SL2 and wideangle M lenses

[PDP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a SL2 which really delivers, perfect pictures, good handling. I use it with M lenses only, the SL lenses are in my view too large and too heavy.

But with my 18mm lens I have a problem, the upper part of pictures is not really sharp, perhaps 10-15%. Lens was at Leica, it is fine. Camera delivers with all other lenses.

But this combo fails, does anyone here can help me? Same experience perhaps?

[Advertisement]

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

[toyfel]

What do you see when you take an image of a flat object (newspaper, wall, ....)?. What you describe suggests the lens is actually not fine, that means it's not working according to specs. If it were OK any loss in sharpness should be symmetrical ( i.e. visible in all corners and not just two). 

[beewee]

2 hours ago, PDP said:

I have a SL2 which really delivers, perfect pictures, good handling. I use it with M lenses only, the SL lenses are in my view too large and too heavy.

But with my 18mm lens I have a problem, the upper part of pictures is not really sharp, perhaps 10-15%. Lens was at Leica, it is fine. Camera delivers with all other lenses.

But this combo fails, does anyone here can help me? Same experience perhaps?

I have the 18 SEM and SL2-S w/ the official Leica M-L adapter but haven’t shot too much with it because it didn’t perform nearly as well as on the M10 and I’ve since moved to shooting exclusively with native L-mount lenses from Sigma and Leica which performs much better, at least on the wide end, even though I have a pretty decent range of M-lenses to pick from.

I haven’t done any thorough testing with the 18 SEM and 24 Elmar M on the SL2-S because they didn’t pass the initial “sniff test” for me and I feel like it’d be a waste of my time but having shot a number of native L-mount wide angle lenses (Sigma 14-24 DG DN, Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN, 16-35 SL, 28 APO SL, 24-90 SL), they all perform better than the M primes on the SL2-S. It’s not a knock on the 18 SEM and 24 Elmar M which are fantastically sharp on the M10, but they just don’t perform quite the same on the SL2-S.

[PDP]

vor 39 Minuten schrieb beewee:

I have the 18 SEM and SL2-S w/ the official Leica M-L adapter but haven’t shot too much with it because it didn’t perform nearly as well as on the M10 and I’ve since moved to shooting exclusively with native L-mount lenses from Sigma and Leica which performs much better, at least on the wide end, even though I have a pretty decent range of M-lenses to pick from.

I haven’t done any thorough testing with the 18 SEM and 24 Elmar M on the SL2-S because they didn’t pass the initial “sniff test” for me and I feel like it’d be a waste of my time but having shot a number of native L-mount wide angle lenses (Sigma 14-24 DG DN, Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN, 16-35 SL, 28 APO SL, 24-90 SL), they all perform better than the M primes on the SL2-S. It’s not a knock on the 18 SEM and 24 Elmar M which are fantastically sharp on the M10, but they just don’t perform quite the same on the SL2-S.

Thank you very much for this answer, it helps. I once had this lens wirh my M9 and loved it, later sold it and now tried again with SL2 (I have no M anymore, does not work with landscape), good thing: I can give it back. Most probably I move to SL 16-35 or the Sigma you mentioned.

[matted]

I have and use the 21 SEM on my SL2-S and the results are good. I don't think I am giving up much, but I can only compare it to my M9, and I haven't done any direct comparisons. Would be interesting to do some.

As good as the cover glass/sensor stack is on the SL/SL2(S) cameras is for working with M lenses, at least compared to other mirrorless cameras, nothing beats the fully optimized M bodies IMHO when it comes to sub 28mm lenses. They certainly work in a pinch of course, but you would be better off using lenses designed for mirrorless if you didn't have a requirement to also use on an M body.

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by matted

[ivohula]

I use my SL-2 with adapter for my 21mm Lux and my WATE and have no issues what so ever. Would they work better on an M11? perhaps. But there are no issues on the SL-2, so I think there may be some misalignment somewhere in your set-up. 

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you do your own tests, you will see that, while the M lenses do well for the most part on the SL, the native L mount lenses by and large perform at a level above. I recently got the 35mm APO Summicron to replace a 35mm f2 Sigma. I also have an M 35mm 1.4FLE. I shot all three next to each other in a quick test of a distant mountain. The 35mm APO Summicron (SL) was a step above the Sigma at every aperture. The Sigma was better than the 35mm 1.4 Summilux ASPH at every aperture as well. I also compared the 24mm 3.5 Sigma to the 28mm Summilux in the Q2, and found that they performed very similarly. If anything, the Sigma was slightly sharper, but it was close enough as to be a wash. The Q2 brings with it the speed, however. What was also interesting is that they are almost the same focal length. The Q lens is much more a 25mm lens than a 28mm, at least according to my lenses. My evaluations revolve mostly around sharpness, as that is my main concern since most of my work is done in nature. That said, I think the SL lenses tend to have fewer chromatic aberrations to my mind as well...not just fringing, but LOCA as well, which I find to be especially detrimental to image quality. Sigma does not fare as well with that wide open.

I compared a 90mm APO Summicron M to the 90-280mm, however, and in that case the M lens came out ahead on sharpness.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[Planetwide]

Has anybody used the WATE on the SL2?

