought I was old fashioned until you posted your thoughts.

best

Ken 

[caissa]

Instead of a SL2 you could just as well use a SL with M lenses. I enjoy it even better and it is cheaper.

[michali]

In 50 years of photography I adopted AF very late in the game, about 3 years ago when I acquired the SL. Like others here, I've struggled to get to grips with AF & have always felt that MF has given me more control over my images. 

IMO it's not an either or situation, personally for my use I've found the balance; M cameras for street & general travel photography & the SL system for wildlife & birding, not for AF but for the extra reach of telephoto lenses.

[hansvons]

 

11 hours ago, trickness said:

I’m not bagging on the SL autofocus in particular, I am just feeling an aversion to autofocus in general.

Let me brag a bit. I've been creating moving pictures for half a lifetime in the industry all manual focused. And when someone bemoans Leica's AF capabilities for video, I think, yes, you are right. But I also think you don't know much about filmmaking because manual focusing is a vital part of the craft. 

In the 90ies in Cuba, I exposed my last roll on 35mm with an old Leica R4. Four years ago, being somewhat in the midlife crisis, I felt I could reconnect to stills photography. I bought a little Fuji EX3 with a 35mm AF lens. Today, shooting stills is part of my job. And I somewhat embraced AF.

When you are a window maker, you make windows and use the tools you need. You want the job to get done. That's precisely what AF is about. Helping the photographer to get the job done. The SL2-S 24-90 combo get's the job done very well, with even better imagery than the competition (for my eyes). I never complain about missed focus on faces. There's a 90+% hit rate I could never achieve with manual focus in a documentary environment, events, a journalistic style, you name it. 

But here's the rub. For a purist, all of that doesn't matter. AF lenses don't cut it. Period. (Perhaps except for the SL primes.) Most of the lot rely on digital spherical corrections. Without that, many of them are poorly corrected lenses, sometimes preposterously bad. So bad you can cry fraud. When I checked the EX3's footage in C1 and turned off lens correction, I was aghast of how fake that all is. The 24-90, which is likely the best stills "standard" zoom on the market, would get a D - F for spherical corrections in cinema land. However, the images look fine on the SL2-S - with the digital support. 

And I haven't even started to talk about fly-by-wire manual focusing without hard stops. 

Recently, I bought piece by piece a prime set based on vintage R lenses, the first generation (they show the nicest flares). I want to use these primes predominately for filmmaking but shot some stills on them too. Boy, are they nice. The 28mm Elmarit is a gem. So is the 35mm Elmarit with its bent focal plane at f 2.8. Lovely glass. Tons of character but excellent sharpness and depth too (but faces are rendered flatteringly on the flatter side). Even the 90mm shows personality. (And it's tack sharp. But that rare sharpness that is so forgiving to the skin)

At some point, an 80ies edition of the 35mm Summicron M will round up my collection. But I'm unsure for which camera. I'm thinking of getting a monochrome M. But it doesn't have IBIS, which I reckon to be the greatest invention in photography since the mirror viewfinder and before AF.

But to reiterate: AF does have its place and isn't as bad (really, on the contrary) as this thread's tenor may suggest.

[huwm]

4 hours ago, caissa said:

Instead of a SL2 you could just as well use a SL with M lenses. I enjoy it even better and it is cheaper.

But isn’t the evf a bit less fabulous, no ibis and less crop ability?

 

[trickness]

4 hours ago, hansvons said:

 

Let me brag a bit. I've been creating moving pictures for half a lifetime in the industry all manual focused. And when someone bemoans Leica's AF capabilities for video, I think, yes, you are right. But I also think you don't know much about filmmaking because manual focusing is a vital part of the craft. 

In the 90ies in Cuba, I exposed my last roll on 35mm with an old Leica R4. Four years ago, being somewhat in the midlife crisis, I felt I could reconnect to stills photography. I bought a little Fuji EX3 with a 35mm AF lens. Today, shooting stills is part of my job. And I somewhat embraced AF.

When you are a window maker, you make windows and use the tools you need. You want the job to get done. That's precisely what AF is about. Helping the photographer to get the job done. The SL2-S 24-90 combo get's the job done very well, with even better imagery than the competition (for my eyes). I never complain about missed focus on faces. There's a 90+% hit rate I could never achieve with manual focus in a documentary environment, events, a journalistic style, you name it. 

