New on SL: which combo?

[Shawn30]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd go with the SL2-S and a Sigma 24-70, and spend the money saved on a photographic holiday. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

7 hours ago, Luke_Miller said:

I read a favorable review of the 24-70 (Jonothan Slack) and almost bought my SL with one, but after looking at the focal lengths I use for events realized I needed the additional reach of the 24-90.  Truth be told I also need the 90-280, but that may be a bridge too far.  My typical wedding set up has been a Nikon D850/24-70 f2.8 and Nikon D5/70-200 f2.8.  So the 90-280 would fit right in and mounted to an SL series body actually weigh less than my D5/70-200 combination. 

I am not a wedding photographer, though I have done some over the years. I would feel a bit disruptive photographing a wedding with the 90-280, unless it was specifically in formal shots. It is such an imposing lens, especially with the hood on. I would think a 90mm f2 APO Summicron would be a more useful lens in this use case. The 47mp of the SL2 and and its sharpness means that you can crop in substantially and still have fantastic quality. I guess if you are using the SL2S you don't have as much flexibility in that sense, but the 90-280 is a large, heavy and imposing lens, and you are carrying around a lot of superfluous capability (my guess is that longer than 135mm is pretty rare at most weddings). Anyway, perhaps I am just not knowledgeable enough in this arena. The weddings I did were with the M cameras, primarily with 35mm and 75mm lenses.

[Luke_Miller]

My wedding use of lenses longer than my 24-70 or 24-90 is for the coming down the aisle shots.  Once everyone is in position it is the shorter zoom.  I have the two on separate bodies so I don't change lenses during the ceremony.

[BernardC]

I only ever go with a 135 for special venues. For instance shooting from the choir in a cathedral, or if the officiant specifies where photographers are allowed to go during the ceremony. I might also need environmental shots in an outdoor venue where the best vantage point is far away.

The other use-case is cocktail hour, where you want tighter informal shots of people who are mingling. 80-90 is usually enough, but 135 might be needed in some venues. Frankly, something as big as a 70-200/2.8 is distracting for the guests.

[matted]

A 135 APO Summicron-SL would be a sweet addition to the L-mount lineup once they release the 24 and 21. It might not fit into the same housing as the rest of the line, but it would be sweet either way…

[Stuart Richardson]

12 hours ago, matted said:

A 135 APO Summicron-SL would be a sweet addition to the L-mount lineup once they release the 24 and 21. It might not fit into the same housing as the rest of the line, but it would be sweet either way…

The best current alternative to this would be the 120mm APO Macro Summarit S. While it was/is extremely expensive new, the used price is as low as 3500 dollars on ebay for a new one (it is 9500 dollars at Leica store Miami), and the price of a new or used S adapter L would likely mean that it would still be less than a cost of a new SL Summicron. The performance is extraordinarily high, being an APO lens that is razor sharp even at 2.5. It is a bulkier than a standard SL lens, but still maintains (slow) autofocus and focuses all the way down to 1 to 2. It has the lovely bokeh of the S series lenses. Overall, if you want a long Leica prime for the SL, it is worth a look. It is bulky compared to 35mm lenses, however. Another option is of course one of the M 135mm lenses. While slower and without AF, they are very easy to use and very sharp on the SL2.

[lx1713]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, BernardC said:

I only ever go with a 135 for special venues. For instance shooting from the choir in a cathedral, or if the officiant specifies where photographers are allowed to go during the ceremony. I might also need environmental shots in an outdoor venue where the best vantage point is far away.

The other use-case is cocktail hour, where you want tighter informal shots of people who are mingling. 80-90 is usually enough, but 135 might be needed in some venues. Frankly, something as big as a 70-200/2.8 is distracting for the guests.

In a large church with lots of guests who behaved, the 90-280 will be a nice choice. I will use it for cocktail shots but here I normally use a 135mm like Bernard. It's just out of peoples attention range that I can quickly catch some nice moments and short enough to manoeuvre easily. I haven't used a 135mm I think 5-6  years now though. iPhone users tend not to add to the ambience so I don't miss using anything longer than a 90mm. Now that COVID restrictions in my country have mostly been dropped, I might buy a 90-280 or a 135 if Leica comes out with one. But somehow I doubt I will. Its heavier than I want to carry these days.