[Ian Dolphin]

I’ve experimented with the WATE on the SL2. I rather liked the experience,. 
Example 

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!

 

On 5/18/2022 at 10:16 AM, Planetwide said:

Has anybody used the WATE on the SL2?

 

[Jean-Michel]

On 5/18/2022 at 5:16 AM, Planetwide said:

Has anybody used the WATE on the SL2?

I do. The WATE and all my other M lenses, and a old Canon FD zoom 70-150 (Fotodiox adapter plus M to L adapter) work just fine. The camera stabilization is a real help!  I will likely keep using the WATE in daylight with my M-P just because I often photograph from a low level and like the moveable EVF2. 
 

[Malabito]

I used the 24mm elmar on the sl2s. As mentioned already it's a fantastic lens on the m10, but far from it on the sl2s.

If you want a wide m lens to use on the sl look at the voigtlander 21mm f3.5 skopar, according to Fred Miranda works exceptionally well on the sl, like native, and it's a tiny lens, he did extensive testing.

 

Other options that also work very good are voigtlander 15mm but v3 and the 21mm f1.4.

 

Forget about current leica m offerings, they all have outdated designs, they work incredibly well on the m, but not on the sl.

[Simone_DF]

The Voigtlander 21mm f1.8 also works very well

[AZN]

21 hours ago, Malabito said:

I used the 24mm elmar on the sl2s. As mentioned already it's a fantastic lens on the m10, but far from it on the sl2s.

On my SL (Typ 601) the Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH is corner-to-corner sharp, with no unusual vignetting or colour shifts.  Frankly I would class it as excellent.

Is it really that bad on the newer SL2s?…

[LeicaR10]

Azn,  It is not.  I totally agree with your post #13.. The M 24 Elmar is a most excellent lens on the SL2 and SL2-S.  It remains one of the best of the many superb M lenses Leica produced. r/ Mark 

[Malabito]

2 hours ago, AZN said:

On my SL (Typ 601) the Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH is corner-to-corner sharp, with no unusual vignetting or colour shifts.  Frankly I would class it as excellent.

Is it really that bad on the newer SL2s?…

Its not really that bad. But the lens is so good on the m10

I just woudnt buy one only to use it with the sl, given the results and cost.  I rather buy the sigma 24mm f3.5, which gives you excellent inage quality, super small amd focuses fast for a lot less money. It even has an aperture ring.

[Planetwide]

I have read that the WATE is weak in the corners on SL2. Is there any truth to this?

Thanks 

[Jean-Michel]

I used recently my WATE with my SL2. While I don't have identical images made with the lens with the SL2 and the M-P, I see no issues with using it with th eSL2, I actually find the results of images made with my other M lenses  really, really good. Note that the WATE does have a 'moustache' distortion pattern, the lens correction made in Lightroom helps but canot remove the corner distortion. I gather, from mathphotographer, that Capture One has better luck. You can find mathphotographer on his youtube channel, by coincidence he has a coupe of new  videos on the WATE .

Enjoy your lens, if you have it. The 21 SEM is most likely a 'better' performer when it comes to minimal distortion; I do not have that lens so no direct knowledge of it.

[LeicaR10]

Planetwide,  The WATE has slight vignetting wide open.  The lens has exceptional resolution across the frame at f/8 for all focal lengths.  It does this with both the M and SL cameras.  It is a superb lens.  Some find the M 21 Super Elmar slightly better, but it is a prime.  If you need best resolution for 16, 18, 21 across the frame the SL 16-35 might be the best way to go with SL2 and SL2-S.  I use the WATE on both M and SL cameras when I need to have smaller, lighter backpack in challenging terrain.  For me, definitely no issues with the WATE.  r/ Mark

PS...If you want to see what these lenses can do check out this link for the WATE and SL 16-35.  IMO both are exceptional lenses. Note the photographs taken with the SL cameras.

Try:  https://onfotolife.com/lens_sample_photos?lens_id=330&page=1&focal_min=0&focal_max=800&aperture_min=0&aperture_max=32

Try:  https://onfotolife.com/lens_sample_photos?lens_id=4090&page=1&focal_min=0&focal_max=800&aperture_min=0&aperture_max=32

Edited May 26, 2022 by LeicaR10

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Kim Dahl]

If you can live with the APSC section in the SL2 then there is also the 11-23 Leica TL - I do not have the SL2 but have tried it on the camera several times and was surprised by the quality.  Better (sharper) than my 24 Leica M.

[PDP]

Thanks for all these helpful comments and hints. Finally I gave back the 18mm, fair approach from Leica! Really!

I tested the 16-35 from Leica, the above mentioned Sigma and the Lumix 16-35. Finally the Lumix made the race for one simple reason: weight. The Leica and the Sigma might be slightly better, but 1.2 kg are too heavy. The Lumix is certified by Leica (whatever that means), it is relatively compact and price is also ok. As I will use it anyhow between 16-21mm, which means not always, the money per picture rate seems good. There is one nice feature: the manual focus clutch.

IQ? It is good, really good, sharp, good contrasts and colors close to those of Leica. My SL2 handles the lens quite good, no issues with communication camera to lens.