35mm or 50mm SL

[kengai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently got the SL2-S with the 24-70. I would like to get a fixed lens. 
As focal length I prefer the 35 mm, but I could also opt for the 50 mm for better optical performance. What do you recommend?

[opera207]

IMO, SL35mm APO has better optical performance😅 (I remember Peter Karbe said sl 35mm is the best?), at least it has less focus breathing.

Edited July 4, 2022 by opera207

[beewee]

All APO SL summicron primes perform very well with similar colour, rendering, and differing only in their field of view. You should pick the focal length that is most useful to you. You’d be hard pressed to find any differences between the lenses, especially at 24 MP. I don’t think we’ll be able to see optical differences between primes within this family of lenses until we get bodies in the 100-150 MP resolution territory.

[Jean-Michel]

Unless you print your images one or two meters wide, and then view then with a loupe, you would not be able to find much of a difference between any decent lens. If you happen to own M lenses, buying the M-L adapter might make better sense.

[John Smith]

38 minutes ago, Jean-Michel said:

Unless you print your images one or two meters wide, and then view then with a loupe, you would not be able to find much of a difference between any decent lens. If you happen to own M lenses, buying the M-L adapter might make better sense.

I disagree. I noticed differences between the 35mm Lux and SL primes in LFI magazine. And I notice them in page-size prints too. 

[beewee]

5 hours ago, John Smith said:

I disagree. I noticed differences between the 35mm Lux and SL primes in LFI magazine. And I notice them in page-size prints too. 

Same here. I notice the difference between my M lenses and SL lenses on my iPad.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 hours ago, opera207 said:

IMO, SL35mm APO has better optical performance😅 (I remember Peter Karbe said sl 35mm is the best?), at least it has less focus breathing.

He said it was the best because he had more space to optimize performance (as he defined it). Without standardizing barrel dimensions, the 35 would have been the smallest of the 35/50/75/90 Summicron primes. Space is a lens designer’s friend.

A point worth considering: a 35 can be cropped (especially given performance) to a field of view approximating a 50; while the converse is not possible.

Jeff

Edited July 5, 2022 by Jeff S

[SiggiGun]

No doubt! Apo35 SL! 

I am "playing" with M and SL lenses. I have thz'e 50 SL. Leica gave me the 35 for test. It's the best. M lenses are very good but SL is really different 

[Stuart Richardson]

They are both fantastic. Just buy whichever suits your vision better. Jeff’s point is a valid one too…that said, you don’t have as much cropability with the SL2S as you do with the SL2. Still, if you prefer 35mm, then that is an excellent choice. I have the 35mm and 50mm, and I have found nothing to criticize with either, and I am pretty tough on lenses!  

[trickness]

21 hours ago, John Smith said:

I disagree. I noticed differences between the 35mm Lux and SL primes in LFI magazine. And I notice them in page-size prints too. 

This 100%. I have 35 & 75 SL primes plus a bunch of M glass and use both on my SL2. The SL glass is VERY different (one might say superior) in terms of the color it delivers and the 3-D pop you get when you use it. 

In regards to the OP’s question, if you’re planning on getting an SL prime lens, buy the focal length that you prefer. They are all stunning performers.

Edited July 5, 2022 by trickness

[Jean-Michel]

4 hours ago, trickness said:

This 100%. I have 35 & 75 SL primes plus a bunch of M glass and use both on my SL2. The SL glass is VERY different (one might say superior) in terms of the color it delivers and the 3-D pop you get when you use it. 

In regards to the OP’s question, if you’re planning on getting an SL prime lens, buy the focal length that you prefer. They are all stunning performers.

Hi,

I'm the one who claimed that there is little difference between decent lenses once printed.Of course, there are differences, some more marked than others.I have used small format camera for decades for my personal work, client work required , at first, large format cameras and a bit later medium format became acceptable. My firs M was an M4 and it cam with a 50 mm 'Rigid', still have both. At first I simply used my 'Rigid', a 1962 era 35 Summicron with goggles, etc on my M9, and then M-P. I purchased new 35 and 50, Summicrons and a 90 Macro-Elmar; and yes, there are real differences between all those lenses. But nothing that negates the the viewing pleasure of print made from files made with the earlier lenses. I have yet to acquire any L lenses so I really cannot comment on those and I am sure that the optical qualities will be greater, whether or not my resulting images in print are that much better is yet unknown.