But here's the rub. For a purist, all of that doesn't matter. AF lenses don't cut it. Period. (Perhaps except for the SL primes.) Most of the lot rely on digital spherical corrections. Without that, many of them are poorly corrected lenses, sometimes preposterously bad. So bad you can cry fraud. When I checked the EX3's footage in C1 and turned off lens correction, I was aghast of how fake that all is. The 24-90, which is likely the best stills "standard" zoom on the market, would get a D - F for spherical corrections in cinema land. However, the images look fine on the SL2-S - with the digital support. 

And I haven't even started to talk about fly-by-wire manual focusing without hard stops. 

Recently, I bought piece by piece a prime set based on vintage R lenses, the first generation (they show the nicest flares). I want to use these primes predominately for filmmaking but shot some stills on them too. Boy, are they nice. The 28mm Elmarit is a gem. So is the 35mm Elmarit with its bent focal plane at f 2.8. Lovely glass. Tons of character but excellent sharpness and depth too (but faces are rendered flatteringly on the flatter side). Even the 90mm shows personality. (And it's tack sharp. But that rare sharpness that is so forgiving to the skin)

At some point, an 80ies edition of the 35mm Summicron M will round up my collection. But I'm unsure for which camera. I'm thinking of getting a monochrome M. But it doesn't have IBIS, which I reckon to be the greatest invention in photography since the mirror viewfinder and before AF.

But to reiterate: AF does have its place and isn't as bad (really, on the contrary) as this thread's tenor may suggest.

I think some folks are misunderstanding my original post. I didn’t create it to criticize the auto focus capabilities of the SL2 or the SL2 glass - this is not one of those threads.

I’m talking about autofocus in general and how I personally find it to be something of a creative impedance. At least in the context of being able to use manual focus lenses on the SL2, and the instant ability to focus on exactly what I want in the frame. I use back button focus on the SL2 when SL glass is mounted to it, and that method is unquestionably slower than manual focus on M glass. Using the joystick to push around a little focus box and then confirming it is just not as quick as turning a focus tab on an M lens, but more specifically to this thread, I don’t find it anywhere near as enjoyable.

Obviously there are correct tools for every job and different tools resonate with different people. As 85% of my work is street photography, I personally find autofocus to be completely useless for that task, as I zone focus. And you’re correct, I don’t know anything about making films, I’m not a filmmaker, I’m a photographer, trying to be a better one. 🤓

Edited February 14, 2022 by trickness

[tom0511]

This prooves how different people  connect to equipment.

Just yesterday used the M and thought to myself, that I had missed some spontanious shots of my kids, which I would have nailed when I had my SL2 with face detection with me.

I also feel the SL lenses are better than their M counterparts (except some of the APO M lenses).

But if I focus manually with M lenses, I rather use an M body.

So in my case I use M on the M and SL-lenses with AF on the SL2, but seldom adapt M lenses to the SL2. (Except 28mm, where I dont own an SL prime), or if I want to bring the compact 21 SEM because of its small size.

Hey - which SL lenses you plan to sell? 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Stef63]

14 hours ago, trickness said:

do you have any Noctilux lenses? I find the SL2 to be a godsend with the 75, I imagine it would be far more challenging to be precise on a rangefinder (call me a purist, but I would never buy an M to use the EVF)

I have a lot of lenses that :

• are outside the traditional M frame line scope (wide and tele)
• require critical focusing (50 Noctilux, 75 Summilux..)
• being able to visually check the result before the shot is taken is a must (Thambar with center spot filter)

for al these cases the OVF of the M is suboptimal

Most of my normal and longer focal length lenses perform beautifully on an SL2.  Wide and ultra wide is a different story.  Here the M has still the lead.

So when I go out and want to travel light with only an ultra wide and a normal lens I (and my aging eyesight) prefer the M11 with EVF.  On another journey with a 75 lux and a 100 R macro for close focus or thin DOF nature shots I would take my SL2.  And if I just want to have my camera with me...  just in case... it's an M with a 28 or 35 and enjoying the rangefinder.

One could come to the conclusion that Leica offers to much options to make photographers happy ... ☺️

Edited February 14, 2022 by Stef63