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

The best current alternative to this would be the 120mm APO Macro Summarit S. While it was/is extremely expensive new, the used price is as low as 3500 dollars on ebay for a new one (it is 9500 dollars at Leica store Miami), and the price of a new or used S adapter L would likely mean that it would still be less than a cost of a new SL Summicron. The performance is extraordinarily high, being an APO lens that is razor sharp even at 2.5. It is a bulkier than a standard SL lens, but still maintains (slow) autofocus and focuses all the way down to 1 to 2. It has the lovely bokeh of the S series lenses. Overall, if you want a long Leica prime for the SL, it is worth a look. It is bulky compared to 35mm lenses, however. Another option is of course one of the M 135mm lenses. While slower and without AF, they are very easy to use and very sharp on the SL2.

I just bought the Apo Macro Summarit from eBay. Yes, quite an incredible lens especially when looking at the MTF curves. The curves left me scratching my head. Looked too good to be true. So I shot a corporate head shot with it the day it arrived instead of the usual 90mm. And some f2.5 macro shots of my keyboard. Both look excellent.

I would not use it instead of a 90-280 though. I prefer more flexibility compared with the weight of the Apo Macro. The canon 135mm f2 was a very light lens so using it is a simpler decision. I doubt if Leica would have lightweight 135mm f2.0 so I will not hold my breath for it. 

[lx1713]

If I were do more weddings today I would probably settle for SL2-S for 24-90, SL2 for 11-23TL and the Panasonic 80-200f4 (which I used so rarely because of the clutch mechanism that I dislike). The terrible thing about it is the Panasonic lens is really sharp and is a great lens. It just throws me off my rhythm whenever I change lens with it.

It was recently, SL2 24-90 + 11-23 + Panasonic 80-200f4 + Q2. I just have to use my Panasonic lens more

[JeanneB]

On 5/18/2022 at 2:55 PM, lx1713 said:

I have kept my SL (601) even though I have both the SL2 and SL2-S. Partly sentimental reasons but mostly because in studio situations its perfectly good for headshots. If you enjoy and are comfortable with the interface it should serve well for many years.

The SL2 brothers are superior in every way that is important to me but the original SL is no slouch.

I have to confess that I was one of those who grouched about the 24-90 not being a 24-70f2.8 but I ended up with a second 24-90 even though the 24-70 was available by then. Sometimes we need time to get it out of our system all the negatives that slaps us in the face initially. Its a heavy lens no doubt and the aperture range  might seem like a negative but the IBIS and low shutter speeds may get you the same results at the ISO you want. So I carry less lenses, I learn to say no to some situations, time my shots where movements are minimised for the IBIS and low shutter speed to work effectively. And use flash as well as possible.

Its possible that colors in SL (601) are the best of the line: SL2, SL2-S ... 

 

[geronimosan]

Based on your two options, I would go with the 601 and 24-90.  The 24-90 is by all accounts a superb lens, and in photography, if you are settled on an ecosystem, the lenses are the real investment - camera bodies will come and go. I would rather invest in the 24-90 than the 24-70, and I have heard too many people rave about the original 601, especially in terms of color science, to discount it. 

[Seba66]

2 hours ago, geronimosan said:

Based on your two options, I would go with the 601 and 24-90.  The 24-90 is by all accounts a superb lens, and in photography, if you are settled on an ecosystem, the lenses are the real investment - camera bodies will come and go. I would rather invest in the 24-90 than the 24-70, and I have heard too many people rave about the original 601, especially in terms of color science, to discount it. 

Thank you very much, but some time has passed 😅 At the end of the day I got SL2-S and 24-90. Very happy with this combo, but just a few days ago I traded in the zoom for the 35 APO SL

[Tjazz]

I shoot the SL2-S with the 24-90 but also with the 35 APO SL. The zoom lets me capture just about anything in my travels. And the 35 APO makes me a better photographer. As to the SL3, I’m on a waiting list but may drop out since I have the Q3 for super high resolution, and I try not to crop with my SL2-S which diminishes my need for the new sensor. 
 

[huwm]

49 minutes ago, Tjazz said:

I shoot the SL2-S with the 24-90 but also with the 35 APO SL. The zoom lets me capture just about anything in my travels. And the 35 APO makes me a better photographer. As to the SL3, I’m on a waiting list but may drop out since I have the Q3 for super high resolution, and I try not to crop with my SL2-S which diminishes my need for the new sensor. 
 

Likewise but I use 24-105