As to colour. When I first "went digital" in 2006, I went with Canon stuff and even used that for client work. Even with the early Canon files, processed in early versions of CameraRaw and PS, I could  quite easily get 'better' colour than that from film. Much earlier my summer jobs in a pro lab was to read negs on a Kodak Color Analyser and pass on the exposure and C,M,Y filtration to the printers. That equipment sure looks primitive today. Still, people were happy with the prints they got. Today it is not an overly difficult task to transform files from just abut any camera and lens combination by judiciously using the features provided by Lightroom, or CaptureOne, etc. (except, of course, for the additional information provided by cameras with a greater dynamic range). In all cases, you can achieve 'pleasing' colours; 'accurate' colours do not exist. Try to correctly document a painting – oil, acrylic, pastel, etc and make the artist truly happy with the reproduction se on screen, in a ink-jet print, or in a cmyk  publication, done that for way too long! Fortunately the human eye and brain manages to figure out what the image looks like.

[Reddy]

I have both SL 24-70mm f2.8 and APO 50mm f2, the 24-70mm is enough for general purposes.  The SL APO 50mm f2 is a step further on image quality when comparing to the 24-70mm. For the model that needs Photoshop after, I would put the 1/4 Pro Mist filter in front of both lenses, APO 50mm is basically a beast in clearness. Therefore, when I use flash I'm can just use the 24-70mm. I'm currently considering the SL APO 35mm f2 as the wider end of 24-70mm is not amazing when I want to zoom in or crop, so if you are satisfied the image quality of 24-70mm then SL APO 35mm should be your second or third lens. Don't forget the SL APO 75mm, that lens in very good too.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Reddy

[Reddy]

5 hours ago, trickness said:

This 100%. I have 35 & 75 SL primes plus a bunch of M glass and use both on my SL2. The SL glass is VERY different (one might say superior) in terms of the color it delivers and the 3-D pop you get when you use it. 

In regards to the OP’s question, if you’re planning on getting an SL prime lens, buy the focal length that you prefer. They are all stunning performers.

The SL lenses are completely redesign for digital sensors only. M lenses works on any other mount as well. This is why SL is not easy to keep its value as M mount.

[trickness]

1 hour ago, Jean-Michel said:

Hi,

I'm the one who claimed that there is little difference between decent lenses once printed.Of course, there are differences, some more marked than others.I have used small format camera for decades for my personal work, client work required , at first, large format cameras and a bit later medium format became acceptable. My firs M was an M4 and it cam with a 50 mm 'Rigid', still have both. At first I simply used my 'Rigid', a 1962 era 35 Summicron with goggles, etc on my M9, and then M-P. I purchased new 35 and 50, Summicrons and a 90 Macro-Elmar; and yes, there are real differences between all those lenses. But nothing that negates the the viewing pleasure of print made from files made with the earlier lenses. I have yet to acquire any L lenses so I really cannot comment on those and I am sure that the optical qualities will be greater, whether or not my resulting images in print are that much better is yet unknown.

As to colour. When I first "went digital" in 2006, I went with Canon stuff and even used that for client work. Even with the early Canon files, processed in early versions of CameraRaw and PS, I could  quite easily get 'better' colour than that from film. Much earlier my summer jobs in a pro lab was to read negs on a Kodak Color Analyser and pass on the exposure and C,M,Y filtration to the printers. That equipment sure looks primitive today. Still, people were happy with the prints they got. Today it is not an overly difficult task to transform files from just abut any camera and lens combination by judiciously using the features provided by Lightroom, or CaptureOne, etc. (except, of course, for the additional information provided by cameras with a greater dynamic range). In all cases, you can achieve 'pleasing' colours; 'accurate' colours do not exist. Try to correctly document a painting – oil, acrylic, pastel, etc and make the artist truly happy with the reproduction se on screen, in a ink-jet print, or in a cmyk  publication, done that for way too long! Fortunately the human eye and brain manages to figure out what the image looks like.

I respect your opinion - but I do think if you actually had the lenses in question in your personal possession, and could shoot with them extensively to compare the results with each using an SL series body, that the differences would then be quite evident to you.

Looking in Lightroom at images shot of the same subject in the same location within moments, switching back-and-forth between my adapted M glass and the native SL glass, it is easy to tell the difference even at the same focal lengths. The differences in resolution and color rendition are not subtle. Peter Karbe himself has discussed how the SL glass is next level compared to anything in the M system; and I have faith that his opinion carries more weight than really anybody else’s on this particular subject.

If it was easy to make one lens look like the other in postprocessing, boy would I be happy, because I could save a lot of money and not have to carry around different glass when I work. But as someone who uses these tools for many hours every week, I can tell you without a doubt that the SL glass is superior in resolution, 3-D pop, and yes, color rendition to the M glass I own (although the 75 Noctilux is no slouch.) and that is not only true on the display but on the prints I make as well.

Edited July 6, 2022 by trickness

[trickness]

45 minutes ago, Reddy said:

The SL lenses are completely redesign for digital sensors only. M lenses works on any other mount as well. This is why SL is not easy to keep its value as M mount.

Time will tell how SL glass keeps its value, but the M has been around for a long time. Glass for that platform has what, 70 years of history in the market? 
 

Most M glass currently sells used for at least 25% off retail, same as the SL. Long term value of the SL glass will be primarily determined based on whether or not Leica remain committed to this L mount platform.

[beewee]

3 hours ago, Reddy said:

The SL lenses are completely redesign for digital sensors only. M lenses works on any other mount as well. This is why SL is not easy to keep its value as M mount.

It’s true that M lenses ‘works’ on most other mounts but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it works well on most other mounts. Even on SL2-S, the older Leica M lenses don’t perform as well as they do on a digital M. Even worse results on Panasonic and other non-native bodies.

[Reddy]

1 hour ago, beewee said:

It’s true that M lenses ‘works’ on most other mounts but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it works well on most other mounts. Even on SL2-S, the older Leica M lenses don’t perform as well as they do on a digital M. Even worse results on Panasonic and other non-native bodies.

Yes I've found my summilux M50mm asph has bad purple fringing wide open on my L mount camera bodies under harsh lighting just like another Voigtlander VM 50mm f1. But the SL APO 50mm is simply close to perfection. 

[Photoworks]

9 hours ago, trickness said:

I respect your opinion - but I do think if you actually had the lenses in question in your personal possession, and could shoot with them extensively to compare the results with each using an SL series body, that the differences would then be quite evident to you.

Looking in Lightroom at images shot of the same subject in the same location within moments, switching back-and-forth between my adapted M glass and the native SL glass, it is easy to tell the difference even at the same focal lengths. The differences in resolution and color rendition are not subtle. Peter Karbe himself has discussed how the SL glass is next level compared to anything in the M system; and I have faith that his opinion carries more weight than really anybody else’s on this particular subject.

If it was easy to make one lens look like the other in postprocessing, boy would I be happy, because I could save a lot of money and not have to carry around different glass when I work. But as someone who uses these tools for many hours every week, I can tell you without a doubt that the SL glass is superior in resolution, 3-D pop, and yes, color rendition to the M glass I own (although the 75 Noctilux is no slouch.) and that is not only true on the display but on the prints I make as well.

we can say many M lenses are older and can compare to modern SL lenses.

I did a test of my 3 lenses the sigma and the SL lenses in 50 range.

The difference is crazy even over the sigma. fantastic fine details, micro-costrast, you can engage this images so much more, a crop in as much as you need. I aspect M lenses to be a little softer and there are application where that is wanted.

[trickness]

1 hour ago, Photoworks said:

we can say many M lenses are older and can compare to modern SL lenses.

I did a test of my 3 lenses the sigma and the SL lenses in 50 range.

The difference is crazy even over the sigma. fantastic fine details, micro-costrast, you can engage this images so much more, a crop in as much as you need. I aspect M lenses to be a little softer and there are application where that is wanted.

100% agree about the M glass - the 50 Lux ASPH M is superb for portraits, it’s mounted on my SL2 probably half the time. Love the SL versatility 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount